First the government tells us we have tolerate illegals breaking into our >country. Now they're telling us we have tolerate them breaking into our
homes and kicking us out of them and if we do anything to stop it, *we'll*
be arrested.
The wheels are coming off the bus, folks.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6TLXG1I-bUU
BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
First the government tells us we have to tolerate illegals breaking
into our country. Now they're telling us we have to tolerate them
breaking into our homes and kicking us out of them and if we do anything
to stop it, *we'll* be arrested.
The wheels are coming off the bus, folks.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6TLXG1I-bUU
I read about this one. The police told her state law prohibited her from shutting off utilities if someone claimed to be a tenant.
This law, which was never intended (supposedly) to apply property that
had NOT been abandoned, has been abused by criminals for decades but the legislature has never amended it.
I guess it's not a taking even though the state effectively reassigned
the property interest to a criminal third party making an unsupported
claim.
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
First the government tells us we have to tolerate illegals breaking
into our country. Now they're telling us we have to tolerate them >>>breaking into our homes and kicking us out of them and if we do anything >>>to stop it, *we'll* be arrested.
The wheels are coming off the bus, folks.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6TLXG1I-bUU
I read about this one. The police told her state law prohibited her from >>shutting off utilities if someone claimed to be a tenant.
She didn't shut off the utilities, she just did to them what they did to
her. She waited until they were gone and then entered the home through
an open door (not even any breaking and entering involved) and changed
the locks. That's literally what they did to her and when she complained
the cops said it was a civil matter and wouldn't do anything. But when
she did it to them, it suddenly became a criminal matter and they
arrested her.
This law, which was never intended (supposedly) to apply property that
had NOT been abandoned, has been abused by criminals for decades but the >>legislature has never amended it.
A home is easily the most expensive asset the average person will own in >their lifetime and it stuns me that there's so many ways and the law
makes it so easy to take that asset away from you. It's much harder for
a criminal to "legally" steal your car than it is for him to steal your
home.
I guess it's not a taking even though the state effectively reassigned
the property interest to a criminal third party making an unsupported >>claim.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
First the government tells us we have to tolerate illegals breaking
into our country. Now they're telling us we have to tolerate them
breaking into our homes and kicking us out of them and if we do anything >>>> to stop it, *we'll* be arrested.
The wheels are coming off the bus, folks.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6TLXG1I-bUU
I read about this one. The police told her state law prohibited her from >>> shutting off utilities if someone claimed to be a tenant.
She didn't shut off the utilities, she just did to them what they did to
her. She waited until they were gone and then entered the home through
an open door (not even any breaking and entering involved) and changed
the locks. That's literally what they did to her and when she complained
the cops said it was a civil matter and wouldn't do anything. But when
she did it to them, it suddenly became a criminal matter and they
arrested her.
So she was arrested for theft of the criminal's personal property given
that she changed the locks? It's been a few days since I read it so I
forgot details. The significant point is that the cops at no point
believed the criminal.
In other states in which I've read successful strategies to get
criminals the fuck out, it's involved leasing the property to a tenant
to give someone the actual right to occupancy who then puts the personal property of the criminal outside on the front lawn so the rightful
occupant cannot be charged with theft.
She didn't do that.
Note that I refuse to use the word "squatter" which I'll note that you
hadn't either. "Squatter" has to do with adverse occupation of land THAT
HAS BEEN ABANDONED. A criminal moving into a home that is vacant but not abandoned is not a squatter.
This law, which was never intended (supposedly) to apply property that
had NOT been abandoned, has been abused by criminals for decades but the >>> legislature has never amended it.
A home is easily the most expensive asset the average person will own in
their lifetime and it stuns me that there's so many ways and the law
makes it so easy to take that asset away from you. It's much harder for
a criminal to "legally" steal your car than it is for him to steal your
home.
I can think of a strategy that would get the legislature to IMMEDIATELY
amend state law. Choose the district home of a state legislature who is
in Albany during session who is either unmarried or whose family is
away. Mention this fact to a potential criminal anonymously.
I guess it's not a taking even though the state effectively reassigned
the property interest to a criminal third party making an unsupported
claim.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
First the government tells us we have to tolerate illegals breaking >>>>into our country. Now they're telling us we have to tolerate them >>>>breaking into our homes and kicking us out of them and if we do anything >>>>to stop it, *we'll* be arrested.
The wheels are coming off the bus, folks.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6TLXG1I-bUU
I read about this one. The police told her state law prohibited her from >>>shutting off utilities if someone claimed to be a tenant.
She didn't shut off the utilities, she just did to them what they did to >>her. She waited until they were gone and then entered the home through
an open door (not even any breaking and entering involved) and changed
the locks. That's literally what they did to her and when she complained >>the cops said it was a civil matter and wouldn't do anything. But when
she did it to them, it suddenly became a criminal matter and they
arrested her.
So she was arrested for theft of the criminal's personal property given
that she changed the locks? It's been a few days since I read it so I
forgot details. The significant point is that the cops at no point
believed the criminal.
In other states in which I've read successful strategies to get
criminals the fuck out, it's involved leasing the property to a tenant
to give someone the actual right to occupancy who then puts the personal >property of the criminal outside on the front lawn so the rightful
occupant cannot be charged with theft.
She didn't do that.
Note that I refuse to use the word "squatter" which I'll note that you
hadn't either. "Squatter" has to do with adverse occupation of land THAT
HAS BEEN ABANDONED. A criminal moving into a home that is vacant but not >abandoned is not a squatter.
This law, which was never intended (supposedly) to apply property that >>>had NOT been abandoned, has been abused by criminals for decades but the >>>legislature has never amended it.
A home is easily the most expensive asset the average person will own in >>their lifetime and it stuns me that there's so many ways and the law
makes it so easy to take that asset away from you. It's much harder for
a criminal to "legally" steal your car than it is for him to steal your >>home.
I can think of a strategy that would get the legislature to IMMEDIATELY
amend state law. Choose the district home of a state legislature who is
in Albany during session who is either unmarried or whose family is
away. Mention this fact to a potential criminal anonymously.
I guess it's not a taking even though the state effectively reassigned >>>the property interest to a criminal third party making an unsupported >>>claim.
Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:28:02 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
First the government tells us we have to tolerate illegals breaking >>>>>into our country. Now they're telling us we have to tolerate them >>>>>breaking into our homes and kicking us out of them and if we do anything >>>>>to stop it, *we'll* be arrested.
The wheels are coming off the bus, folks.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6TLXG1I-bUU
I read about this one. The police told her state law prohibited her from >>>>shutting off utilities if someone claimed to be a tenant.
She didn't shut off the utilities, she just did to them what they did to >>>her. She waited until they were gone and then entered the home through
an open door (not even any breaking and entering involved) and changed >>>the locks. That's literally what they did to her and when she complained >>>the cops said it was a civil matter and wouldn't do anything. But when >>>she did it to them, it suddenly became a criminal matter and they >>>arrested her.
So she was arrested for theft of the criminal's personal property given >>that she changed the locks? It's been a few days since I read it so I >>forgot details. The significant point is that the cops at no point
believed the criminal.
I think part of the problem is another part of NY law that gives
someone who manages to stay in a property for more than 30 days some
sort of legal protection. (Can't remember the specifics)
Which seems
crazy to me as it gives criminals rights that make the situation
unclear between the legal owner and the criminals when it seems clear
the owner should be able to kick them out immediately.
Though in any case she (as the owner) should be able to serve notice
and evict them in 30 days no matter what.
In other states in which I've read successful strategies to get
criminals the fuck out, it's involved leasing the property to a tenant
to give someone the actual right to occupancy who then puts the personal >>property of the criminal outside on the front lawn so the rightful
occupant cannot be charged with theft.
So she couldn't just move in herself and toss their goods on the lawn?
She didn't do that.
Note that I refuse to use the word "squatter" which I'll note that you >>hadn't either. "Squatter" has to do with adverse occupation of land THAT >>HAS BEEN ABANDONED. A criminal moving into a home that is vacant but not >>abandoned is not a squatter.
This law, which was never intended (supposedly) to apply property that >>>>had NOT been abandoned, has been abused by criminals for decades but the >>>>legislature has never amended it.
A home is easily the most expensive asset the average person will own in >>>their lifetime and it stuns me that there's so many ways and the law >>>makes it so easy to take that asset away from you. It's much harder for
a criminal to "legally" steal your car than it is for him to steal your >>>home.
I can think of a strategy that would get the legislature to IMMEDIATELY >>amend state law. Choose the district home of a state legislature who is
in Albany during session who is either unmarried or whose family is
away. Mention this fact to a potential criminal anonymously.
Given that NY has a number of homeless it shouldn't be too hard to
find some willing people to take up the cause.
. . .
In article <utsh5r$18oqv$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
First the government tells us we have to tolerate illegals breaking
into our country. Now they're telling us we have to tolerate them
breaking into our homes and kicking us out of them and if we do anything >>> to stop it, *we'll* be arrested.
The wheels are coming off the bus, folks.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6TLXG1I-bUU
I read about this one. The police told her state law prohibited her from
shutting off utilities if someone claimed to be a tenant.
She didn't shut off the utilities, she just did to them what they did to
her. She waited until they were gone and then entered the home through
an open door (not even any breaking and entering involved) and changed
the locks. That's literally what they did to her and when she complained
the cops said it was a civil matter and wouldn't do anything. But when
she did it to them, it suddenly became a criminal matter and they
arrested her.
This law, which was never intended (supposedly) to apply property that
had NOT been abandoned, has been abused by criminals for decades but the
legislature has never amended it.
A home is easily the most expensive asset the average person will own in their lifetime and it stuns me that there's so many ways and the law
makes it so easy to take that asset away from you. It's much harder for
a criminal to "legally" steal your car than it is for him to steal your
home.
I guess it's not a taking even though the state effectively reassigned
the property interest to a criminal third party making an unsupported
claim.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 66:05:27 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,244 |
| Messages: | 5,356,309 |