A Puzzle For Those Who Could Lose Their Homes In This Crisis

[itchychick]

Ha. Well. I'm back a little earlier than anticipated.  Change of plan.  After dinner but before clean up and the rest, we had an unexpected discovery.  Elder son has lice.  Three cases were found amongst his classmates a few weeks ago, and he has been complaining of an itchy head for a few days now....

So.  After an emergency run to the pharmacy for stuff, I am now waiting for the "brewing time" for son #2 (it was highly recommended that we all do the treatment) and the third load of laundry to finish.  Kids are now watching a movie, and I have declared tomorrow a mental health day for all of us.
  ________________________________________________

Okay, back to the regular scheduled programme:

This is really obvious, and in fact, so obvious that I didn't think that I bore mentioning, but of course, if the order of eviction was/is still standing, then of course, anthro would have needed to take immediate action to stop that.

You stated earlier that if you file notice that you dispute the claim of eviction, the Sherrif cannot force an eviction without a court order.  Have you filed such notice?  Given you now have the receipts for the fully paid taxes, it would seem that your claim to Unlawful Detainer (have I got the terminology right?) would be entirely legitimate.  You could then not be forced to vacate before the dispute is settled.  At least that would buy you some time to plan your next move.

[anthropositor]

Exactly correct.  I needed to make a formal response within the ten day period, even though it did not say so anywhere on the Vacate Order.  I hold this to be a serious defect, that this essential duty and to whom it must be addressed is not in the body of the Order.  It shows distinct favoritism toward the complaintant to omit this essential information.

I elected to write the letter and serve it first at the Sheriff's Office, getting it stamped Received and initialled for my records.  Since neither the Sheriff or his Sergeant were in at the time, I chatted with the bookkeeper and court clerk, showing them copies of the letter to illustrate my points.  Then I called the voice mail of both the Sergeant and the Sheriff, leaving them urgent messages about the eviction in process and how ill-conceived it was.  Copies of my letter were on their desks.

The Sergeant called me and was the very first of all the county bureaucrats to inform me that no eviction could actually occur without a judges order, and that could not happen until the case was heard in court.  The letter I wrote in response to the Vacate Order made a hearing a necessity if the seller wished to proceed against me.  Of course I knew this, but my wife was still apprehensive.  Now I could quote an authority figure.

But there was a bonus.  A few hours later, the Sheriff himself called me.  We chatted at some length.  At the end, he decided to personally take the letter out to the Patriarch of the furniture store.  I was delighted by this turn of events.  Normally, the boss doesn't do things like that.  A low ranking deputy does.

Now, to be absolutely sure of a recorded delivery of the letter, on the ninth day, I sent it Certified, Return Receipt Requested, Priority mail to be delivered on the tenth day.  The Sheriff had blunted the surprise in one way, but made it razor sharp in another.

Now, a few words about this letter.  It is not for the purpose of negotiation, appeasement, compromise, mending fences, supplication, or anything of the sort. 

My eight years of being a Gomer Pyle sort of Boob were over.  I was now going to be myself.  The pretense all that time had been pretty fatiguing.  I felt like a long running play had just dropped its' final curtain. 

I was certainly happy to no longer have to put up that facade of mediocrity to crooks who were trying to fleece me.

Here is the letter:

Formal Answer To Notice to Vacate 10-6-08

To: [name and address removed]
AR

From: (Mr. & Mrs. Anthropositor)
(Delete St.)
Delete City, AR

Re: Eviction Order

Please be advised that this eviction order does not reflect the true facts.  Please be advised that there is no merit or foundation in any of the causes you have alleged therein. The order is disputed in its entirety.

If this matter is not put to rest without court intervention, we will list the various injuries we have suffered in our dealings with you, and will countersue for damages.

This is not the time to list them all, or to list the serious losses we have sustained due to your unscrupulous, negligent and willful actions, but you may rest assured that we will comprehensively list them for the court and for the public.

Most particularly, we are not tenants and never were. We are buyers.

We are not in breach of contract. Therefore, if you were successful in evicting us and seizing our real and personal property we would take vigorous legal action against you for our injuries.

This was a stealth action on your part, with no warning. No demand for moneys alleged to be due has been presented. Not in writing. Not verbally.

There have been many, many harassment's made against us over these eight years, in an attempt to get us to relinquish our home. I will list them comprehensively during any legal action that you bring against us, in a counter suit against you.

Although you have received several verbal requests over these eight years, to inform the Tax Assessor of the purchase of this home on two acres of land, you have to date failed to do so.

I can think of several motivations for your ongoing delay in the proper recording of this sale. Reasonsresulting in profit to you and substantial loss to us.

Only the seller could do this. Therefore we, the buyers, are entirely blameless. The assessor's office has informed us that there is no delinquency in the tax liability on this property. I call upon you once
again, this time formally and in writing, to correct this wrongful and injurious failure to inform the Tax Assessor of our purchase agreement and get us properly listed as buyers.

If you do this, the Assessor will be able to determine the actual tax liability due for the two acres and the dwelling.  Until you do this, no correct and accurate figure can be generated.

Certainly you cannot believe that we were responsible for the taxes on the entire tract, of which this parcel is only a part.

To sum up: You have never made any demand with any dollar amount to us. Never. In over eight years.

Our tax liability commences on the date the Tax Assessor generates the proper precise amount due from us for our proportion of the larger tract. And a debt cannot be due before the debt has been properly computed and an actual bill has been presented. You do not even know what figure you claim is due.

These are essential elements of a debt.

We did not empower or otherwise authorize any party to pay our taxes without our knowledge or consent, and therefore cannot be held responsible for any such DONATIONS made without our being made aware of it.

Rest assured that we will pay all taxes on our two acre parcel with dwelling, at such time as we receive a proper and correct bill from the Tax Assessor showing precise figures for that parcel only, not the
larger tract that the parcel is on.

The other minor things you allege in your eviction papers are equally without merit, and certainly don't constitute a cause for elderly people to be put out on the street and their home wrongfully stolen from them.

(Anthropositor)


Okay, anyone notice what I deliberately left out?

[itchychick]

Good letter!

As for the omission, I noticed that although you hint at the reasons the seller delayed in "the proper recording" of the sale, you made no mention of the bank loan he took out against your property...

[anthropositor]

Yes, that is one.  There are quite a few that I am holding in reserve for later.  But the specific tactical one was not telling them in the letter that I had paid the taxes which were almost immediately in danger of becoming overdue.  I had every reason to believe that their plan was to let those taxes go into default, and I couldn't allow that.

And oddly enough, as I interpret some of the more obscure statutes of Real Estate Law, they may have had another recourse against me, which is now no longer available to them.  It turns out that my having paid this latest installment of the taxes was essential from several perspectives.

[Bamawing]

What few bits of my intellect are left over, I'm having to use for moving/student teaching. And I know next to nothing about law anyway.

But dangit, I want Shmooo. So I came up with the following: a top 10 list of things Anthro probably didn't do to save his home, but could have. I'm hoping I at least get honorable mention and a taste.

10. Isn't there some sort of law that states that you have to give tenants 30 days' notice before eviction?
9. If you don't own the land, is there any way they can prove that you live there? You could be visiting for a spell. It's not your fault that the spell has lasted several years.
8. Do a James Bond-like sneak in at the courthouse and change the records.
7. Laws are complicated. Tell them that according to a loophole in section 45, paragraph B of the Eviction Act of 1892, you cannot be forced to leave your property due to the current state of corn prices. By the time they manage to check this claim and realize it's bogus, you'll have had plenty of time to invent another one.
6. Ingest many beans before the evictors arrive. When they come, smoke bomb them out, so to speak.
5. It should be fairly easy to blackmail wealthy crooks with connections. Fun, too.
4. Exactly how many large dogs is it you own?
3. Anthro is a unique species. One might could even say... endangered. And we all know what happens to endangered species when you mess with their habitat... or, rather, what happens to *you* if you do the messing.
2. Two words: sword cane.
1. Ichabod, the vial! To them this time!

[anthropositor]

10. No.   9. No   8. Felony   7. Might be useful as a delaying tactic, but would also annoy the judge.   6. I eat no beans.  Not since the age of fourteen.   5. The letter does have elements of lawful blackmail.   4. Half the number I had two weeks ago.  Cats?  Half the number of two weeks ago.  Quite a challenge finding homes for that many animals in such a short time, but we were quite attackable on this count.  3. Generally more dangerous than endangered, especially when cornered.   2.  A sword cane is a disguised, concealed weapon.  My knife is always on my hip, in full view.   1. Ichabod is on an extended sabbatical, trying to overcome his late-developing aversion to blood and other red things.  He sort of freaked when I cut up the roadkill buck in the back yard.  I'm sure the Company will return him to duty as soon as they think he is up to it.  If he does recover, I will be glad to see him back.  Since he was a quisling as well as a butler, he was within my means... and he ate very little.   

[itchychick]

 

[anthropositor]

Somehow I overlooked LG's comment.  Certainly my deal, all the way from the beginning was a calculated, high risk transaction.  But most of what I did was to put off the day of reckoning as long as possible, while keeping my strategy as well hidden as the strategy of the sellers.  I really did have them thinking that I was considerably more retarded than I actually am.  As it turns out, that was a very useful thing for me to do.

[andyb]

I really did have them thinking that I was considerably more retarded than I actually am.

so were they hoping any contract would be null and void on the grounds of diminished responsibility and incapacity of the purchaser?

[anthropositor]

Not exactly.  They were convinced that I was too stupid and too meek to defend myself against their well planned tactics.  They did not even attempt to disguise the fact that they were borrowing on the land over these eight years.  They just acted like they had a perfect right to.

And I believe they thought they were on solid ground to claim that my "failure" to pay property taxes never assessed to me, meant that I owed them for the payments that they paid without my knowledge.  I doubt that they even checked with their lawyer, they were so confident that they had me over a barrel.

And look at the timing.  That order to vacate was presented at precisely the time of the greatest and most destructive global market panic in history.  That was no coincidence.  It was premeditated.  As was their treating me like a sharecropper for these eight years. 

What they had never figured out is that I can live well with minimal cash resources, simply because I do not waste what I have. 

Had I gotten dental work when it was clear that I could use it, had I gotten medical attention after the stroke, had I gotten the cataract operation when ordered, it is likely I would have lost the house and land several years back. 

My wife too has been remarkably resilient.  I even pulled one of her teeth a month or so ago.  Some of you might think that's easy for me since I am the puller and she is the pulee. 

But I did remove a three unit permanent bridge from my lower jaw after the dentist told me it could only be removed destructively.  I took it off intact.  It probably took me ten or twenty times longer to do that than pulling her tooth.

The genesis of dental anesthesia was only a century and a half ago.  Yet today, we are convinced that without it, and the dentist to administer it and do the work, we are entirely helpless.  The same as we are without lawyers and doctors.

Why is this?  I think part of it is the absolute pervasiveness of conditioning and propaganda.  Try this.  Watch TV for an hour. 

Tabulate the number of commercials for lawyers, for medicines you are to ask your doctor about, for over the counter nostrums.  I think you will be surprised at the counts you come up with.

It is pervasive conditioning which we are so used to, it seems perfectly normal.  It is not.  It is Pavlovian in its' intensity and scope.  And I'll bet it is the same in Canada, England, Australia, France, Spain, Germany, and virtually every other industrial country.

[itchychick]

And I'll bet it is the same in Canada, England, Australia, France, Spain, Germany, and virtually every other industrial country.

Not nearly so much.  The only advertising I see on tv for lawyers are on the stations that come from the US, for American law firms.  We do get most of the same commercials for new drugs and remedies, but these are all American adverts.  It's been a while since I watched tv in Europe, but I don't recall the commercials there being in the same vein as on American tv. 

As similar as we (Canadians) are, culturally to Americans, there are significant differences in the way we approach things, particularly in the fields of law and medicine.

[andyb]

I'm in the UK and I try not to watch adverts - in fact the BBC channels don't carry any - being a public service broadcaster.

What adverts I do see seem to be promoting car insurance and price compariosn websites such as confused.com and moneysupermarket.com at the moment. Oh and those awful (some would say scary!) 118 118 adverts (for telephone (expensive) directory enquiries). And thinking about it I have seen a few 'Had an accident not your fault? no win no fee' ambulance chasing type adverts - but these seem to be in a minority of all adverts on the box at the mo...

It has been said that TV advertising in the UK is among the best in the world - but I'm often using the break to put the kettle on so I can't comment... 

andyb

[CalamityJane]

And I'll bet it is the same in Canada, England, Australia, France, Spain, Germany, and virtually every other industrial country.

As similar as we (Canadians) are, culturally to Americans, there are significant differences in the way we approach things, particularly in the fields of law and medicine.

I second itchy's post here although we live in different provinces. There are very few ads here re law or medicine, but they do sparsely exist. Seems we are drenched though in toothpaste, mouthwash, vehicles, cleaning etc. ads.

Jane

[anthropositor]

In the U.S. perhaps the most frequent type of commercials on TV are those for prescription medications, motivating the viewer to ask the doctor.  It is absolutely pervasive conditioning.

If this is not the case in Canada, you are indeed fortunate.  I wonder what method was used to prevent pharmaceutical ads?  Now you have me wondering about the European countries as well.  I had just presumed that these ads were pervasive nearly everywhere.  Are magazines and other media similarly restrained?  If they are, I'll guess that it is reflected in reduced use of prescription drugs.  Very interesting.

[CalamityJane]

Are magazines and other media similarly restrained? 

I only read magazines in the Doc's waiting room, but they seem to be packed w/ads of all sorts, especially make-up/skin care. I'll have a look when I next shop. Interesting Anthro.

Jane

[Uncle Matt]

Well, here in the UK, most adverts (at least at the moment, anyway) fall into one of five categories - Insurance comparison websites, beauty products, "Sale weekends" at furniture stores, DIY Stores etc. and supermarkets, or other TV Programs.

Or at least, that's what it seems.

[anthropositor]

As similar as we (Canadians) are, culturally to Americans, there are significant differences in the way we approach things, particularly in the fields of law and medicine.

From my perspective, medicine and law are the two most significant elements of life in modern industrial society.  Consider the subject of this thread; unscrupulous people waiting for the most opportune time to spring a trap based on convoluted technicalities in the law.  They depended on the likelihood that I, like most people, would not be able to cope with the technicalities involved in defending myself against their predatory acts.

And at every turn, I was strongly advised by virtually every official or clerk, that I would need a lawyer to get me out of this predicament. 

Surely most of these people were quite well aware that I could not be moved without the order of a judge, and that could not happen without a scheduled court case, and that would take several months on the very fastest timescale.  But these well experienced people declined to supply this information because it constituted "legal advice." 

And it is also true that I would not have been able to find an attorney to take the case for a hefty portion of the damages, in the way that they will so often do with major personal injury cases, because too little money was involved.

Virtually all knew that I had to make a response within the time period on the vacate order (ten days). and that my response had to be verifiable as a matter of record.  This does not constitute legal advice.  Even the Vacate Order itself should have contained some of this information, but did not.

In medicine too, the individual is in an analogous position, having only the power to accept or reject what is dictated by the physician, the insurance provider, and the government.

I have strong reservations about a half dozen elements of current cataract surgery.  From the surgical perspective, these matters are not any of the patient's business.  They are accepted.  They are routine.  The patient has no right to even bring them up and expect a discussion of them. 

It is an absolute, that only the physician can decide these matters.  The patient can only consent or refuse the operation.

Yet we have become so conditioned to the normalcy of the situation that almost none of us question it at all.  We just follow doctor's orders.

The monocle I designed for those with cataracts demonstratively works, and works well.  No, it will not work on very advanced cataracts.  But for many people, it can delay surgery for an extra couple of years. 

Yet we have been so propagandized, that the surgery is so routine, so modern, and that complications are so minor and so infrequent, that no one in their right mind would want to delay the operation, no matter how many new advances were continuing to develop in the field.

Dictatorship best endures when most of the population consider it reasonable and normal.  My cataract monocle has now served me well for quite a while.  Yet it has not caught the imagination of a single other cataract patient.  And it certainly has not generated the slightest curiosity from optometrists or ophthalmologists.  I find that appalling.

[itchychick]

I think you raise some really valid points here, anthro.  It is appalling that your legal rights were not made clearly known to you at the time that you were served the notice, and even more appalling that your early enquiries yielded little usable information...

I can't help but feel that that wouldn't have been the situation here, but having never experienced that, I can't say with certainty.

As for the whole cataract surgery, and the unwillingness for doctors to enter into a dialogue with you, that is a very different scenario from the one we would face here.  Certainly, I have seen my share of doctors who are unwilling to consult with patients as to a course of treatment, but the ones like this who I have met have never had the pleasure of my company in their offices a second time.  I feel no hesitation in shopping around for a doctor who suits my needs, and that includes being able to take the time to answer my questions, and who is prepared to examine alternative paths of treatment.  Physician availability is the only obstacle we face here when we "shop around".   We don't have to worry that a profit-driven HMO will deny us the right to find another doctor, or that the "good ones" will be unaffordable.

A quick example.  When I was in my early 20's, my family doctor found some irregularities in my urine samples, and referred me to a very reknowned nephrologist (in fact, this person invented peritoneal dialysis and is highly regarded in medical circles).  I have a genetic condition which can, over time, cause organ damage, and the fear of course was that there was kidney involvement. The mechanism by which this happens is very well understood.  Even I, as a layperson, knew about the connections between my blood disorder and the specific types of organ involvement.  The first thing this doctor said to me was "you are too skinny".  The second thing he said, without so much as a blood pressure measurement, was "we need to preform a kidney biopsy".   When I questioned the necessesity of a biopsy as a first course of investigation,  he actually got angry that I dare question him, and had the audacity to reply "I am the doctor".  To which I replied "and I am the patient whose organs you are not going to cut into without a much better reason."  I walked out of that office and never returned.  I found another, very capable nephrologist who was willing to work with me in a way that I found acceptable.  My family doctor was very willing to help find me another doctor, and thanked me for giving her feedback on the first doctor.  18 years later, the problem is being well managed and has stabilized without ever the need for surgery.

[anthropositor]

Absolutely central to your care was your ability to resist the attitude of the first nephrologist.  It was also helpful that your other physician took your complaint seriously and helped connect you up with another specialist.  I fear that this ability to resist is not common among patients, and is often discouraged by other attending physicians.  In other words, perhaps there was a certain amount of luck involved.  I am so glad it worked out. 

As to the relative merits of the various medical systems, I am not in a good position to make such an evaluation.

I suspect that each system has its' merits and defects, but that all have layers of bureaucracy that interfere with best medicine.  The interference may be in different forms and combinations in each industrial country, but the systems seem strained to the breaking point just about everywhere.

I see feelings of pride and loyalty expressed about the doctors in these other systems.  Yet I hear a lot of Americans speak in glowing terms about some American doctors.  Let's face it, when outcomes are good, we often give the doctor the lions share of the credit.  I don't know if that is justified.

It might be worthwhile if a few doctors paid a little more attention to the system within which they work, with a view to making it fairer and more responsive to patient needs.  I see no signs that this will happen anywhere.  Actually, I believe the trend will continue to be in the opposite direction.

[itchychick]

I agree with all you've said, anthro.  I certainly don't want to make it out that our system is problem free, nor that the American system is awful.  There are plenty of wealthy Canadians who travel to the US for treatment.  That speaks volumes.

Both my sister and brother-in-law completed portions of their medical training in the US, and were impressed with the research and technological resources available to them.  They both, for both personal and professional reasons turned down extremely well-paying offers of employment in the US, however.

I think the business of medicine is so big that these problems of beauraucracy and/or greed and/or complacency are almost unavoidable to some exent.  In a free market medical system, there is too much incentive for profit, and I fear that patient interest can easily take a back seat.  In a government run system, there are huge problems of over-run costs and professional apathy.