Cook County Sheriff Suspends Evictions from Forclosure

This is the beginning of the end for the Illuminati controllers, humanity is starting to become a part of the world again.

We'll see more of this as time goes on.

Nice job Sheriff.

Who is to blame? Well, the tenants are of course. 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. 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.

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.

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. This is not the fault of an institution that loans them money. There is plenty of blame to go around. I'm just saying, those who lose their homes should shoulder their share of the blame as well. I don't sit well with the entire "all banks are evil and all people are innocent" mantra. Those banks were not very evil to those people when they wanted the loans, where they. In fact, I bet those people would have done or said about anything to get a home.

The Axeman & Demetre - No problem at all; happy to do it.

While I agree that people should be held responsible for their mortgages and should always read the fine print, big money lenders and banks are also to blame for this mess - banks pulled out all the stops to entice people into buying what they knew prospective homeowners would eventually find difficult to pay and big money lenders couldn't wait to get their hands on those loans - but did anybody care? No, they didn't.

Letting homes sit vacant after people are thrown out isn't the answer, either. There's got to be a better way and so I agree with letting homeowners forgo paying for a few months and then tacking those missed payments onto the end of the loan. What could it hurt? They will still have to pay - it's not like they're gettng to stay in their houses for free.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Artista]

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Artista]

Click here for more information.

Here's the thing, and it will crush the American Spirit, If the bamnks cannot collect their properties, they go further into debt and the 800 billion "bailout" for the financial industry is just a drip in the long-term bucket of an assured failure. Now you have a county govenrment official acting as a renegade anarchist against the people of the united states who are paying OVER HALF A TRILLION dollars to bail out these banks.

Let me explain it a different way: We give the troubled banks 800 billion dollars to help fix the mortgage crisis with the assumption they will pay the government back. Another government agency now refuses to ENFORCE THE LAW so the bank cannot resell the properties it has had to foreclose on. This keeps the bank from SELLING THE PROPERTY and thus prevents the bank from making good on its new debts to the US government...

So then the BANKS FAIL and the GOVERNMENT FAILS, the only winners are SQUATTERs.

Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
reply to post by solomons path

 

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]

This case does NOT remove your responsiblity to the debt. Only ruled that a bank can't seize something that is real based off of loaning you imaginary money. They can hold the promisary note that you signed and thus created the money (out of thin air), but can not foreclose. It doesn't erase your debt from your credit record or remove the need to pay it back. Most people, including lawyers, don't know of this decision as it's not used. If more people fought the seizing of their homes with this defense, it would be more widely known. However, you still would have record of that debt on your credit report and are responsible for it.

i understand that some people get into troubles with their finances that are beyond control ( illness, layoff etc) but there are a lot of people who are deadbeats as well. i know someone who is in the business as what i would call a last chance way for someone in that position to keep their house (completely legal by the way) and he tells me a lot of horror stories.

for instance one homeowner which is currently in the process of foreclosure decided he could afford a new pool after getting this second chance over a year ago(which he hasnt paid the mortgage for most of). now remember that this is someone who would have had there house foreclosed on earlier if it werent for my friends company.
or the other people who decided it was good enough to live for free for a whole year so they trashed the house when my friend started the forclosure process. not to mention the others who try to sue because" they didnt understand the agreement" which he always gets off of because no judge in his right mind would excuse that.

reply to post by amatrine


Legality only stretches as far as morality allows.. if morality supersedes legality, legality, through the wills of the people are altered threw perception, if not threw paper.

If the Sheriff says the banks can no longer kick people out of their houses.. by God they can't kick people out of their houses. Now if the Bank wants to send men to try and force the sheriff to kick people out of their houses, then by God legality is altered once again threw morality and Sheriff has a responsibility to defend those people..

The only question is that when we, the people, decide to protect our neighbors .. reach beyond our own isolated .25 acre lots we don't own and protect ourselves.. Again, legality is only perception threw morality, and has nothing to do with a man sitting in a plush office 3k miles away.

Sheriff, imo, deserves to be honored as a hero.

[edit on 10/8/2008 by Blaine91555]

reply to post by Blaine91555


Laws are bound by the ability to enforce...

If a judge says "you can't do that, go kick those people out of their homes!" .. and the Sheriff says "screw you" .. the Judge means nothing.. because nothing can back his demand..

Power is only power with cooperation.

reply to post by solomons path


You should consider posting that decision reference on the Sheriff's website, as well as, emailing it to the Attorney for the Sheriff's Department. They are going to need all the back-up they can get.

I for one am not convinced that the foreclosures are even the primary reason for the bailout crisis that we seem to be in. It appears as if a lot of intermediaries in the bond sales process, financial insurers, debt packagers, etc., etc., made a lot more money out of these deals than they should have. The government likes to try and prove that things are the little person's fault thus putting its citizens into opposition with one another. It works for the most part. Make them focus on cigarettes so they attack one another and ignore big polluters, etc.

It takes a lot of little people loans to equal the excesses and waste and fraud of one company like AIG who has cost the economy much more all the way up and down the system.

This mentality of throw the bumb out does not really apply to the huge numbers of people that have become unemployed while the have's end up having more. Price inflations are further squeezing that last drop from these tight budgets. The system is fraudulent and the only people half of the population are programmed to blame is the lower income homeowner who is trying to pay his bills still even though they too are running behind - instead of the real crooks who are the fatties wanting the bailout and debts erased from their books with no fouls called.

Go Sheriff Go! When we stop protecting those who cannot protect themselves with fancy Wall Street lobbyists, then we have lost our humanity.



[edit on 8-10-2008 by DancedWithWolves]

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by amatrine


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

He can't do that. He is just campaigning to hold his office. The first Judge who looks at this will stop him and in the mean time he gets great publicity for his campaign. Anyone who thinks differently is fooling themselves.

I would imagine that the Sheriff consulted with the Judges that mattered first before taking action. Dart didn't become Sheriff without knowing Judges and a whole lot of other decision makers. Anyone who thinks differently is fooling themselves.

The system is already broken and everyone is beginning to realize this fact. The game as it has been played will be taken off life support in the next 5 days.

reply to post by 38181


i wanted to post that same question.
i hope the answer is that our sheffifs in the land being elected will stand on the side of the people. now on the other hand corporate police(hired by municpalities) will have to quit or do as the corporation they work for say!
horay for cook couty sherrif!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the beginning of the end for the Illuminati controllers, humanity is starting to become a part of the world again.

We'll see more of this as time goes on.

Nice job Sheriff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its encouraging that more and more people are waking up to the Illuminati everyday. Yet most posts reflect a common misunderstanding in the actual art of "Illumination" and through that misunderstanding we give the "Illuminati" the power to control us, by controlling ourselves.

By not kicking people out of there homes the Sheriff is making illiquid assets all that more illiquid. That was the "moral hazard" of the Bailout.. More and more people will not be paying there mortgages. Why should they? The banks are getting saved, why shouldn't the people be saved.

The "American Dream" became the "American Promise" and most people in the country think our quality of life is a right of being born in the USA. Its most definitely not a "right" or even close to "right". Its so un-balanced that it has to crash.. So by not kicking people out of there homes we are prolonging the crash and making it that much more severe. Peter Schiff likens it to holding a beachball underwater. The more and more pressure required to keep that beachball underwater, the faster it will pop up out of the surface when you let go.

Its all about "PROBLEM", "REACTION" and "SOLUTION".

The "problem", which is people being tossed out of there homes is awful. It threatens our security so we feel vulnerable (Reaction). Through that reaction will come action on our part with a solution on there part.

A reaction that would give the Illuminati less control is any action that puts less energy into the overall equation. So leaving our homes, getting off the grid and learning to live in worse conditions than were used to is the answer.
Think of Neo in the 2nd Matrix when hes fighting the millions of Agent Smith's in the courtyard. When he realizes that all of his actions only exacerbate the situation he flies away and leaves. Exactly what we need to do.

Its a tough thing to do in our materialistic shallow culture, so therefore we will stay and fight the millions of Smith's all the while arguing that its our right to have 3 plasma tv's and 2 cars.

So in short, I don't think the powers that be are upset. A chess player could see our actions years before these events occurred. All they care about is that we keep playing the game.

Peace.

"Time is irrelevant all that matters is life." - Fifth Element

reply to post by TheRealDonPedros


You know something Don Pedro, you make a very fine point there.

Starred for that one, laying logic behind the tourniquette is in order.


AB1

[edit on 10/8/2008 by Blaine91555]

Originally posted by Maxmars
The goal of the bank is not complex - MAXIMIZE PROFIT.

They don't want to finagle around with the 'occupants' because it costs money to do so.

They would rather the property lay fallow and unused and the structure on it fell to the ground. Isn't that interesting?

That is correct. They have insurance through the form of credit default swaps. If the loan defaults they get paid the full amount which is more than what the home is worth. Then they foreclose and make another 60-70%.

What needs to happen is a national one stroke of the pen type thing that has the goverment assume ownership of all mortgagaes. It would also cap the amount owed to the appraised value of the home less 10%. As long as the current occupants make that new payment they get to stay in their home. Can't pay that and out the door you go. Most people would be able to make the lower payment.

A 6% loan over 30 years at $100,000, requires total payments of $215,000 in order to pay off in full. Thus if loan values had to be cut by 50% the original loan value would still be recouped. So the goverment could pay 100% for the loans, cut the principal in half and still get most if not all their money back.

In exchange for this generosity from the goverment, you would have to agree to disgorge some amount of future profits when you sell the home, which would go to the goverment. You could also make anyone who buys the house assume what's left of the goverment mortgage so that it gets paid in full and the goverment recoups all their money. You could also make the mortgage assumable on a mandatory basis meaning that any new owners would have to finish paying off any term still left on it, ensuring the goverment gets all their interest and recoups the full amount they paid the bank for the loan.

This would only apply to principal residences and not 2nd, 3rd, etc. homes. Those investors do need to pay for those mistakes through bankruptcy if they can't pay up, but they would still qualify for their principal residence. It would provide help to the homeowner and not the investor who was a major factor in this unraveling.

Everyone wins under this plan except those who are not upside in their homes. Something similar could be done to help them as well. In any event the increased economic activity would help them as well as all Americans. This is a win win scenario.

[edit on 10/8/2008 by Blaine91555]

reply to post by Blaine91555


This is not ABOUT the mortgage holders. I cant understand why I have to say this so many times before someone decides to read.

It's about their TENANTS that this sheriff took exception to. Those tenants who didn't have a CLUE.

And the guy up there somewhere that said something to the effect of "well they should have known what they were getting into" What?! The tenants? They did... they knew they were getting into a situation that a landlord had property, and that they were renting from that landlord, then all of a sudden end up homeless at a moments notice because NO WARNING was given to tenants that the LANDLORD was in default.

Is this difficult or what?

reply to post by TheRealDonPedros


Excellent post That is the type of discussion I would have expected.