#county court eviction

[lawofficeofryansshipp]

Eviction for Rent Arrears in Florida | 561.699.0399

Eviction for Rent Arrears in Florida The eviction journey, while a path no landlord wishes to take, becomes necessary when rent remains unpaid. Chapter 83 of the Florida Statutes lays down a procedural roadmap for this, designed to balance the rights of both landlords and tenants. This cursory guide dives into the nuances of initiating an eviction, emphasizing adherence to legal…

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Daniel Marans at HuffPost:

Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) lost her Democratic primary on Tuesday, shrinking the ranks of the House’s left-wing “Squad” and delivering another major victory to the pro-Israel and business-friendly groups that backed her challenger. Wesley Bell, the St. Louis County prosecutor, defeated Bush. Since Missouri’s 1st Congressional District, which includes all of St. Louis and many of its northern and western suburbs, is overwhelmingly Democratic, Bell is all but assured of a seat in Congress come November.

Bell’s victory over Bush marks the second “Squad” member in recent months to fall to a challenger heavily funded by pro-Israel groups. Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), who, like Bush, ousted an incumbent in 2020, lost his race to Westchester County Executive George Latimer this past June. Justice Democrats, the left-wing group that backed Bush’s first successful run, cast the race as yet another referendum on the power of big money to decide elections. “This race is about the future of our democracy and the soul of our Democratic Party, frankly,” Usamah Andrabi, a spokesperson for Justice Democrats, told HuffPost on Monday. “This is a question about whether we want to let a handful of Republican mega-donors dictate the outcome of Democratic primaries, or do we want to move forward to elect more nurses and everyday people to represent the community’s best interests.”

Bush, an ordained pastor and registered nurse, indeed faced a massive fundraising deficit. As Andrabi noted, Bell had the support of some local Republican donors — and many national megadonors from both parties, through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Super PACs supporting Bell outspent those supporting Bush by a more than 3-to-1 margin. Spending by pro-Bell groups included about $8.6 million from AIPAC’s United Democracy Project, $1.5 million from LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman’s Mainstream Democrats PAC, $1.4 million from the crypto-industry-backed FairShake PAC, and nearly $500,000 from the Democratic Majority for Israel PAC. Bush made national waves with her July 2021 sit-in on the U.S. Capitol steps to draw attention to the expiration of the federal government’s COVID-19-era eviction moratorium. Her action got results; President Joe Biden responded by extending the policy, though the Supreme Court stopped it a few weeks later. Later that year, in a bid to shore up support for abortion rights, Bush spoke on national television — and in a House hearing — about her experience getting an abortion after being raped at age 17.

Bush’s allies — and she retains the support of many local elected officials — see her as an authentic tribune of the Black Lives Matter movement, which was born in Ferguson, Missouri, following the police killing of Michael Brown in 2014. Unlike many other Democrats in Washington, Bush continues to embrace calls to “defund the police.” Bell, who also got his political start during the Ferguson protests and unseated a more conservative incumbent prosecutor in 2018, has, by contrast, disappointed many of his former fellow activists. They fault him for declining to prosecute Darren Wilson, the police officer who killed Brown, and for not more rapidly reducing the county’s jail and prison populations, even as he points to the creation of a conviction review unit and the expansion of drug diversion programs.

[...] Finally, Bush has been among the most outspoken critics of Israel in Congress, particularly after Israel invaded Gaza in response to Hamas’ terror attack on Oct. 7. She was not only an early advocate for a ceasefire, but has also accused Israel of genocide ― a charge that remains highly disputed. And in an interview with The New York Times out on Monday, Bush expressed ambivalence about describing Hamas as a terrorist group, though her campaign later walked it back. “Would they qualify to me as a terrorist organization? Yes,” Bush told the Times. “But do I know that? Absolutely not.” Bush’s stances cost her the support of Susan Talve, a progressive St. Louis rabbi who leads the only synagogue in Bush’s district. But they also unsettled some other allies who see her national profile as a distraction from the needs of the high-poverty, majority Black district.

In the battle of activists rising from the Ferguson protests in #MO01, incumbent Rep. Cori Bush (D) goes down in defeat to AIPAC-backed St. Louis County Prosecutor Wesley Bell (D) in the Democratic Primary. Bell is favored to win this November.

[spade-riddles]

Joshua Kushner - A Slumlord

For those of you who asked for some proof, here is a some:

"Westminster Management LLC and JK2"

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

The article is from 2022:

... agreed to pay a $3.25 million civil penalty and restitution to settle a 2019 lawsuit in Maryland over allegations of charging tenants illegal fees and failing to maintain properties, Attorney General Brian Frosh announced Friday.

Frosh announced that his office's Consumer Protection Division has reached a settlement with Westminster Management LLC, a New Jersey-based corporation, and the 25 companies that own or owned 17 residential communities managed by Westminster Management in Maryland.

"Tenants in Westminster properties suffered with mold, leaks, floods and infestations of rodents, roaches and bedbugs," Frosh, a Democrat, said in a statement. "Management hid these conditions only to reveal them to their tenants after they were locked into long-term leases. Westminster knew the condition of its properties, and it charged tenants illegal fees to live in those miserable conditions. Westminster's conduct was unconscionable."

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

This one from 2020:

Jared Kushner’s Property Management Company Is Trying to Evict Hundreds of Tenants in the Middle of a Pandemic 

Westminster Management, which netted Kushner $1.65 million last year, “has submitted hundreds of eviction filings in court against tenants with past due rent during the pandemic.”

For instance, properties owned by the Kushners in Baltimore had more than 200 code violations in 2017 alone; repairs were apparently “made only after the county threatened fines,” and that same year, the New York Times and ProPublica found that tenants of the Kushner properties had reported maggots, mold problems, and a mouse infestation. And in Maryland, an apartment company partially owned by Kushner is trying to evict hundreds of tenants in the midst of a pandemic, the response to which he has presided over and epically fucked up (along with, of course, Donald Trump). 

[schraubd]

Being Perpetually at the Mercy of the Arbitrary Negligence of the State is a Punishment

At the moment, we're seeing two somewhat orthogonal trends developing in conservative legal jurisprudence, both lawless, but in distinctive ways.

The first is an increasing indifference to textualism -- being perfectly happy to manipulate or flatly ignore statutory or constitutional language in order to achieve desired results. Yesterday's Clean Water Act ruling, where the Court held 5-4 that "adjacent" doesn't mean "adjacent" because, well, they don't want it to, is a prominent example. The "major questions" doctrine is another, including the invalidation of OSHA's COVID vaccine-or-test mandate despite the fact that it fell cleanly into the clear statutory language, is another. The Court's recent voting rights jurisprudence, featuring Shelby County's entirely-invented "equal sovereignty of the states" rule, is another. The Court's recent Second Amendment jurisprudence, which has functionally decided the first half of the Second Amendment's text may as well not exist, is a yet another.

The second, by contrast, is a sort of hyper-literal textualism that zooms in so tightly on individual words that it ends up blitzing past how people actually read texts. The opinion striking down mask mandates on planes is one example here; some of the opinions striking down the eviction moratorium fit as well. Though styled as "textualism", this sort of analysis really is a dangerous confluence of putative textualists being bad at reading texts.

Slotting into the latter category is a concurring opinion by 11th Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom in Wade v. McDade, arguing that the Eighth Amendment does not forbid any level of "negligent" treatment of prisoners by prison staff --  not negligent, not gross negligence, not even criminal recklessness.  Judge Newsom's argument is deceptively simple: the Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishments. But a punishment, he says, can by definition only be imposed intentionally. There's no such thing as a non-intentional punishment. And negligence, in all of its species, is something less than intentional. Hence:

The undeniable linguistic fact that the term “punishment” entails an intentionality element would seem to preclude any legal standard that imposes Eighth Amendment liability for unintentional conduct, no matter how negligent—whether it be only “mere[ly]” so or even “gross[ly]” so.... So on a plain reading, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause applies only to penalties that are imposed intentionally and purposefully.

At one level, I appreciate Judge Newsom for saying the quiet part out loud here, because normally I'd spend time pointing out that Judge Newsom's position would warrant even the most grotesque acts of wanton disregard for the lives and wellbeing of prisoners. But Judge Newsom is quite happy to endorse (further) converting our prison system into a miniature gulag archipelago, so I guess I can skip that part and move to the textual question: is Judge Newsom's interpretation an "undeniable" inference from the term "punishment"?

And the answer, I think, is clearly "no".

At the outset of his opinion, Judge Newsom analogizes the negligent treatment of prisoners to that of parents and children: "Just as a parent can’t accidently punish his or her child, a prison official can’t accidentally—or even recklessly—'punish[]' an inmate." But in law, "accidental" and "intentional" are not an exhaustive binary. The whole purpose of the negligence and recklessness categories is to account for cases that lie between the pure accident and the specifically envisioned and desired consequence. And that makes sense, because while law contains different levels of "intent", legal fact patterns nearly always blend several of them together. 

Take a case where a speeding driver strikes a pedestrian with his car. Did the driver act "intentionally"? On one level, he was likely intentionally speeding (his foot wasn't literally glued to the gas pedal). On another level, he likely did not intend to hit the pedestrian (he did not seek to mow him down). Negligence captures the interstitial position where the driver intentionally acted in a fashion which foreseeably placed the pedestrian in danger (even if converting the danger into reality was not the driver's motivation). In this, negligence is very different from the pure accident not because it lacks intention, but precisely because of its intentionality.

Swap back to punishment. Imagine a more pre-modern society where we outsource punishment to private actors. I catch you stealing tools from my garage. As a consequence, I strip you of your clothes, take all the possessions you have on you (to make sure you have nothing you could attack me with), and drop you off in the middle of the woods without food or water which I can't be bothered to acquire for you, safely away from my house. You tell me "my pills are in my bag; if I don't take them each evening I might die!" I say "I don't care if you live or die. Oh, and watch out for the forest-dwellers -- they aren't always friendly." You do, in fact, have a seizure overnight and die. Are the actions I took "punishing" you?

Plainly, it seems the answer is yes. And this is so even if I genuinely was apathetic to whether you lived or died. Like the driver striking the pedestrian, my conduct is a mix of the purely intentional (I took your possessions, I dropped you off in the woods) and negligent/reckless (I do not care whether you have a stroke, I do not care if the forest-dwellers attack you). Being intentionally placed in a position where one's custodians do not care whether you live or die is obviously a punishment. Indeed, the fact that it's a "punishment" is the only thing that distinguishes it from pure sadism, abuse, or kidnapping. The fact that the seizure was not specifically intended doesn't change the fact that what happened to you in no way could be described as an "accident". It was the result of intentional actions, and the reason I acted in the way that I did -- with reckless disregard for your life or safety -- was very much tied to my desire to punish you.

In most prison litigation cases, there is similar "intent". The failure to, e.g., give a prisoner necessary medication isn't a wholly-accidental whoopsie-doodle (and if it is, then there isn't even negligence). It is an intentional choice. Indeed, a large part of what prison is, and what makes it such a terrifying prospect, is that it is a place the state sends you where the people who have control of your life do not and perhaps need not care if you live or die. Everything about that is intentional. Or put another way, the pervasive, heartless lack of intention is the intention -- being placed in such a situation is entirely the product of intentional choices at every step of the process.

There's a lot to dislike about the "deliberate indifference" standard which has taken over prison abuse litigation, but one thing it gets right is that indifference is absolutely a choice, not an accident. To fail to treat a person in your custody with requisite care is a choice, and it doesn't stop being a choice just because its foreseeable consequences were not expressly desired.

So what makes Judge Newsom go astray here? He seems to think we should chop up "punishment" into each potential negative experience one might have in prison. Being locked up, and being restricted from the yard, and being deprived of medication, and being placed in solitary, and being put into a cellblock with white supremacists liable to stab you -- each of these are separate (potential) "punishments" whose status as a "punishment" must be assessed atomistically. But this approach defies common sense. When someone is sentenced to prison for a crime, we don't think of it as a loose cluster of twenty or so discrete "punishments". It's one punishment. The punishment is being a prisoner and being subjected to the prison experience. Everything that happens in prison is part of the overall context of being punished. There is no need to parcel out individual moments and ask "but is this particular action a separate punishment", any more than we need to ask whether swinging bats in the on-deck circle or jogging out into the outfield is part of "playing a baseball game." It's all part of the game, and the hyper-zoomed-in focus on each discrete moment misses the forest for the trees.

In other words, while it may be true that something must be a "punishment" to fall under the auspices of the Eighth Amendment, all prisoners by definition are being punished. They pass that threshold categorically; none of them have been placed in jail by accident. At that point, the relevant question is whether the set of challenged actions or behaviors or what have you suffices to make that punishment into a "cruel and unusual" one. And certainly, being put in an Arkham City terrordome should qualify even (especially!) if the overseers assiduously do not care if you live or die. Perpetual, ongoing, systematic negligence (to say nothing of recklessness) towards persons who are helpless and in your care is one of the cruelest acts imaginable. Where that is part of the punishment, the punishment is cruel and unusual.

Judge Newsom concludes his opinion with the following:

Maybe it makes sense to hold prison officials liable for negligently or recklessly denying inmates appropriate medical care. Maybe not. But any such liability, should we choose to recognize it, must find a home somewhere other than the Eighth Amendment. We—by which I mean the courts generally—have been ignoring that provision’s text long enough. Whether we like it or not, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause applies, as its moniker suggests, only to “punishments.” And whether we like it or not, “punishment[]” occurs only when a government official acts intentionally and with a specific purpose to discipline or deter.

This "whether we like or not" language is reminiscent of my Sadomasochistic Judging article. Judge Newsom seems to recognize the cruelty inherent in his position. But he leverages that cruelty into an argument for textual fidelity; the avoidance of cruelty is the hint that his colleagues have been led astray from the strictures of law. As I've demonstrated above, this isn't true; the text does not demand the cruelty Judge Newsom ascribes to it. But the pleasure of the pain of causing pain is too tempting to pass up. It's not good textualism that's motivating Judge Newsom. It's the ecstasy of bad textualism leading to bad results, whose badness is paradoxically metabolized as the purest and most faithful instantiation of textual loyalty.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/JxhXtDy

[peridottea91]

Okay, now it's time to help out when writing SPN fics involving a certain Sheriff Jody Mills. I had actually been meaning to post this one for months but never actually got around to it until today. So, here's a bunch of stuff that you can use when writing fics for or involving Jody, particularly the folks who don't know how sheriff's offices work.

**NOTE - my hometown has a sheriff's office, so I'll be referring to that quite a bit; when I was growing up, my county sheriff was related to my stepdad (no clue who it is now, nor do I care tbh)**

There is a sheriff's office in Sioux Falls for Minnehaha County. So, this is what Jody Mills would actually be sheriff of. Also, she would have jurisdiction over the county Sioux Falls is located but could take action anywhere in the state of SD. This also adds a silly little bit of credence to the sheriffs retreat in s10 e8 "Hibbing 911".

It could have been called the Sioux Falls Sheriff's Office since that's where it's located. We do the same thing in SoMD with the St. Mary's County Sheriff's Office, often calling it the Leonardtown Sheriff's Office (because it's located in Leonardtown).

Typically, the Sheriff is an elected position, elected every 4yrs (in 43 states; 7 states have different election/appointment terms). Ideally, they would have served as a police officer or deputy prior to becoming sheriff but it's not a requirement and, depending on where, probably wasn't the case. The shit in s5 e15 when the dead rose in Sioux Falls probably locked Jody in for re-election for the entirety of her career lol

The sheriff's office serves legal paperwork (i.e. - evictions, subpoenas) and run the courts and the jails. If there isn't a police dept, they do investigative work, but this is more common in smaller counties. That said, they do still arrest people, regardless of whether there is a local police dept. Sioux Falls does in fact have a police dept so, Jody would have been very familiar with both Digger's and Bobby's stints in the county jail and easily could have arrested them herself over the years. Also, since she literally caught them in the act, Jody had jurisdiction to arrest Sam and Dean for impersonating police and attempted murder (albeit of a "tax payer" zombie, iykyk). In my home county, there are no police depts aside from the base police, so the sheriff's office and state troopers do everything (but mostly the county sheriff).

[darkmaga-returns]

On December 10, ICAN’s attorneys achieved what many considered impossible in the state of New York: a victory for religious freedom. New York is notoriously one of the toughest states in the nation when it comes to vaccine mandates and exemptions—due in part to the 2019 removal of the religious exemption option for K-12 school students. Fortunately, however, justice prevailed on Tuesday in a remarkable ruling against Hofstra University for attempting to expel a student after she refused the MMR vaccine.

The plaintiff, an incoming freshman at Hofstra University, requested a religious exemption this past summer to Hofstra’s MMR vaccine requirement. Unsurprisingly, her religious exemption request was denied in late August. However, instead of denying her admission, Hofstra (a privately funded university), accepted her tuition money, allowed her to move across the country into its campus dormitories, attend class, and play on one of the university’s sports teams for weeks before issuing her another denial letter in mid-September. The new letter notified the freshman that she would be expelled and evicted from her dormitory, leaving her essentially homeless and thousands of miles away from her family in California.

Partnering with attorney James Mermigis, and supported by ICAN, ICAN attorneys challenged Hofstra’s denial in New York state court—and won. In a scathing decision by Judge Felice Muraca of Nassau County Court, the Court stated that Hofstra’s decision to expel the student under these circumstances was “clearly a penalty so excessive that it shocks one’s sense of fairness.” He also pointed out the absurdity and arbitrariness of Hofstra’s exemption process, stating that Hofstra “failed to demonstrate that it complied with its own policies and procedures,” since at least one of Hofstra’s supposed standards “is not written down anywhere” and the reviewing committee “does not have any guidelines or protocols as to how to conduct its final determination.”

ICAN is thrilled to report that Hofstra’s denial of this student’s religious exemption request has now been vacated effective immediately, marking a major victory in our war against unconstitutional vaccine mandates. ICAN is only able to support students like this one, and expand the body of precedent to help others, due to your support. To continue to support ICAN’s ongoing work in defending bodily autonomy rights and religious freedom, click here.

[dollsonmain]

For people that missed it (@giraffeseatingcake), because it's on my mind again, the Tina Dollyhair thing to the best of my ability to remember which we all know is not great and of course I didn't keep links to everything. I could probably find them again but you know, I don't want to. Google it yourself.

I don't know why I started looking into it again. Maybe someone mentioned Tina's supposed death somewhere, or maybe someone mentioned Ida taking over and it got me curious. I don't remember.

Anyway, we never found a public death notice or obit for Tina and that makes sense since obits aren't posted unless a family member pays for one to be printed. I didn't know that before.

What I did find was mention of Heidi with a different last name. IIRC it was through public records, I started noticing clusters of names that were showing up together often across different public record aggregation websites. Tina Amuntula/Kristina Amuntulla/Kristina Miller, Heidi Amuntulla/Heidi with a different name, and Steve Amuntula/Amuntullah who also has a different first name but I've forgotten it. He goes by Steve publicly in the US.

There was also some sort of hint that Heidi was in television or the movies in some capacity which made me wonder if there was an IMDB profile for her. There was! Then I looked her up on wiki and found that Heidi OTHERNAME was also named Heidi Amuntullah.

Also checking the ownership history of DollyHair showed that Steve's other name was registered as owner for some time.

Going around and around in circles with public residential and business records put the whole family together.

That was the first time I'd had anything even close to proof that Tina's Sister Heidi actually existed.

How this led to finding out that Tina apparently really did die is that searching about Heidi and Steve Amuntullah brought up a series of documents about a court case brought against the two of them by Melanie Chan.

I did keep a link to one of the documents but not everything else tying this document to Tina Dollyhair because of course.

Anyway, it's here:

In that document it says:

The FAC alleges that Plaintiff’s landlord, Kristina Miller, passed away in August 2020. (FAC ;41.) Defendants being decedent landlord’s father and sister are inferred to be heirs or successors-in-interest to decedent landlord.

Melanie Chan was suing the Amuntullas for wrongful eviction after Tina died, saying they didn't give her enough warning to be able to find another place to live before changing the locks on her. Heidi and Steve took ownership of Tina's house and wanted to sell it. It's recorded either in this document or some of the others that Tina was letting Melanie live in her upstairs for rent without any sort of official lease.

That's basically it.

Tina really died in 2020 (not any of those other times she said she died before), Heidi does exist and both Heidi (Tina's sister) and Steve (their father) took ownership of Tina's house, kicked out her unofficial renter, got sued for it, won the lawsuit, and sold the property.

As for Ida claiming to not know the family or not knowing any of the drama behind the DollyHair shop, she's mentioned in that document, too.

Plaintiff’s reliance upon the allegations regarding “Ida,” an employee of Heidi, is uncertain to allege a trespass in that it is only alleged that Ida entered the “house” and not specifically her “upstairs guest apartment.”

It could be a different Ida.

She could have somehow not known, I guess. It's possible she worked for Heidi without knowing anything about Tina or DollyHair and Heidi was like "Hey, you want this business because I don't...."

So, it's possible.

Either way, I do hope DollyHair as a company can build a new, better reputation with good customer service and not shorting people on their hair orders, now. They do have some hair colors that aren't available elsewhere and DollyHair has the widest selection of fibers as far as I know.

[scotianostra]

On 15th March 1814 the large scale Sutherland Clearances began.

There are still those out there who push the narrative that the Clearances were natural occurrence, that thousands of families willingly gave up the crofts en masse, leaving crofting settlements that their families had worked and lived in for generations. Ask yourself this, is it likely that the numbers naturally dwindled from a third  of Scotland’s population who lived north of the Highland Line; would just fall to the numbers it is today of just five percent? This was a systematic attempt to rid the country of troublesome Highlanders after the Jacobite Uprisings that continued for decades.

In 1811 there were 250,000 sheep there; by the 1840s there were almost a million. Within that period sheep replaced people driven from their homes by direct eviction or through hunger and destitution. After the sheep and over-grazing came deer and the creation of hunting grounds for the elite.  By 1884 a tenth of Scotland’s land was given over to deer forests, greater than the size of Wales, and taking up the great majority of the land in the crofting counties (crofts were the small plots of land available to the remaining population)

The eviction of whole communities from Sutherland was done a scale not seen before, or again, during the Highland Clearances.

Families were moved off land to make way for large-scale sheep farming.

Starting in the late 18th Century and running into the 19th Century, the Highland Clearances saw townships occupied by generations of families cleared to make way for large-scale sheep farming and the rearing of deer.

Landowners were seeking to "improve" their estates in line with the industrial revolution.

In some cases people who had lived on the land for generations left voluntarily, while others were forcibly evicted and their homes burned and demolished.

Highlanders did try and fight the movement that saw their ancestral lands given over to sheep farming, 26 years previously and sheep were targeted in 1792 - which became known asBiadna nan Caorach (The Year of the Sheep) - following clearances in Sutherland and Easter Ross.

Four hundred men from families that had been evicted, or were facing eviction, drove thousands of the animals from the hills.

By early August, they had rounded up 6,000 sheep and had reached Beauly, near Inverness, where they were intercepted by soldiers.

Some of the men were tried in court and one man received an order banishing him from Scotland for life.

In the final decades of the 18th century some 200,000 were cleared to make way for sheep.  

It wasn't only English landlords that were against the Highlanders, Scots in the Lowlands, perhaps spoon-fed on propaganda about the Uprisings were as much part of the rhetoric that something had to be done about this quarrelsome people.

A young journalist sent by the “Scotsman” to the Highlands exhibited the this while, writing in 1847 he said, that the Highlanders were “an inferior race to the Lowland Saxon.”  Robert Knox, the Edinburgh surgeon who bought the bodies from the West Port murderers Burke and Hare believed in the superiority of the “Anglo-Saxon race” and wrote that the Highlanders “must be forced from the soil.”  

Then there were the landlords factors, the most hated of whom was another Lowlander called Patrick Sellar , he regarded the Highlanders as racial degenerates. In his racist view they were, “the aborigines of Britain shut out from any general stream of knowledge… ” 

Sellar was charged with murder for burning down an old woman’s house, a hand-picked jury of landowners found him not-guilty, but he had brought bad publicity to the Sutherland Estate and lost his job.  

James Loch was an Edinburgh lawyer who for 40 years, from 1812, was commissioner for the Marquis of Stafford. He would write an apology for his employers but his racism towards their tenants was never far from the surface, with him complaining:  

“… [their] habits and ideas, quite incompatible with the customs of regular society, and civilised life, adding greatly to those defects which characterise persons living in a loose and unformed state of society.”  His concern was to provide wool for the “staple manufactory of England” and to convert the people to “the habits of regular and continued industry.

In 1846 matters became desperate as the potato blight brought the likelihood of famine to the Highlands. In response Charles Trevelyan, Under Secretary at the Treasury, wrote: “The people cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed to starve.” Two years later he did the opposite in Ireland, letting hundreds of thousands die. Arguing the famine there was “a mechanism for reducing surplus population.

Yet, as starvation became apparent the British government did intervene to feed the population: just two deaths from starvation are recorded, both on the hard hit population of the Isle of Barra (whose people were largely cleared in 1853 and sent to Quebec). This contrasts with Ireland, where the Great Famine killed thousands. While Ireland was nominally part of the UK it was in reality a colony and seen as separate. The Highlands were regarded by the British government as part of the UK, and starvation could not be permitted there (although emigration was encouraged)

The clearances speak volumes about how capitalism came into being, dripping with blood and at the expense of common people.

There were about 7 million sheep in Scotland nowadays, thats over one for each and every one of us,and estimated to be worth £165m to the economy, according to Scottish Government figures.

Brian McNeil wrote, in his song No Gods and precious few Heroes;

So farewell to the heather and the glen They cleared us off once and they'd do it all again For they still prefer sheep to thinking men Ah, but men who think like sheep are even better There's nothing much to choose between the old vain and the new They still don't give a damn for the likes of me and you Just mind you pay your rent to the factor when it's due And mind your bloody manners when you pay.....

[calveesmain]

Hey y'all's in the state of Kansas DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, RENT FROM EUCALYPTUS REALTY or ANY Property owned by LEW MCGINNIS

First, my experience with them;

I had a 6 month lease filed with an apartment building that ended in October 2021, I signed the paper confirming I would be out in october, I moved out in october 2021. I had an eviction filed against me November 4th, 2021. I just found out they succeeded in filing an eviction against me. I was not contacted regarding this at all, even though they had my active phone number on file and had called me after I moved regarding paperwork on an old roommate who'd moved earlier in the year. They filed an eviction on me, for an apartment I was not living in, after my lease had ended, and made zero attempt at contacting me. I did not find out until attempting to rent a house with a friend. Noone has answered the phone for me, or for the new renting agency, and my application is going to be denied. All because of an eviction filed against me. For an apartment I did not live in anymore. After my lease had ended. What should I do now? I would try to pay anything they're trying to charge if I could get them on the phone. It's not like I can fight it in court, they already won. Everything I'm reading just says "ask the owner nicely to get it removed" and I don't think that's possible now given what I've found since looking into them.

Because HERE'S what I found after a little digging;

The owner is a real estate person based out of Oklahoma, and owns multiple properties in Topeka, Emporia, and Wichita (I found the number 35 in Topeka, but I couldn't verify that or tell you how many in the other two cities) . I'm finding all these news artical now about how he's filed the most evictions out of any realitor in my county, how his properties have major upkeep issues (my apartment had a hole through the glass back door that was never fixed, and I have video I can dig up of a leak in my ceiling from the apartment above me pouring water into my bathroom multiple times a day. Not leaking, or dropping, POURING, and it only got fixed cause I was lucky enough to run into the handyman and speak with him myself, and I'm even luckier he was there to run into) how he's had mold outbreaks in both Topeka and Emporia due to maintenance neglect, literal tax evasion on those Emporia properties , bribing tenants for good reviews in Wichita (he later refused to pay), rent hikes (the whole reason I didn't renew my lease is because of a 100$ rent hikes + new fees), bedbug and roach issues among other things.

This feels completely unfixable. I'm going to have to grovle at this man's feet to fix the fact that HE EVICTED ME FROM AN EMPTY APARTMENT AFTER MY LEASE HAD ENDED and even then it's not gaurinteeed.

Y'all's should boost this cause I don't want anyone else in ks to get stuck dealing with this shit

Don't rent from Eucalyptus Realty or Lew McGinnus

[beardedmrbean]

Embattled Dolton Mayor Tiffany Henyard faces a new crisis: she is reportedly being evicted from her home.

FOX 32 has obtained copies of an eviction notice filed in Cook County Court against Henyard and her boyfriend, Kamal Woods.

Henyard has rented a home in the 14600 block of South Harvard for the past three years, but the property owner said she and Woods are behind on rent and owe more than $3,300.

The notice also stated that Henyard has refused to allow an inspection of the property.

We reached out to Henyard's attorney, who responded via text, asserting that the story is false and that no rent payments have been missed.

More updates on this story will be provided as they become available.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

March 27, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAR 28, 2024

The news that NBC News reconsidered its invitation to former Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel to become a paid contributor has buried the recent news about some of the other participants in Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. 

Yesterday a judge in Minnesota ruled in favor of a warehouse owner who sought to evict MyPillow after it failed to pay more than $200,000 in rent. MyPillow chief executive officer Mike Lindell has complained that his company has been “decimated” by his support for Trump. His insistence—without evidence—that the 2020 presidential election was stolen has entangled him in expensive defamation lawsuits filed by voting machine companies Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic. 

Lindell cannot pay his lawyers and claims to have “lost hundreds of millions of dollars,” but insists he is being persecuted “because you want me to shut up about [the] security of our elections.”

Also yesterday, Trump loyalist Kari Lake, who has pushed the idea that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, ran for Arizona governor in 2022, and is now running for the U.S. Senate, admitted she defamed Maricopa County recorder Stephen Richer and that she acted with actual malice when she claimed he “sabotaged” the 2022 election. The request to admit to defamation came on the day that discovery, the process of sharing information about a case with each side, was to begin, suggesting that she preferred to admit wrongdoing rather than let anyone see what might be in her emails, texts, and recordings.

Arizona journalist Howard Fischer reported in the Arizona Daily Star that in a video statement, Lake said her admission did not mean she agreed she did anything wrong, although that is expressly stipulated in the court papers. She said she conceded because Richer’s lawsuit was keeping her off the campaign trail. “It’s called lawfare: weaponizing the legal system to punish, impoverish and destroy political opponents,’’ Lake said. “We’ve all seen how they’re doing it to President Trump. And here in Arizona, they’re doing the exact same thing to me.’’

One of Lake’s senior advisors said: “Kari Lake maintains she has always been truthful.” 

Also yesterday, a three-member panel of the D.C. Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility began a disciplinary hearing for former Department of Justice environmental lawyer Jeffrey Clark, who was so key to Trump’s plan to get state legislatures to overturn the results of the 2020 election that Trump tried to make him attorney general.  

Clark joins Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who led the media blitz to argue—falsely—that the election had been stolen. Giuliani’s New York and Washington, D.C., law licenses were suspended in June 2021 after a court found that he made “demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers, and the public at large.” He is now facing disbarment. 

Earlier this month, he said on his podcast that he expected to be disbarred because “[t]he Bar Association is going to crucify me no matter what. I will be disbarred in New York. I will be disbarred in Washington. It will have nothing to do with anything I did wrong.”

Today, after a long trial, attorney discipline judge Yvette Roland recommended that John Eastman, the lawyer who came up with the justification for using fake electors to overturn the 2020 presidential election, be disbarred. Eastman will immediately lose his license to practice law. The California Supreme Court will decide whether to disbar Eastman. 

Eastman’s lawyer said it was unfair to take Eastman’s law license because he needs to make money to fight the criminal charges against him in Georgia, where he has been indicted for his part in the effort to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election there. For his part, Eastman maintains he did nothing wrong.

In her recommendation, Judge Roland compared Eastman’s case to that of Donald Segretti, the lawyer whose efforts to guarantee President Richard Nixon’s 1972 reelection included, as Roland’s recommendation noted, distributing letters that made false accusations against Nixon’s rivals (including a forged letter attributing a slur against French-Canadians to Maine senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination Edmund Muskie). At the time, the court noted that Segretti was only 30, thought he was acting for Nixon, and did not act in his capacity as a lawyer. The court also emphasized that Segretti “recognized the wrongfulness of his acts, expressed regret, and cooperated with the investigating agencies.” 

In contrast, Roland wrote, “[t]he scale and egregiousness of Eastman’s unethical actions far surpasses” Segretti’s misconduct. Segretti acted outside his role as an attorney, while “Eastman’s wrongdoing was committed directly in the course and scope of his representation of President Trump and the Trump campaign.” Roland also noted that while Segretti expressed remorse and recognized his wrongdoing, Eastman has shown “an apparent inability to accept responsibility. This lack of remorse and accountability presents a significant risk that Eastman may engage in further unethical conduct, compounding the threat to the public.”  

One by one, those who worked with Trump to overturn the election are being held to account by our legal system. But still, they refuse to admit any wrongdoing. 

In that, they are following Trump.  

Despite Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order, Trump continued today to attack both Merchan and his daughter. On his social media site, Trump posted that Merchan was trying to deprive him of his “First Amendment right to speak out against the Weaponization of Law Enforcement, including the fact that Crooked Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, and their Hacks and Thugs are tracking and following me all across the Country, obsessively trying to persecute me, while everyone knows I have done nothing wrong!” Trump posted in great detail about the judge’s daughter, accusing her of making money by “working to ‘Get Trump,’” based on images shared by an old social media account of hers that had been hacked. 

It was President Nixon who perfected the refusal to admit wrongdoing in the face of overwhelming evidence. Even after tapes recorded in the Oval Office revealed that he had plotted with an aide to block investigations of the break-in at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel by invoking national security and Republican Party leaders told him he needed to resign, he refused to admit wrongdoing. Instead, he told the American people he was stepping down because he no longer had enough support in Congress to advance the national interest. He blamed his fall on the press, saying its “leaks and accusations and innuendo” were designed to destroy him.

Gerald R. Ford, the president who replaced Nixon, inadvertently put a rubber stamp on Nixon’s refusal to accept responsibility. Believing it was better for the country to move past the divisions of the Watergate era, Ford issued a preemptive pardon for any crimes the former president might have committed against the United States while in office. Ford maintained that the acceptance of a pardon was an admission of guilt. 

But Ford’s pardon meant Nixon never faced legal accountability for his actions. That escape allowed him to argue that a president is above the law. In a 1977 interview with British journalist David Frost, Nixon told Frost that “when the president does it…that means that it is not illegal,” by definition. 

As Nixon did, Trump has watched those who participated in his schemes pay dearly for their support, but he appears angry and confused at the idea that he himself could be held legally accountable for his behavior.

But without accountability, as Judge Roland noted, there is no incentive to stop dangerous behavior. Josh Dawsey reported last night in the Washington Post that since Trump has taken over the Republican National Committee and purged it of former employees, those interviewing for jobs are being asked if they believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Other questions, Dawsey reported, include “what applicants believe should be done on ‘election integrity’ in 2024.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[lawofficeofryansshipp]

St. Lucie County Eviction Lawyers | Law Office of Ryan S. Shipp, PLLC

St.-Lucie-County-Landlord-Lawyers Are you a commercial or residential landlord in St. Lucie County, Florida, facing tenant issues that require eviction? Look no further than Law Office of Ryan S. Shipp, PLLC. Our experienced team understands the complexities of Florida eviction laws and is committed to helping property owners, landlords, property managers, and investors, navigate these…

[crowrelli]

Free an innocent woman / Emergency Coms

As some of you guys know we were wrongly evicted and homeless for a while almost exactly a year ago. In that time weve been working our asses off to get back on our feet and try and recover from the abuse inflicted by the man we had lived with. We'd finally escaped him and went no contact and have been loving life without his constant abuse.

However.

Despite our efforts he has decided to rear his ugly head again by filling bullshit charges against his daughter, my mother in law. Shes currently in our county jail awaiting court because of his lies and manipulation of facts.

The only evidence we have are an army of witnesses to his years of abuse and violence and her slaving away to give him every penny she'd earned and then some.

We cannot pay our bills without her income nor pay for legal aid so Im asking for work. Im offering discounted slots to help keep our heads afloat while we fight this stupid, vicious man and free the kindest, most honest and loving woman ive ever met. We have a really good feeling we can fight him and that truth is on our side, we just want to be able to do that without worrying about being homeless again.

Emergency Slot Prices - DM for info: 10$ - colored sketch. Half body, semi painted, normal style. +5 for extra characters 50$ - Bulk Deal. 6 colored sketch commission slots. Usable at any time with no expiration. 100$ - Bulk Deal. 4 Full body commission slots. Usable at any time with no expiration.

thank you so much for you continued support and we're gonna fight this monster tooth and fucking nail to free our mom.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"166 IN JAIL AS SARNIA STRIKE TROUBLE EBBS," Kingston Whig-Standard. March 4, 1937. Page 1. ---- Are to Face Court on Friday on Charges of Trespassing ---- TWO BADLY HURT ==== Sarnia Quiet After Riot 1,000 Panes of Glass Were Shattered -- SARNIA, March 4 - (CP) - With only two out of seven men, still in general hospital, reported in a serious condition and production resumed at the Holmes Foundry Company, scene of a clash between non-strikers and "sit-down" strikers yesterday, Sarnia today was getting back to normal routine. The outcome of the fight in and around the foundry was the eviction of the "sit-downers" by the men who desired to continue work. Badly Hurt Condition of Mike Pipliki and Peter Tomko, two participants in the struggle, was causing concern. Tomko has a fractured spine, pelvis, ankle and wrat. "As good as can be ex ported was the word of attending physicians, Pipliki, with a skull frac tam, is in "fair condition." Perey Archer, reported to be seriously injured yesterday, today was officially said to be suffering from cuts about the body and legs. He has no fracture of the leg as at first reported. 66 In Jail In the meantime to men who took part in the fight and were turned over to the police by non-strikers, repose in the county jail and city police lockup awaiting arraignment Friday morning on charges of trespassing on the company property March 1. Forty-seven are crowded into the county jail and 19 remain in police cell. No pleas were made and no bail granted after their arrest. At the plan all non-strikers with out handicapping injuries were back at work and 100 new men have been employed. It has been indicated none of the strikers will be re-empanged. The factory escaped serious damage although about 1,000 panes of glass will have to be replaced. No additional charges have been laid, and there was no intimation of further steps to ascertain the identity of any of the men who may have indicated injuries.

Tomko was said to have suffered Injuries when he jumped from the roof of the structure. Pipliki, it was reported, was injured in a free-for-all and it would be difficult to ascertain the identity of his assailant. Score Injured in Sarnia Foundry Strike Riot Seven men were rushed to hospital, three suffering serious injury, while a score were less badly hurt when four hundred men, armed with clubs and crowbars rushed the strike bound Holmes Foundry Co. plant at Sarnia. and engaged in a terrific hand-to-hat encounter with strikers inside the factory. In full view of hundreds of citizens, the battle raged on the root the plant as non-strikers sought to cast the striking workers who took possession of the plant and flouted police orders to evacuate. Here is one of the casualties being carried from the scene of action as the battle raged. Thirty-one strikers were booked at police headquarters following the fray. There was a possibility that three the injured might die.

[aprillikesthings]

Multnomah county Oregon (the one with Portland in it) has a ballot measure next spring for tenants in eviction court to have public lawyers!! Very cool!!

[connectseo-blog]

Finding the Right Eviction Specialists Near Me

Dealing with tenant eviction can be a stressful and time-sensitive process, especially when you’re unfamiliar with the laws and procedures involved. As a landlord, your focus should be on protecting your property and ensuring a smooth transition, but the complexities of legal paperwork and deadlines can quickly become overwhelming. That’s where Eviction Specialists Near Me come into play. With the help of trusted eviction services, landlords can navigate the eviction process efficiently and lawfully.

Why Choose Eviction Specialists Near Me?

Eviction specialists are professionals who assist landlords in handling the legalities of tenant eviction. They specialize in preparing eviction notices, filing court documents, and ensuring compliance with state and local laws. If you’re facing challenges with tenant evictions, hiring an eviction specialist near you can offer several benefits:

Compliance with Local Laws: Landlord-tenant laws vary by state and county. In California, for example, there are specific rules about serving eviction notices and the timeline for filing lawsuits. Eviction specialists are well-versed in these regulations and can ensure your eviction process adheres to all legal requirements.

Accurate Paperwork: Filing incorrect or incomplete paperwork can delay the eviction process or even lead to dismissal of your case. Eviction specialists ensure that all documents are prepared and filed correctly, saving you time and hassle.

Time-Saving Solutions: As a landlord, your time is valuable. By working with an eviction specialist near you, you can delegate the tedious tasks of document preparation and court filings, allowing you to focus on other responsibilities.

Stress-Free Process: Dealing with uncooperative tenants can be emotionally draining. Eviction specialists act as your trusted partner, handling the legalities and providing you with peace of mind throughout the process.

What to Expect from Eviction Services

Eviction services provide comprehensive support for landlords dealing with tenant removal. Whether it’s a tenant who refuses to pay rent, violates lease terms, or overstays their agreement, eviction specialists offer tailored services to meet your needs. These typically include:

Serving Eviction Notices: The eviction process begins with serving an appropriate notice, such as a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit, or a 30-day notice to vacate. Eviction services ensure that the notice is served according to legal guidelines.

Filing Court Documents: If the tenant fails to comply with the notice, the next step is filing an unlawful detainer lawsuit. Eviction specialists handle the preparation and filing of all required court documents.

Court Representation: Many eviction services also work with legal professionals who can represent landlords in court if the eviction process escalates to that stage.

Post-Eviction Assistance: Once an eviction is complete, specialists can assist with reclaiming possession of the property and ensuring that all legal procedures are finalized.

Choosing the Right Eviction Specialists Near Me

When searching for reliable eviction specialists near me, it’s essential to choose a provider with a strong track record of success. Here are some tips to find the right service:

Experience Matters: Look for specialists with years of experience in handling evictions in your local area. Their knowledge of local laws and court procedures can make a significant difference.

Transparent Pricing: Avoid hidden fees by choosing a service that offers transparent and upfront pricing.

Positive Reviews: Read reviews and testimonials from other landlords to gauge the quality of service.

Comprehensive Services: Ensure that the eviction specialists offer a full range of services, from notice preparation to court filings and post-eviction assistance.

The Importance of Professional Eviction Services

Landlords who attempt to handle evictions on their own often face challenges such as missed deadlines, improper documentation, or legal disputes. Professional eviction services streamline the process, helping landlords achieve fast and favorable outcomes.

At LDA PRO Legal, we provide trusted and affordable eviction services tailored to meet the needs of Sacramento landlords. Our team of experienced professionals specializes in tenant removal, ensuring compliance with California landlord-tenant laws.

How to Get Started

If you’re searching for Eviction Specialists Near Me, LDA PRO Legal is here to help. We offer end-to-end eviction services that save you time, reduce stress, and protect your rights as a landlord. From preparing eviction notices to filing court documents, we’ve got you covered.

Contact us today at: 📞 Phone: (916) 620-2446 📧 Email: contact@LdaproLegal.com 🌐 Website: www.LdaproLegal.com

Don’t let tenant issues weigh you down—work with trusted professionals who specialize in eviction services and reclaim control of your property today!

Conclusion

Navigating tenant evictions doesn’t have to be overwhelming. By hiring Eviction Specialists Near Me, landlords can access professional eviction services that simplify the process and ensure legal compliance. Whether you need help with notice preparation, court filings, or post-eviction support, the right eviction specialists will make the entire process stress-free and efficient.

Take the first step toward a successful eviction by contacting LDA PRO Legal today. Let us handle the complexities while you focus on what matters most—your property and peace of mind.