Cook County Sheriff Suspends Evictions from Forclosure, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 80 times


reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 06:51 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by alphabetaone



Point made. I feel properly STUPID at the moment. I misread. I don't blame you for being upset.


reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 07:05 PM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by The Axeman



I agree and support, but please understand a clear pattern: In the last decade especially, all violence outside of government is strongly discouraged, preventing the INDIVIDUAL courage needed for revolution. We are taught to accept only government as a physical force, and the lesson is cleverly disguised under noble causes. Think about it: Slap your teen after he says "F U" to you for coming home late and drunk and the government comes in and arrests the parent. In fact, the government says if the teen is out of control, you must call them on him/her and have them locked up. Give all power to the State in the name of "Protection." Have one fight after school today and the cops arrest you. [Channel all acceptable violence into sport or the military and the police.] Sounds ideal, doesn't it? "We won't tolerate violence in our society!" How noble. But the price is the revolutionary spirit that made this country is gone from the American psyche. We are beaten into submission by government and into the goal of becoming invisible, unnoticed. The result is the rest of us call cops on families when we never would have before, a new way of life overseen by the State--for a noble cause. Think about the old films on Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia where neighbors informed on neighbors. That's now us. (This is not off-topic or digression. Let's see what the government does to Sheriff Dart for defying it.)


reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 07:08 PM by alphabetaone
reply to post by Blaine91555



Actually blaine I didnt MEAN that toward you, just the thread in general, I just hit reply on your post lol.

But hell no, don't feel STUPID, under the conditions you were referring to you would be right.

AB1

[edit on 8-10-2008 by alphabetaone]



reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 07:09 PM by Maxmars
Originally posted by alphabetaone
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?




There is definitely a disconnect. I heard you the first time.

Essentially the tenants were being victimized by the landlord's delinquency. The Sheriff is still acting according to the code for which I dare say he was elected. Is that unfair to the bank? Yes. Because we 'believe' in their 'credit religion'? NO, because we are not given a choice.

---------------------

But how fair is it that the bank get the house? What did they actually 'exchange' in consideration for that property?

Some faith-based 'insurance of credit' - no tangible thing.

It's not like they are out any money - these are all spreadsheet bookkeeping entries. In fact, simply making the loan earned them a whopping 90% more credit reserves; they get to create 90% more revenue over and beyond the value of the mortgage -instantly, out of thin air - as is commonly said. If they wanted, the bank itself could pay off the mortgage and still have 40% profit off the deal AND the house...

Isn't there something tacitly unbalanced about this? How can one challenge this without dissent?

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Maxmars]


reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 07:37 PM by Anonymous ATS




reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 08:37 PM by Anonymous ATS
While I think this had nobility potential, I don't support it on a wide scale.

I am in Default Counseling with USBHM and if we forgave everyone that was at risk of forclosure, we'd have a whole lot of nothing but lazy people, people who spend their money stupidly and don't budget, people living off the government while the rest of us bust tail to make our ends meet and other just basically "unmotivated" people, I'll say, living in completely free housing...while you and I work hard to make an honest living.

Now trust me, I hear every story about "my payment got behind because...." and I've been at this for years and yeah, they all sound sad at first, but you can always tell who is for real and who is just BSing you because they overspent at the bar or splurged on designer handbags the week before their mortgage came due.

Forgiving foreclosure is not good. That's why banks offer short sales and deeds in lieu of forclosure. That way everyone is relatively pleased.

I heard mention of forgiving payments to the end of the loan earlier...I'll also say something on that. Here and USBHM, we'll strive to do anything BUT a modification on a loan (rolling past due payments into the principle and recalculating the loan) because you will be eaten alive in interest by the time the loan is all said and done.

We do offer options to defaulted mortgagers, but it seems few of them know about them, understand them, and even seem scared to call and ask about them. We try to help. I mean yeah, it may be all about money for the corporate people, but when I'm sitting in my cubie, making and taking phone calls...I go out of my way to make sure these people don't go into forclosure.


reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 08:40 PM by irishgrl
as I feared, there has been subsequent caselaw that appears to overrule the decision in Daly...

first they discount Justice Mahoney's jurisdiction:
Martin V. Mahoney was a justice of the peace in Scott County, Minnesota in the 1960s. The 1967/1968 Minnesota Legislative Manual states:

"Justices of the peace are elected for two-year terms in townships and in cities and villages which do not have municipal courts. Justices of the peace have jurisdiction over actions arising within a county when the amount involved does not exceed $100 for civil cases, and when the punishment or fine does not exceed $100 or three months' imprisonment in criminal cases."

Because the decisions of these justice of the peace courts are not precedential (that is, other courts do not have to follow them), they are not published.

**********************
Then the corrupt courts do their best to overrule:

Related litigation did produce published decisions from the Minnesota Supreme Court. In Re Jerome Daly, 284 Minn.567, 171 N.W.2d 818 (1969), is excerpted below:

On July 11, 1969, Mr. Justice C. Donald Peterson, acting for the Minnesota Supreme Court, directed Martin V. Mahoney, justice of the peace of Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota, and Jerome Daly, counsel for plaintiff in an action brought by one Leo Zurn against one Roger D. Derrick and the Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis, to show cause why they should not be permanently restrained from further proceedings in the justice court. In addition, Justice Peterson ordered a stay of all further proceedings before the justice of the peace pending final determination of the questions raised by Northwestern National Bank's petition for writ of prohibition.

Although the stay order of Justice Peterson was served on the justice of the peace and Mr. Daly on July 11, 1969, they intentionally and deliberately disregarded it in this way: On July 14, 1969, the justice of the peace, upon motion of Mr. Daly, entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order for judgment in favor of Zurn. In response to our order of August 12, 1969, directing the justice of the peace and Mr. Daly to show cause why they should not be held in constructive contempt of the Supreme Court of Minnesota for this conduct, Mr. Daly appeared personally in his own behalf before this court on August 21. He advised the court that he had been authorized to represent the justice of the peace in the proceedings. After noting that he was making a special appearance, Mr. Daly, an attorney at law admitted to practice in this state, acknowledged that both he and the justice of the peace intentionally violated the order of Justice Peterson because in their opinion neither this court nor Justice Peterson had jurisdiction to issue it.

Although the death of the justice of the peace on August 22, 1969, has rendered the proceedings as against him moot, it is our judgment that the conduct of Jerome Daly was contumacious. It is the order of this court that he be temporarily suspended from the practice of law in the courts of this state effective October 1, 1969.

*******************
The file for this case has been scanned and the documents are available at
www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us...


*******************

Perhaps a challenge could be made to this "new" caselaw?


reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 09:07 PM by irishgrl
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
While I think this had nobility potential, I don't support it on a wide scale.

I am in Default Counseling with USBHM and if we forgave everyone that was at risk of forclosure, we'd have a whole lot of nothing but lazy people, people who spend their money stupidly and don't budget, people living off the government while the rest of us bust tail to make our ends meet and other just basically "unmotivated" people, I'll say, living in completely free housing...while you and I work hard to make an honest living.

Now trust me, I hear every story about "my payment got behind because...." and I've been at this for years and yeah, they all sound sad at first, but you can always tell who is for real and who is just BSing you because they overspent at the bar or splurged on designer handbags the week before their mortgage came due.

Forgiving foreclosure is not good. That's why banks offer short sales and deeds in lieu of forclosure. That way everyone is relatively pleased.

I heard mention of forgiving payments to the end of the loan earlier...I'll also say something on that. Here and USBHM, we'll strive to do anything BUT a modification on a loan (rolling past due payments into the principle and recalculating the loan) because you will be eaten alive in interest by the time the loan is all said and done.

We do offer options to defaulted mortgagers, but it seems few of them know about them, understand them, and even seem scared to call and ask about them. We try to help. I mean yeah, it may be all about money for the corporate people, but when I'm sitting in my cubie, making and taking phone calls...I go out of my way to make sure these people don't go into forclosure.


what a load of rubbish. Forgiving foreclosure is, and always has been an option. People find themselves in financially difficult times for a myriad of reasons, which I submit to you, in spite of your self proclaimed powers of ESP, you have NO way of knowing.

Im not saying people arent foolish, of course they are. As are you. But your holier-than-thou attitude reminds me of that viscous substance inside a diaper.

by the way: because of where I work, I get to see these poor folks after you and your ilk have done your dirty deeds.

[edit on 10/8/08 by irishgrl]


reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 09:10 PM by alphabetaone
reply to post by irishgrl



You tell him honey, and I don't mind a one liner to say THAT much!

AB1
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 4 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 5 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 16 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 4 days ago with 49 member flags