It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.

If it had become law, police could have immediately removed these fake
tenants.

The governor claimed it "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms,
respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize
unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence."

The bill's sponsor said it did not affect existing landlord-tenant law,
and it exempted family members and those agreeing to co-habitate.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2978018/arizona-democratic-gov-katie-hobbs-vetoes-bill-cracking-down-on-squatters/

Steve Lehto video if you don't want to read the article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvssbU4wWhk

Again, I object to the term "squatters" as these trespassers are not
squatting. These were never abandoned properties.

In article <v0orib$1tvca$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
> with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
> arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.

From what I've read, she pretty much vetoes everything the legislature
sends to her desk. She holds the record for most vetoes by a governor in
Arizona history. I'm assuming it's a political thing-- the legislature
is full of Republicans, she's a Democrat, so she just rejects everything
they do.

In this case, hopefully it will blow back in her face, since both the
legislature-- Dems and Reps alike-- support the bill, as does the public
overwhelmingly. She's the only one stamping her foot and throwing a
tantrum over it. I mean, honestly, what is her version of Garrett
thinking? "Governor, taking the side of people who are stealing homes
from innocent people isn't a very good look for you. Maybe let's not
veto this one?"

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
> with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
> arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.
>
> If it had become law, police could have immediately removed these fake
> tenants.
>
> The governor claimed it "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms,
> respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize
> unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence."
>
> The bill's sponsor said it did not affect existing landlord-tenant law,
> and it exempted family members and those agreeing to co-habitate.
>
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2978018/arizona-democratic-gov-katie-hobbs-vetoes-bill-cracking-down-on-squatters/
>
> Steve Lehto video if you don't want to read the article.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvssbU4wWhk
>
> Again, I object to the term "squatters" as these trespassers are not
> squatting. These were never abandoned properties.
>

So what we are saying is is that she’s pro crime and courting the all
important squatter vote.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 4/29/24 3:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <v0orib$1tvca$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
>> with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
>> arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.
>
> From what I've read, she pretty much vetoes everything the legislature
> sends to her desk. She holds the record for most vetoes by a governor in
> Arizona history. I'm assuming it's a political thing-- the legislature
> is full of Republicans, she's a Democrat, so she just rejects everything
> they do.
>
> In this case, hopefully it will blow back in her face, since both the
> legislature-- Dems and Reps alike-- support the bill, as does the public
> overwhelmingly. She's the only one stamping her foot and throwing a
> tantrum over it. I mean, honestly, what is her version of Garrett
> thinking? "Governor, taking the side of people who are stealing homes
> from innocent people isn't a very good look for you. Maybe let's not
> veto this one?"
>

Yeah, I see the abortion issue really blowing back into the Democrats in
the upcoming elections.

We might just run out of offices to win.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 4/29/24 3:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <v0orib$1tvca$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
>> with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
>> arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.
>
> From what I've read, she pretty much vetoes everything the legislature
> sends to her desk. She holds the record for most vetoes by a governor in
> Arizona history. I'm assuming it's a political thing-- the legislature
> is full of Republicans, she's a Democrat, so she just rejects everything
> they do.
>
> In this case, hopefully it will blow back in her face, since both the
> legislature-- Dems and Reps alike-- support the bill, as does the public
> overwhelmingly. She's the only one stamping her foot and throwing a
> tantrum over it. I mean, honestly, what is her version of Garrett
> thinking? "Governor, taking the side of people who are stealing homes
> from innocent people isn't a very good look for you. Maybe let's not
> veto this one?"

Oh, do you mean the Republicans who voted to go back to the 1860's?

Don't know why people don't want to go back to a time where slavery was
legal, and women couldn't vote...

The Arizona Republican Party (many of whose top leaders are now
indicted) are handing the state to the Democrats.

> Governor Hobbs Outlasts Honeymoon Period with Arizona Voters
> Arizona’s Governor Performs Better than State Legislature
>
> PHOENIX (March 7, 2024)- Just over one year since she took office, Governor Katie Hobbs remains above water with Arizona voters. Noble Predictive Insights’ (NPI) latest Arizona Public Opinion Pulse (AZPOP) found that Hobbs has remained consistent with voters since February 2023, and, according to Arizona voters, is performing better than the Arizona Legislature.

Well played! You sure know what you're talking about (in a pig's ass).

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:14:19 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
>with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
>arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.
>
>If it had become law, police could have immediately removed these fake
>tenants.
>
>The governor claimed it "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms,
>respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize
>unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence."
>
>The bill's sponsor said it did not affect existing landlord-tenant law,
>and it exempted family members and those agreeing to co-habitate.

What the heck do issues of domestic violence have to do with squatters
moving in when the homeowner is away and refusing to vamoose in near
record time when found out?

If >I< were Governor I'd work towards instant eviction along with
award of damages as soon as an injuction were obtained and i would
order application for such injunctions get ultra-high priority in
court scheduling. (I'd be satisfied with 2-3 hour turnaround - and
DEFINITELY not 4-6 weeks as I've heard of in some jurisdictions)

If homeowners can't be secure in lawful possession of their own homes
something is either wrong with the law or its enforcement.

If that makes me sound 'redneck' secure possession of one's own home
has got to be just behind "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Other things are negotiable - this isn't.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <v0orib$1tvca$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
>> with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
>> arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.
>
> From what I've read, she pretty much vetoes everything the legislature
> sends to her desk. She holds the record for most vetoes by a governor in
> Arizona history. I'm assuming it's a political thing-- the legislature
> is full of Republicans, she's a Democrat, so she just rejects everything
> they do.
>
> In this case, hopefully it will blow back in her face, since both the
> legislature-- Dems and Reps alike-- support the bill, as does the public
> overwhelmingly. She's the only one stamping her foot and throwing a
> tantrum over it. I mean, honestly, what is her version of Garrett
> thinking? "Governor, taking the side of people who are stealing homes
> from innocent people isn't a very good look for you. Maybe let's not
> veto this one?"
>

While Baker stands there silently thinking she’s overdressed.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article
<1291219576.736136769.416048.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article <v0orib$1tvca$1@dont-email.me>,
> > "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
> >> with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
> >> arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.
> >
> > From what I've read, she pretty much vetoes everything the legislature
> > sends to her desk. She holds the record for most vetoes by a governor in
> > Arizona history. I'm assuming it's a political thing-- the legislature
> > is full of Republicans, she's a Democrat, so she just rejects everything
> > they do.
> >
> > In this case, hopefully it will blow back in her face, since both the
> > legislature-- Dems and Reps alike-- support the bill, as does the public
> > overwhelmingly. She's the only one stamping her foot and throwing a
> > tantrum over it. I mean, honestly, what is her version of Garrett
> > thinking? "Governor, taking the side of people who are stealing homes
> > from innocent people isn't a very good look for you. Maybe let's not
> > veto this one?"
> >
> While Baker stands there silently thinking she's overdressed.

Heh.

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 17:04:23 -0700, FPP wrote:

> On 4/29/24 3:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article<v0orib$1tvca$1@dont-email.me>,
> > "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
> > > with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
> > > arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.
> >
> > From what I've read, she pretty much vetoes everything the legislature
> > sends to her desk. She holds the record for most vetoes by a governor in
> > Arizona history. I'm assuming it's a political thing-- the legislature
> > is full of Republicans, she's a Democrat, so she just rejects everything
> > they do.
> >
> > In this case, hopefully it will blow back in her face, since both the
> > legislature-- Dems and Reps alike-- support the bill, as does the public
> > overwhelmingly. She's the only one stamping her foot and throwing a
> > tantrum over it. I mean, honestly, what is her version of Garrett
> > thinking? "Governor, taking the side of people who are stealing homes
> > from innocent people isn't a very good look for you. Maybe let's not
> > veto this one?"
>
> Yeah, I see the abortion issue really blowing back into the Democrats in
> the upcoming elections.

Your diversionary comment might accidentally be actually
relevant. With House-breaking decriminalized there will
be more rapes, and consequently, a greater need for the
Right To Abortion.

>
> We might just run out of offices to win.

Strange, but the opposition [party] has an edge
as the leading [party] violates campaign promises.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:14:19 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
>> with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
>> arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.
>>
>> If it had become law, police could have immediately removed these fake
>> tenants.
>>
>> The governor claimed it "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms,
>> respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize
>> unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence."
>>
>> The bill's sponsor said it did not affect existing landlord-tenant law,
>> and it exempted family members and those agreeing to co-habitate.
>
> What the heck do issues of domestic violence have to do with squatters
> moving in when the homeowner is away and refusing to vamoose in near
> record time when found out?
>
> If >I< were Governor I'd work towards instant eviction

Is it eviction? I mean these people are intruders. The cops should drag
them out by the scruffs of their necks on the spot, and straight to jail.

along with
> award of damages as soon as an injuction were obtained and i would
> order application for such injunctions get ultra-high priority in
> court scheduling. (I'd be satisfied with 2-3 hour turnaround - and
> DEFINITELY not 4-6 weeks as I've heard of in some jurisdictions)
>
> If homeowners can't be secure in lawful possession of their own homes
> something is either wrong with the law or its enforcement.
>
> If that makes me sound 'redneck' secure possession of one's own home
> has got to be just behind "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
> Other things are negotiable - this isn't.
>
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
>>with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
>>arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.

>>If it had become law, police could have immediately removed these fake
>>tenants.

>>The governor claimed it "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms,
>>respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize
>>unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence."

>>The bill's sponsor said it did not affect existing landlord-tenant law,
>>and it exempted family members and those agreeing to co-habitate.

>What the heck do issues of domestic violence have to do with squatters
>moving in when the homeowner is away and refusing to vamoose in near
>record time when found out?

Let's be more precise with language. Someone falsely claiming to be a
tenant is not a squatter. Squatting has to do with hostile encroachment
upon abandoned land. A homeowner temporarily away has not abandoned his
land. These are trespassers.

>If >I< were Governor I'd work towards instant eviction along with
>award of damages as soon as an injuction were obtained and i would
>order application for such injunctions get ultra-high priority in
>court scheduling. (I'd be satisfied with 2-3 hour turnaround - and
>DEFINITELY not 4-6 weeks as I've heard of in some jurisdictions)

And again, we want to AVOID eviction because we DO NOT want to entertain
a false claim of tenancy at all. The homeowner does not want to go
through an eviction at all. These are trespassers. Trespassers must be
EJECTED from the property.

Eviction has to do with a tenant staying beyond the terms of his
tenancy.

>If homeowners can't be secure in lawful possession of their own homes
>something is either wrong with the law or its enforcement.

The claim was that police could not make an arrest in the case of
trespass but the article didn't make it clear what was wrong with the
current law.

>If that makes me sound 'redneck' secure possession of one's own home
>has got to be just behind "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
>Other things are negotiable - this isn't.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

On 4/30/2024 1:23 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>
>>> It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
>>> with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
>>> arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.
>
>>> If it had become law, police could have immediately removed these fake
>>> tenants.
>
>>> The governor claimed it "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms,
>>> respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize
>>> unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence."
>
>>> The bill's sponsor said it did not affect existing landlord-tenant law,
>>> and it exempted family members and those agreeing to co-habitate.
>
>> What the heck do issues of domestic violence have to do with squatters
>> moving in when the homeowner is away and refusing to vamoose in near
>> record time when found out?
>
> Let's be more precise with language. Someone falsely claiming to be a
> tenant is not a squatter. Squatting has to do with hostile encroachment
> upon abandoned land. A homeowner temporarily away has not abandoned his
> land. These are trespassers.
>
>> If >I< were Governor I'd work towards instant eviction along with
>> award of damages as soon as an injuction were obtained and i would
>> order application for such injunctions get ultra-high priority in
>> court scheduling. (I'd be satisfied with 2-3 hour turnaround - and
>> DEFINITELY not 4-6 weeks as I've heard of in some jurisdictions)
>
ROFLMAO. You have no clue how the courts actually work.

> And again, we want to AVOID eviction because we DO NOT want to entertain
> a false claim of tenancy at all. The homeowner does not want to go
> through an eviction at all. These are trespassers. Trespassers must be
> EJECTED from the property.
>
> Eviction has to do with a tenant staying beyond the terms of his
> tenancy.
>
>> If homeowners can't be secure in lawful possession of their own homes
>> something is either wrong with the law or its enforcement.
>
> The claim was that police could not make an arrest in the case of
> trespass but the article didn't make it clear what was wrong with the
> current law.
>
The issue is with claims of tenancy. If the squatters/trespassers
verbally claim to the police tenancy then the police, either by
department or DA policy, have to treat it as a case requiring eviction.
And in most jurisdictions evictions are a county sheriff responsibility,
NOT city police.

And there is the tiny little issue of what if the tenancy claim is
legitimate? (And NO, it is not as simple as you think. If it was
landlords would not have to give any notice to legitimate tenants. They
could just lock out paying tenants out on a whim immediately. How would
you like to come home one day to find your landlord had locked you out
and was auctioning off or throwing out all your possessions?)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 4/30/2024 1:23 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>>It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
>>>>with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
>>>>arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.

>>>>If it had become law, police could have immediately removed these fake
>>>>tenants.

>>>>The governor claimed it "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms,
>>>>respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize
>>>>unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence."

>>>>The bill's sponsor said it did not affect existing landlord-tenant law,
>>>>and it exempted family members and those agreeing to co-habitate.

>>>What the heck do issues of domestic violence have to do with squatters
>>>moving in when the homeowner is away and refusing to vamoose in near
>>>record time when found out?

>>Let's be more precise with language. Someone falsely claiming to be a
>>tenant is not a squatter. Squatting has to do with hostile encroachment
>>upon abandoned land. A homeowner temporarily away has not abandoned his
>>land. These are trespassers.

>>>If >I< were Governor I'd work towards instant eviction along with
>>>award of damages as soon as an injuction were obtained and i would
>>>order application for such injunctions get ultra-high priority in
>>>court scheduling. (I'd be satisfied with 2-3 hour turnaround - and
>>>DEFINITELY not 4-6 weeks as I've heard of in some jurisdictions)

>ROFLMAO. You have no clue how the courts actually work.

In a busy housing court, three months at the minimum.

>>And again, we want to AVOID eviction because we DO NOT want to entertain
>>a false claim of tenancy at all. The homeowner does not want to go
>>through an eviction at all. These are trespassers. Trespassers must be
>>EJECTED from the property.

>>Eviction has to do with a tenant staying beyond the terms of his
>>tenancy.

>>>If homeowners can't be secure in lawful possession of their own homes
>>>something is either wrong with the law or its enforcement.

>>The claim was that police could not make an arrest in the case of
>>trespass but the article didn't make it clear what was wrong with the
>>current law.

>The issue is with claims of tenancy. If the squatters/trespassers
>verbally claim to the police tenancy then the police, either by
>department or DA policy, have to treat it as a case requiring eviction.
>And in most jurisdictions evictions are a county sheriff responsibility,
>NOT city police.

If the DA isn't enforcing the law against trespass by policy and not due to a
problem with the law, then that's not a problem with the law!

I still don't see why the police cannot investigate. They come to a
property to gather facts. Let's start with recent signs of a break in.
Does the purported tenant have keys to the door locks? Can he show a
lease? Has he received mail? Who has documents with that address on it?
Do the neighbors recognize the people in the house?

They can write down everything they are told and then later make arrests
of people who lied to them if they do not have "reasonable suspicion" to
make the arrest at the time.

>And there is the tiny little issue of what if the tenancy claim is
>legitimate? (And NO, it is not as simple as you think. If it was
>landlords would not have to give any notice to legitimate tenants. They
>could just lock out paying tenants out on a whim immediately. How would
>you like to come home one day to find your landlord had locked you out
>and was auctioning off or throwing out all your possessions?)

That does not preclude the police from investigating and gathering
evidence. If it's a long-time tenant whom the landlord locked out, then
the tenant will have evidence of residency, like a driver's license and
voter registration and mail.

The authorities were called. Someone lied. Investigate, then make the
arrest.

On Apr 30, 2024 at 6:10:38 AM PDT, "Dimensional Traveler" <dtravel@sonic.net>
wrote:

> On 4/30/2024 1:23 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>> Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>
>>>> It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
>>>> with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
>>>> arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.
>>
>>>> If it had become law, police could have immediately removed these fake
>>>> tenants.
>>
>>>> The governor claimed it "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms,
>>>> respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize
>>>> unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence."
>>
>>>> The bill's sponsor said it did not affect existing landlord-tenant law,
>>>> and it exempted family members and those agreeing to co-habitate.
>>
>>> What the heck do issues of domestic violence have to do with squatters
>>> moving in when the homeowner is away and refusing to vamoose in near
>>> record time when found out?
>>
>> Let's be more precise with language. Someone falsely claiming to be a
>> tenant is not a squatter. Squatting has to do with hostile encroachment
>> upon abandoned land. A homeowner temporarily away has not abandoned his
>> land. These are trespassers.
>>
>>> If >I< were Governor I'd work towards instant eviction along with
>>> award of damages as soon as an injuction were obtained and i would
>>> order application for such injunctions get ultra-high priority in
>>> court scheduling. (I'd be satisfied with 2-3 hour turnaround - and
>>> DEFINITELY not 4-6 weeks as I've heard of in some jurisdictions)
>>
> ROFLMAO. You have no clue how the courts actually work.

Courts enforce the law. Change the law and the courts have no choice but to
comply with it.

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 23:23:20 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>>> The governor claimed it "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms,
>>> respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize
>>> unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence."
>>>
>>> The bill's sponsor said it did not affect existing landlord-tenant law,
>>> and it exempted family members and those agreeing to co-habitate.
>>
>> What the heck do issues of domestic violence have to do with squatters
>> moving in when the homeowner is away and refusing to vamoose in near
>> record time when found out?
>>
>> If >I< were Governor I'd work towards instant eviction
>
>Is it eviction? I mean these people are intruders. The cops should drag
>them out by the scruffs of their necks on the spot, and straight to jail.
>
OK fair enough on 'eviction' (a poor choice of words on my part) -
and while I don't consider myself a redneck I'd be quite content with
the malcontents LITERALLY being dragged off to jail regardless of the
injuries that might cause. (My home is about 4 miles from the police
station and I'm pretty sure I understand what injuries a "drag" of
that distance might cause)

"Pour discouragez les autres" if you will. Which may be an
exaggeration though I wasn't exaggerating at all when I suggested such
orders to remove them go directly to the top of the court and police
dockets to have those orders immediately served and carried out.
(Probably just below attending incidents where human life is actually
at stake but for sure the message simply has to be sent).

And any mayor or public official that thought otherwise need not worry
about asking for my vote in the next election or any subsequent.

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:10:38 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>And there is the tiny little issue of what if the tenancy claim is
>legitimate? (And NO, it is not as simple as you think. If it was
>landlords would not have to give any notice to legitimate tenants. They
>could just lock out paying tenants out on a whim immediately. How would
>you like to come home one day to find your landlord had locked you out
>and was auctioning off or throwing out all your possessions?)
>
Actually I do know something about that - my son was recently involved
in an action against his former landlord and made the mistake of being
overconfident and therefore representing himself without counsel. He
lost.

He DID have counsel against his former landlord's countersuit and is
convinced he would have won handily if he hadn't been overconfident
and engaged a lawyer for his own suit.

But here we are talking a regular landlord / tenant dispute where he
was evicted outside the terms allowed under the tenancy act - not at
all a trespassing situation.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Mon, 29 Apr 2024 23:23:20 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>>>>The governor claimed it "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms,
>>>>respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize
>>>>unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence."

>>>>The bill's sponsor said it did not affect existing landlord-tenant law,
>>>>and it exempted family members and those agreeing to co-habitate.

>>>What the heck do issues of domestic violence have to do with squatters
>>>moving in when the homeowner is away and refusing to vamoose in near
>>>record time when found out?

>>>If >I< were Governor I'd work towards instant eviction

>>Is it eviction? I mean these people are intruders. The cops should drag
>>them out by the scruffs of their necks on the spot, and straight to jail.

>OK fair enough on 'eviction' (a poor choice of words on my part) -

It's the point I've been making all along. In the law, semantics matter.
In landlord-tenant law, both the landlord and tenant have specific
rights. If the tenant becomes non-cooperative, then there is an eviction
process which delays the judgment against the tenant but ultimately
forces them to vacate.

None of this has to do with landlord-tenant law. There is no "eviction"
to perform. These are trespassers who committed property crimes to enter
the property who then commit fraud -- another crimimal act -- in falsely
claiming tenancy.

Furthermore, they are NOT squatters. Again, in law, a squatter has taken
adverse possession of land THAT HAS BEEN ABANDONED after a minimum
period of time. Land hasn't been abandoned unless YEARS have gone by.

Simply leaving one's home, intending to return after a period of
absense which could be hours days or weeks, is NOT an act of abandonment
under the law of any state. Moving in to someone else's house by
breaking and entering while they are away then fraudulently claiming tenancy
is not an act of squatting in abandoned property.

>and while I don't consider myself a redneck I'd be quite content with
>the malcontents LITERALLY being dragged off to jail regardless of the
>injuries that might cause. (My home is about 4 miles from the police
>station and I'm pretty sure I understand what injuries a "drag" of
>that distance might cause)

Why do you keep bringing up "redneck"? Enforcing one's property rights
is what the person with the legal right is expected to do. If he doesn't
enforce his own rights, no one else will. Obviously the police are
refusing to protect his interest.

> . . .

On 4/30/24 2:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2024 at 6:10:38 AM PDT, "Dimensional Traveler" <dtravel@sonic.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/30/2024 1:23 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>> Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>
>>>>> It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
>>>>> with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
>>>>> arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.
>>>
>>>>> If it had become law, police could have immediately removed these fake
>>>>> tenants.
>>>
>>>>> The governor claimed it "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms,
>>>>> respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize
>>>>> unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence."
>>>
>>>>> The bill's sponsor said it did not affect existing landlord-tenant law,
>>>>> and it exempted family members and those agreeing to co-habitate.
>>>
>>>> What the heck do issues of domestic violence have to do with squatters
>>>> moving in when the homeowner is away and refusing to vamoose in near
>>>> record time when found out?
>>>
>>> Let's be more precise with language. Someone falsely claiming to be a
>>> tenant is not a squatter. Squatting has to do with hostile encroachment
>>> upon abandoned land. A homeowner temporarily away has not abandoned his
>>> land. These are trespassers.
>>>
>>>> If >I< were Governor I'd work towards instant eviction along with
>>>> award of damages as soon as an injuction were obtained and i would
>>>> order application for such injunctions get ultra-high priority in
>>>> court scheduling. (I'd be satisfied with 2-3 hour turnaround - and
>>>> DEFINITELY not 4-6 weeks as I've heard of in some jurisdictions)
>>>
>> ROFLMAO. You have no clue how the courts actually work.
>
> Courts enforce the law. Change the law and the courts have no choice but to
> comply with it.
>
>

Courts don't enforce the law. You're supposed to be a LAWYER, for
fuck's sake. Ask USCourts.gov.

> The federal judiciary operates separately from the executive and legislative branches, but often works with them as the Constitution requires. Federal laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President. The judicial branch decides the constitutionality of federal laws and resolves other disputes about federal laws. However, judges depend on our government’s executive branch to enforce court decisions.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure#:~:text=The%20judicial%20branch%20decides%20the,should%20be%20done%20about%20it.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:10:38 -0700, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net>:

>>And there is the tiny little issue of what if the tenancy claim is
>>legitimate? (And NO, it is not as simple as you think. If it was
>>landlords would not have to give any notice to legitimate tenants. They
>>could just lock out paying tenants out on a whim immediately. How would
>>you like to come home one day to find your landlord had locked you out
>>and was auctioning off or throwing out all your possessions?)

>Actually I do know something about that - my son was recently involved
>in an action against his former landlord and made the mistake of being
>overconfident and therefore representing himself without counsel. He
>lost.

>He DID have counsel against his former landlord's countersuit and is
>convinced he would have won handily if he hadn't been overconfident
>and engaged a lawyer for his own suit.

>But here we are talking a regular landlord / tenant dispute where he
>was evicted outside the terms allowed under the tenancy act - not at
>all a trespassing situation.

I'm not following you at all. Defense against improper eviction is evidence
that the rent was paid timely or that the landlord's notice was not
timely. That's the only defense. It's entirely factual and the judge has
to base his judgment on the facts. There is nothing else to say in court.

Landlords and tenants represent themselves in housing court all the
time. Judges certainly expect this and there's too little money at stake
to make it worth hiring a lawyer in many instances.

How did he fail to support his facts?

In article <v0thkh$36om8$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 4/30/24 2:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 2024 at 6:10:38 AM PDT, "Dimensional Traveler"
> > <dtravel@sonic.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/30/2024 1:23 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> >>>> Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman
> >>>> <ahk@chinet.com>:
> >>>
> >>>>> It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners
> >>>>> dealing with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police
> >>>>> won't arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.
> >>>
> >>>>> If it had become law, police could have immediately removed these
> >>>>> fake tenants.
> >>>
> >>>>> The governor claimed it "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms,
> >>>>> respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize
> >>>>> unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence."
> >>>
> >>>>> The bill's sponsor said it did not affect existing landlord-tenant
> >>>>> law, and it exempted family members and those agreeing to co-habitate.
> >>>
> >>>> What the heck do issues of domestic violence have to do with squatters
> >>>> moving in when the homeowner is away and refusing to vamoose in near
> >>>> record time when found out?
> >>>
> >>> Let's be more precise with language. Someone falsely claiming to be a
> >>> tenant is not a squatter. Squatting has to do with hostile encroachment
> >>> upon abandoned land. A homeowner temporarily away has not abandoned his
> >>> land. These are trespassers.
> >>>
> >>>> If >I< were Governor I'd work towards instant eviction along with
> >>>> award of damages as soon as an injuction were obtained and i would
> >>>> order application for such injunctions get ultra-high priority in
> >>>> court scheduling. (I'd be satisfied with 2-3 hour turnaround - and
> >>>> DEFINITELY not 4-6 weeks as I've heard of in some jurisdictions)
> >>>
> >> ROFLMAO. You have no clue how the courts actually work.
> >
> > Courts enforce the law. Change the law and the courts have no choice
> > but to comply with it.

> Courts don't enforce the law. You're supposed to be a LAWYER, for
> fuck's sake. Ask USCourts.gov.
>
> > The federal judiciary operates separately from the executive and
> > legislative branches, but often works with them as the Constitution
> > requires. Federal laws are passed by Congress and signed by the president.
> > The judicial branch decides the constitutionality of federal laws and
> > resolves other disputes about federal laws. However, judges depend on our
> > government's executive branch to enforce court decisions.

And here Effa uses one of his favorite "change the subject" tactics,
hoping no one will notice and he'll score a win on Usenet today.

Everything he cited references the federal courts when the federal
courts have nothing to do with state landlord/tenant law. His entire
response is an irrelevancy.

Nothing he wrote above changes the fact that if the Arizona legislature
changed the law and gave citizens the right to summarily eject
squatters, a state court would apply that law to any case coming before
it.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> Mon, 29 Apr 2024 23:23:20 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> The governor claimed it "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms,
>>>>> respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize
>>>>> unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence."
>
>>>>> The bill's sponsor said it did not affect existing landlord-tenant law,
>>>>> and it exempted family members and those agreeing to co-habitate.
>
>>>> What the heck do issues of domestic violence have to do with squatters
>>>> moving in when the homeowner is away and refusing to vamoose in near
>>>> record time when found out?
>
>>>> If >I< were Governor I'd work towards instant eviction
>
>>> Is it eviction? I mean these people are intruders. The cops should drag
>>> them out by the scruffs of their necks on the spot, and straight to jail.
>
>> OK fair enough on 'eviction' (a poor choice of words on my part) -
>
> It's the point I've been making all along. In the law, semantics matter.
> In landlord-tenant law, both the landlord and tenant have specific
> rights.

In lifetimes movie this week, the replacement daughter, the real mother
starts out the show by yelling at her landlord that he can’t sell the
building and throw her out because she has “renters rights“.

I have no idea what the hell renters rights are, and if it’s something
different than “a lease“

He can sell the building all he wants. Then she gets to deal with the next
guy.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Wed, 1 May 2024 13:50:34 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>and while I don't consider myself a redneck I'd be quite content with
>>the malcontents LITERALLY being dragged off to jail regardless of the
>>injuries that might cause. (My home is about 4 miles from the police
>>station and I'm pretty sure I understand what injuries a "drag" of
>>that distance might cause)
>
>Why do you keep bringing up "redneck"? Enforcing one's property rights
>is what the person with the legal right is expected to do. If he doesn't
>enforce his own rights, no one else will. Obviously the police are
>refusing to protect his interest.

I don't - but there are enough loony-toons out there who think
defending one's own rights against somebody who the wokesters consider
a preferred class is sign of a true anti-social personality.

The hell it is.

On Wed, 1 May 2024 13:58:03 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Landlords and tenants represent themselves in housing court all the
>time. Judges certainly expect this and there's too little money at stake
>to make it worth hiring a lawyer in many instances.
>
>How did he fail to support his facts?

If you're talking about my son's case he thinks the landlord's lawyer
flim-flammed the judge with a nebulous theory that my son thought
would be exploded by a competent lawyer. I don't know the details so
can't intelligently comment but no question he thought he had an
exceptionally strong case going in.

On Wed, 1 May 2024 15:57:35 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>In lifetimes movie this week, the replacement daughter, the real mother
>starts out the show by yelling at her landlord that he can’t sell the
>building and throw her out because she has “renters rights“.
>
>I have no idea what the hell renters rights are, and if it’s something
>different than “a lease“
>
>He can sell the building all he wants. Then she gets to deal with the next
>guy.
>
If it's anything like commercial leases it's that the new owner
inherits the existing the commercial lease but is under no obligation
to renew the existing lease beyond it's normal term. When our former
building sold (at 1.5 million above what it was assessed for taxes) we
still had 2 1/2 years on our lease so we could stay but were told not
to expect another lease. We completed our move (which cost us a bundle
especially during COVID) with 6 weeks to spare.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Wed, 1 May 2024 15:57:35 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>>In lifetimes movie this week, the replacement daughter, the real mother
>>starts out the show by yelling at her landlord that he can't sell the
>>building and throw her out because she has "renters rights".

>>I have no idea what the hell renters rights are, and if it's something
>>different than "a lease"

>>He can sell the building all he wants. Then she gets to deal with the next
>>guy.

>If it's anything like commercial leases it's that the new owner
>inherits the existing the commercial lease but is under no obligation
>to renew the existing lease beyond it's normal term. When our former
>building sold (at 1.5 million above what it was assessed for taxes) we
>still had 2 1/2 years on our lease so we could stay but were told not
>to expect another lease. We completed our move (which cost us a bundle
>especially during COVID) with 6 weeks to spare.

It's exactly the same. The new landlord is subject to all the same
conditions that the old landlord was subject to. The contract for
tenancy survives the property transfer to a new owner, same as easements
and covenants, conditions, and restrictions.