So, a sherriff not evicting renters from an apartment...

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Money is also property, and yet you supported taking 700 billion dollars away from taxpayers, in an unconstitutional manner, as well.

what's unconstitutional about congress exercising it's commerce power?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: bamacre

Money is also property, and yet you supported taking 700 billion dollars away from taxpayers, in an unconstitutional manner, as well.

what's unconstitutional about congress exercising it's commerce power?

Well I assume when there is text in the bill that says the act "may not be reviewed by any court of law," there's probably something unconstitutional in it. 😉

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Torn. Obviously, evicting innocent people isn't a helpful situation. Then again, neither is a LEO refusing to do his duty.

On the surface, it doesn't seem a whole lot different that those pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions due to "moral objections."

The difference is the pharmacy is a private entity while the sheriff is a public official trusted with carrying out the laws of the land.

And that is what he is attempting to do. The law states that the "owner" of the property must notify the tenant they they are evicting them.

The bank merely telling the owner and not the actual occupant of the dwelling are breaking the law and the sheriff is merely attempting to force them (at their own expense instead of at more of the taxpayer's expense) to do their part. Get someone out there to verify the occupant, notify them and then proceed.

Why is that so hard to understand? I know that the Bush admin is talking about taking ownership of banks, but they haven't yet so why are you guys trying to force the taxpayers to cover more expenses of private companies?

 

[PokerGuy]

The sherriff does not get to pick and choose what laws are to be enforced and which ones are not. He should be immediately fired and charged with neglecting to do his job.

The way I see it, he should be following the letter of the law. If the eviction process has been followed properly (the people have been identified etc etc), then he should do his job or be fired.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The sherriff does not get to pick and choose what laws are to be enforced and which ones are not. He should be immediately fired and charged with neglecting to do his job.

The way I see it, he should be following the letter of the law. If the eviction process has been followed properly (the people have been identified etc etc), then he should do his job or be fired.

Agreed. If they don't like the laws, then change it.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The sherriff does not get to pick and choose what laws are to be enforced and which ones are not. He should be immediately fired and charged with neglecting to do his job.

The way I see it, he should be following the letter of the law. If the eviction process has been followed properly (the people have been identified etc etc), then he should do his job or be fired.

Agreed. If they don't like the laws, then change it.

Then we all agree that he is in the right? Because the article clearly states that the banks that are initiating the foreclosure proceedings are not following the law so the procedure should not be carried out.

 

[ElFenix]

iirc, foreclosure laws are to be very strictly complied with. if the banks aren't doing that the sheriff has every right not to foreclose. otoh, if the banks do strictly follow the laws, and the sheriff refuses, then there is a problem. there is no indication in the article that the sheriff is doing that.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
iirc, foreclosure laws are to be very strictly complied with. if the banks aren't doing that the sheriff has every right not to foreclose. otoh, if the banks do strictly follow the laws, and the sheriff refuses, then there is a problem. there is no indication in the article that the sheriff is doing that.

Agreed. And from the article:

He said many of the evictions involve renters who are paying their rent on time but are being thrown out because the landlord has fallen behind on mortgage payments.

Mortgage companies are supposed to identify a building's occupants before asking for an eviction, but sheriff's deputies routinely find that the mortgage companies have not done so, he said.

"These mortgage companies only see pieces of paper, not people, and don't care who's in the building," Dart said. "They simply want their money and don't care who gets hurt along the way.

"On top of it all, they want taxpayers to fund their investigative work for them. We're not going to do their jobs for them anymore. We're just not going to evict innocent tenants. It stops today." Video Watch sheriff announce he won't evict innocent tenants »

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Torn. Obviously, evicting innocent people isn't a helpful situation. Then again, neither is a LEO refusing to do his duty.

On the surface, it doesn't seem a whole lot different that those pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions due to "moral objections."

The difference is the pharmacy is a private entity while the sheriff is a public official trusted with carrying out the laws of the land.

And that is what he is attempting to do. The law states that the "owner" of the property must notify the tenant they they are evicting them.

The bank merely telling the owner and not the actual occupant of the dwelling are breaking the law and the sheriff is merely attempting to force them (at their own expense instead of at more of the taxpayer's expense) to do their part. Get someone out there to verify the occupant, notify them and then proceed.

Why is that so hard to understand? I know that the Bush admin is talking about taking ownership of banks, but they haven't yet so why are you guys trying to force the taxpayers to cover more expenses of private companies?

Who is "you guys"?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Torn. Obviously, evicting innocent people isn't a helpful situation. Then again, neither is a LEO refusing to do his duty.

On the surface, it doesn't seem a whole lot different that those pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions due to "moral objections."

The difference is the pharmacy is a private entity while the sheriff is a public official trusted with carrying out the laws of the land.

And that is what he is attempting to do. The law states that the "owner" of the property must notify the tenant they they are evicting them.

The bank merely telling the owner and not the actual occupant of the dwelling are breaking the law and the sheriff is merely attempting to force them (at their own expense instead of at more of the taxpayer's expense) to do their part. Get someone out there to verify the occupant, notify them and then proceed.

Why is that so hard to understand? I know that the Bush admin is talking about taking ownership of banks, but they haven't yet so why are you guys trying to force the taxpayers to cover more expenses of private companies?

Who is "you guys"?

Those in the thread claiming that the Sheriff is avoiding his sworn duties when he is actually doing the exact opposite.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Dart is correct and the Illinois Banking commission can go to hell as far as I am concerned.

Damn straight.

 

[OptimisTech]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From the linked article-

Mortgage companies are supposed to identify a building's occupants before asking for an eviction, but sheriff's deputies routinely find that the mortgage companies have not done so, he said.

This is the crux of the Sheriff's dilemma. It's not precisely legal under Illinois law to evict tenants who aren't named in the required paperwork, and it's the owners' responsibility to provide that information, not his department's.

Property rights and responsibilities are intertwined- if you don't live up to the responsibilities, then you probably won't be able to exercise your rights...

Mortgage companies cut corners when they lent money to the former owners, and now they're cutting corners again in their attempts to have the sheriff's dept do their work for them...

Dunno why these guys are so anxious to own empty buildings, anyway- nobody's buying them. The cashflow and liabilities are extremely negative, as well...

This is the part that I just don't get. What POSSIBLE profit could it be for the banks to continue with this practice?

It seems to me a simple court order that all rental income be payed directly to the lean holder until the end of the lease or some specified period deemed fair to find new living arrangements. At least they would be earning something.

I actually do think that the banks have a right to recoup their losses. In my opinion though, they crossed the line when they lobbied to defeat the bill that would have required them to provide tenant information. It just seems like they refuse to make even the slightest attempt to adjust to the new reality. Property rights or not, they might as well have painted a huge target on their heads.

 

[OptimisTech]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The sherriff does not get to pick and choose what laws are to be enforced and which ones are not. He should be immediately fired and charged with neglecting to do his job.

The way I see it, he should be following the letter of the law. If the eviction process has been followed properly (the people have been identified etc etc), then he should do his job or be fired.

Agreed. If they don't like the laws, then change it.

It must be nice to live in a world where everything is so simple and obvious. I imagine it's like perpetual kindergarten.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Dart is correct and the Illinois Banking commission can go to hell as far as I am concerned. Now if they want to evict rent paying tenants, the damn bankers will have to hire their own thugs because a taxpayer
supported institution realizes it wrong. Meanwhile the very bankers who scream bail me out are willing to foreclose on widows and orphans.

So, you're saying the idea of property should be ignored? If the entity that owns the property wants to use the property for its own purposes, then it should be allowed to do so. Saying it cannot is usurping property rights.

I was almost in the same position, so I understand how it can be. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that the sherrif is undermining a part of this country that is essential for the maintenance of the country itself. If you look at the differential between forms of government and economy that hasn't stood the test of time, and those that have, one of the most important ideals is the ideal of property rights.

Declaring the government as a force that can ignore property rights is a very dangerous step and one that shouldn't be taken. It's bad enough we let eminent domain go.

So renters don't have property rights?

If I'm paying rent under a contract I think I do (if I were a renter).

I think this goes to state law. I'm pretty sure here in NC if a renter has a contract they can't be forced out by a new owner. IDK if that applies to forclosures, but think it should to some extent unless it's some type of (below market) scam lease agreement.

Edit: I'm mostly with the Sheriff on this. Sounds like he has a postion - the banks are forcing through unlawful evictions by mis-stating the status of the occupant. That seems wrong to me, and I can understand why he doesn't want to participate. There is a reason why Sheriffs are elected, suppose that has any influence on his postion too?

Fern

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The sherriff does not get to pick and choose what laws are to be enforced and which ones are not. He should be immediately fired and charged with neglecting to do his job.

The way I see it, he should be following the letter of the law. If the eviction process has been followed properly (the people have been identified etc etc), then he should do his job or be fired.

And, the sheriff's point is that the process has NOT been followed properly. Essentially, they show up, the tenants are all confused "wtf is going on?" - No one ever informed them that the property was being foreclosed on & they're being thrown out on the street with absolutely no advanced notice. Legally, they're entitled to 120 days.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The sheriff does not get to pick and choose what laws are to be enforced and which ones are not. He should be immediately fired and charged with neglecting to do his job.

The way I see it, he should be following the letter of the law. If the eviction process has been followed properly (the people have been identified etc etc), then he should do his job or be fired.

And, the sheriff's point is that the process has NOT been followed properly. Essentially, they show up, the tenants are all confused "wtf is going on?" - No one ever informed them that the property was being foreclosed on & they're being thrown out on the street with absolutely no advanced notice. Legally, they're entitled to 120 days.

That's exactly what I said. IF the process is followed correctly, then the sherriff should do his job and follow the process. However, from the article and others I've read, it implies that the sherriff has decided to not serve the eviction notices --- even when he doesn't know if the process has been followed correctly or not. There is a court process for evictions. It's up to the court to force the banks to follow the correct procedures to allow evictions. Once the court allows an eviction, the sheriff is in no position to question the judgement of the court, his job is to carry out court orders (including evictions). He doesn't get to become the arbiter of what is "fair" or not. If I was a judge in one of those eviction cases, I'd hold the sheriff in contempt and toss him in prison for a while.