Cook County Sheriff Suspends Evictions from Forclosure

page: 3
80
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
This is huge. This represents the first time we have an elected official standing up against the procedures which have no safety net built in to preserve homeownership for families who are facing this economic crisis along with the big boys.


Not true . . . please read the court case to which I linked above.




posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 



I read both links, but do not understand. Can you please explain them and how it relates to this situation?



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


I'm interested....could you reinsert that link. Looking forward to the information, thanks



edit: oops, I thought you meant you had put it above in that post. I found the link in the thread and will follow it. Thanks again.

second edit: while I am still reading, do you have any examples of this decision being interpreted and enforced in a way that releases homeowners from this debt without credit repercussions? I question whether the spin applied to its meaning is carried out anywhere that can be used as an example. While it may exist on the books, if it isn't enforced because of technicalities, it isn't law which could be cited right now to help people in their present situations could it? It is an interesting read...I will continue through it.


[edit on 8-10-2008 by DancedWithWolves]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Don't want to hijack the thread, which is applauding the Cook County Sheriffs and their refusal to uphold unjust laws, so I'll direct you to these two links . . . it would take a bit of explanation.

Modern Money Mechanics

Watch the first portion of Zeitgeist: Addendum for a very easy to understand explanation of why all loan contracts are essentially void.
Zeitgeist: Addendum



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I wish I could star and flag this sheriff.

As far as I'm concerned, it's just another way that "we the people" can stick it to these fat cats for trashing our economy.

Sure the companies are "paying the price" as their stocks tumble, but the corporate big wigs are still cashing checks with lots of zeros on them.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by 38181
 


Elaborate, because people like this, and most officers I know would refuse to enforce any type of martial law.

Op: This is the kind of post I like seeing



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


While I appreciate your concern, I don't think it would be hijacking the thread. It doesn't say applause in the title. The question pertains to - was this a singular act by one elected official or are there other examples of homeowners being rescued by this court case or another means similiar to the Sheriff. Mods - smack me if I'm wrong.

While understanding your whole point would obviously be worth considering elsewhere, I wonder if for the purposes of this thread, you were aware specifically of other instances like this that are serving as a stop in the downward spiral of crisis foreclosures. Is there another public official pausing or stopping foreclosures that you are aware of as you suggested earlier? I appreciate the information.

Peace.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
In starting this thread, I am not applauding him. I think it is great that someone stands up, and that I applaud, but will it fix the situation ? No.

I think if banks did what I mentioned earlier , about forgiving months then adding to the end of the loan, could really help the situation.

It lets people catch up on the bills, and I bet we would see a drop in foreclosures , and start to see some repair. Not a golden ticket, but one that would help.

I know banks are in for profit, but look how much they are loosing now as a result of their practices. They are folding. Sometimes helping other people is helping yourself.

Ama



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DancedWithWolves
 


Originally, I was just responding that this wasn't the first case an elected official has done this . . . that is why I cited the court case. However, that was in 1969, to my knowledge no one has stood up to the practice of foreclosure since then. So in a sense, you are right (in the context of the current situation). That's why this should be applauded and I hope more sherriffs take up the good action, as it's already been proven in court that the banks can't legally execute a foreclosure on a mortgage agreement.



[edit on 10/8/08 by solomons path]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I applaud Tom --finally someone working for the people and not against for once. Tom is truly a patriot for the human race! It's really refreshing to see something like this in a world of greed and back-stabbing.

I wonder how long it will be now until he's relieved of duty and someone taking over who will carry out the wishes of the banks and what not.

Keep an eye on this and if he gets let go, or fired, I say EVERYONE email and call and voice your displeasure. A random act of kindness means alot more with support of and by the people.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Living in a house and not paying for it is stealing. The cops are ignoring stealing? If that is the case I will go there and rob a bank. Anarchy is here.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
So it's nice that people can stay in their homes without paying the mortgage, but who is going to pay for it? In the end it will contribute to more layoffs because the banks that held the mortgage couldn't get the monies owed to them. Next you will want to walk into the stores and get free food, clothes, etc. This is not right, and regardless of whether he thinks it wrong or not, the law is the law. They are there to keep things running smoothly in the economy. Those too ignorant to see that are part of the problem.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Sweet! I'm going to move there so I can have free housing. Why would anyone there make a single mortgage payment from now on?



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I have to confess I didn't read the whole thread, but this sherriff refusing to evict homeowners won't last long. The banks can go to court and get the law enforced, and then if the sherriff continues to refuse to evict people he'd be held in contempt and would probably lose his job. Even if he didn't lose his job the banks would simply ask that the law be enforced by another law enforcement organization, such as the state police.

There's not much else that could be done. Courts are about enforcing and interpreting the law, not supporting people who break it because they (the court) might happen to agree that a law is wrong. They are not legislators. So unless this sherriff can come up with a legal justification for what he's doing, this is not likely to last more than a week or two.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


The two last posts are convoluting the issue and why it's probably best that most people don't truly understand the system, imo.

EDIT - the two above the last one is what I meant . . .



No one has ever said they can't hold you liable for the debt. I'm not advocating non-payment of debt. That debt will stay with you and effect your ablity towards further financial gains or even employment. The bank can take you to court, legally, or even sell that debt to a third party . . . resulting in further debt from intrest and penalties.

But, the practice of foreclosure is given "legality" by the mortgage contract and I've already posted links to why this contract is void, thus making foreclosure a non-issue. The banks don't own your possesions that you bought with the debt, as they didn't own the money that they lent you and it didn't even exist until you signed the contract. The banks "own" the "right" to your debt . . . that is all.


[edit on 10/8/08 by solomons path]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by amatrine
 


If the man who enforces the "legal document" says screw it, and refuses to enforce it, then for the time being, its just a piece of paper.

Without a legal law enforcer backing the legal document, it doesn't much matter, does it? Until he is replaced, or starts to honor these documents again, the banks can't do much. They can't take the law into their own hands, that is for sure.

I can see the sheriff losing his job over this, but until that time, he just told the banks to shove it.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I see where you are coming from, but it depends on how you look at it, you can say 'it's the law', but it has been shown time and again that the law is there to protect the companies/government from the people (pertaining to admiralty law, not common or equity, although, IMO, equity law was a 'step towards' the admiralty, weening if you will).

If you go in and rob your local grocers, then, how is that 'sticking it to the man'? We are suggesting that we show the banks that we can't be bullied by them, we have been put in this situation by them, not us, we've been good little people, we spend and pay taxes, have done for centuries, they on the other hand, have spent, spent, borrowed, spent, borrowed and spent some more and how much of this was for the people? IMO, some, but no where near the amount they where taking off us.

IMO, this is all leading to the centralization of the gloal banking system to 'regulate and oversee the operations for the good of the people' (Well that depends, on who the government are working for, us or the banks? IMO, we have been shown clearly it ain't us.), this in turn will introduce the need for a one world government, to implement this oversight, as we won't be able to choose just one, or a handful.

Edit to add: These past few years, as times have been getting harder for the average citizen, the DoD's (not sure about other countries atm) is spending something like 6 times hitler did before WW2, on their arms build up, IMO, that is where all your tax is going.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TH3ON3
They are there to keep things running smoothly in the economy.


Workin' out great, isn't it?



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by grimreaper797
 


Or perhaps, he in his OWN wisdom, decided that the eviction was unlawful in itself. A sheriff has the absolute right to do that, and block an eviction if they deem that the document being used to attempt to enforce such an eviction is outside the guidelines of the law.

Perhaps it was.


AB1



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


Unfortunately for him, he is not a judge. He has no authority to deem something legal or illegal. It is not up to his interpretation of the law. Thats called checks and balances.





top topics
 
80
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join