Cook County Sheriff Suspends Evictions from Forclosure

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 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 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]

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]

This man should be applauded. Besides, he's actually doing the banks a favor, for now. At least people are living in the houses instead of abandoning them, which will definitely help keep the value of the home up (as much as that can be right now). The last thing you want is a bunch of houses sitting empty without anyone taking care of them and the neighborhood. Besides, I've heard many cases of people trashing their houses on the way out during an eviction in anger.

Since we just spent $800 billion, why couldn't we just buy up the mortgages?!? I heard that it would've cost something like $80 billion? I could be wrong, but that sounds more like a solution than giving these banks a blank check only to later evict the people that truly needed the help.

I wonder if they actually had a family member that they were called to evict? Which then started them wondering what they could do to hold this off? ahhh haaa, I know let's refuse to evict anyone and use it as a great PR stunt.

I worked in a law firm here in California that represents lenders in evictions and other legal actions. One of my duties was to work directly with Sheriff deputies of counties in California and Nevada. On more than one occasion, I actually helped the person(s), usually renters, from being evicted. Or, it would be better to say, sometimes, in specific cases (single mothers, etc), I delayed the inevitable.

I'm glad one of the agencies involved is doing what IT can to help these people, who were either maliciously or non-maliciously hurt by their landlords.

Another example of whats wrong with america.

There is no sense of responsibilty. Get a morgatge you cant afford,
and there is no consequences?

Ive sent my email to Sheriff Dart, and as a Paralegal, I am going to research this decision further to see if it is still good law....if so.....we need to trumpet this from the rooftops.

Originally posted by drock905
Another example of whats wrong with america.

There is no sense of responsibilty. Get a morgatge you cant afford,
and there is no consequences?

No, I submit to you, that what's TRULY wrong with America is that we simply CANT read.

That is my hypothesis, that we are simply illiterate...it can be the only possibility.

AB1

Well the Bail Out was passed....so I would say the people own more than before legally and LEGALLY.

Take it, it's ours to have.

Our people paid for this land in blood and money over and over. Why do we always pretend that someone else always owns it?

Take it

Take it back.

The rich take loans and the poor always pay their way.

Take it back for you.

Take it back for your children.

Take it back for your forefathers.

Just take it.

Just like big banks are buying small banks....we just bought the big banks.

We are the big phucking fish.

It's ours.

This government is ours.

The land is ours.

This whole world is ours.

Take it back.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by born²]

Originally posted by irishgrl
Ive sent my email to Sheriff Dart, and as a Paralegal, I am going to research this decision further to see if it is still good law....if so.....we need to trumpet this from the rooftops.

I wonder if Senator Obama had anything to do with this? He lives in
Cook County and still influences government here even though he's
running for President. -cwm

Actually, the "writ of restitution" (The legal term for the relinquishment of the property back to the owner) is an order GIVEN BY A JUDGE.

You can all applaud this Sheriff, but the fact is, his refusal to carry our A JUDGES ORDER will result in his being arrested himself and placed in jail.


Like I said you can applaud his statement, but your applauding his subversiveness of the LAW.

Your are WRONG for supporting his actions which are nothing more than a political stunt and if your blind enough to miss that, there's and equal chance you are one of the mortgagees in default.

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.

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?

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]

This is just another law enforcement official, seeing reality and the truth.
There is many of them.
But it will take big things to prove to them that the people doing this are the actual criminals.
And the people they are throwing out into the street are the victims.
The world was never meant to be this selfish greedy and evil but of course what comes around goes around to those greedy psychopathic evil pigs.

reply to post by irishgrl


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

AB1