A one eyed heroin addict and her sons

[Magnatomicflux]

Hey Django, thanks for being you and caring for these folks on the street.

Yeah, I'll second that.

[Captain Hindsight]

Doing drugs is just bad news.

[Jimaz]

This thread brings ruin porn up to a whole new level. It's like a train wreck. You can't take your eyes off it -- even if you want to!

[sumas]

Citylover is the only sane voice on this thread. To ignore due process no matter how abhorant the situation is to undermine civil law for all

[citylover]

Citylover, you didn't address my question [[in fact, I'm not sure you really read what I wrote):

Are you saying they should go to court to legally protect their rights to break the law?

I did address your question. But it seems I misunderstood. The answer is no the squatters would not go to court to continue squatting, they would/could go to court if they were illegally evicted.Their recourse would be some not too great a sum of money awarded by a judge were they to prevail.I thought you were asking if the landowner would go to court to protect the rights of the squatters and of course that is a no....the landlord uses due process to prevent the squatters from later attempting to sue for illegal eviction_ sorry about the mix up.

[Relayer76]

Hey Django, thanks for being you and caring for these folks on the street.

Django caring is touching but misguided. He is not helping he is enabling. Addicts cannot be helped until they decide to help themselves which only happens when they reach rock bottom. Unfortunately they often die before that happens.

As for the rights of squatters they are pretty slim. The squatter must have been occupying the building or using the property for an extended period of time. It varies from state to state [[in Ontario it is 20 years) so probably a long time in the US as well. Also, the owner must be aware that the property is being used and does nothing to prevent such use for an extended uninterupted period of time. So if the time limit is 20 years and the owner tells the squatter to leave after 15 but the squatter returns the following month the required time period starts all over again at that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatte...tes_of_America

[reddog289]

Quick question to add, If the house in question was secured. Wouldn't the persons living in it then be considered breaking and entering?

[citylover]

Django caring is touching but misguided. He is not helping he is enabling. Addicts cannot be helped until they decide to help themselves which only happens when they reach rock bottom. Unfortunately they often die before that happens.

As for the rights of squatters they are pretty slim. The squatter must have been occupying the building or using the property for an extended period of time. It varies from state to state [[in Ontario it is 20 years) so probably a long time in the US as well. Also, the owner must be aware that the property is being used and does nothing to prevent such use for an extended uninterupted period of time. So if the time limit is 20 years and the owner tells the squatter to leave after 15 but the squatter returns the following month the required time period starts all over again at that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatte...tes_of_America

Absolutely right about the addict relayer....but the wiki link does not really address mich law.I am not saying squatters should be allowed to squat I am saying the landowner will best cover their behind by going thru a legal eviction.Btw evictions happen all the time and they don't take much time.Once a party is served with a 30 day notice and their are no legal hitches it is fairly straightforward they either leave or their belongings are placed curbside while the sheriff's dept stands by to ensure civility is maintained.

[reddog289]

I was just informed by my wife that based upon what she knows, If One Eye and her kids did not enter a secured house, Then they have squatters rights and should be treated as such.

[night-timer]

Mama Wink may in fact have the right to 'due process' type stuff, but she probably isn't the type who wants to spend a day in front of a judge.

We know what the judge will say she must do, anyway.

She won't go to the police to report the matter, either. Get real. She is the type who spends her time dodging cops, not winking at them.

[citylover]

Mama Wink may in fact have the right to 'due process' type stuff, but she probably isn't the type who wants to spend a day in front of a judge.

We know what the judge will say she must do, anyway.

She won't go to the police to report the matter, either. Get real. She is the type who spends her time dodging cops, not winking at them.

The judge would not be their to tell her anything as she would not be a criminal defendant. Junkies have rights!

[Kevgoblue]

Squatters are destabilizing the few half-way decent areas of the city. That's my only problem with them. I believe everybody, no matter how fucked-up and one-eyed they are, should have a place to live as a human right. However it shouldn't mean the vacant house of your choice so you can muck up the area with your one-eyed heroin-addicted shenanigans. Then the decent people split for ____ suburb and a once stable area becomes crap town and all of winky's upstanding friends move in.
Wish her the best...but not in my backyard! I don't pay my taxes and keep my grass cut just so mama one-eye can pass out on it.

DetroitPole.....+1

I can't believe the responses supporting these worthless pieces of trash. I'm all for human rights and protecting the rights of those non represented [[i.e. poor). But this thread is total B.S.

Ms. "I pop acid in my eye" can kiss my ass. She's welcome to take up residence up at MCS or maybe the old Packard Plant. But why in the world would any self respecting responsible person be open to someone living next door to them thats shot up more than they've eaten in the last 30 days?

I'm open to any new neighbor, whether they be black or white, straight or gay, liberal or conservative. But I'm not good with some 2 bit squatter who pays no taxes and has not inclination to maintain their "home".

[kathy2trips]

"Sticking it to the man" caused Detroit many of the problems it now faces.

[Django]

You really get to know who's who with this kind of thread.

[Russix]

^For sure. I'm pretty sure that the "Get the hell out tomorrow" approach was a strong arm tactic to scare'em off cause sometimes people don't know what their rights are. I share your compassion for fellow humans, but Heroin is a one-time lifelong commitment. I hope the best for them.

[9mile&seneca]

I just wish I had some money to invest in property in Detroit!

[bailey]

You really get to know who's who with this kind of thread.

Yes. exactly. there are those that respect the rule of law, other people's property, and take some fucking personal responsibility for their actions....and then there are those who wish to enable professional victims.

[citylover]

Yes. exactly. there are those that respect the rule of law, other people's property, and take some fucking personal responsibility for their actions....and then there are those who wish to enable professional victims.

is do you all support the protection of the laws for all or just some? Because as said before if you all are willing to deny the rights of some then you are effectively giving up your own rights.

[bailey]

is do you all support the protection of the laws for all or just some? Because as said before if you all are willing to deny the rights of some then you are effectively giving up your own rights.

I do support the protection of the laws for all, which is why the one -eyed squatter and kin should be arrested for trespassing and breaking and entering.

[citylover]

I do support the protection of the laws for all, which is why the one -eyed squatter and kin should be arrested for trespassing and breaking and entering.

That may be but they[[squatters) are still entitled to their day in court.

[jcole]

Google, Django. So unless that 'letter' is 15 yrs old,it's not your property.

Function
According to the Michigan statute, a person can claim title to the property of another person if he continuously, exclusively and openly possesses the land of another person without her consent for 15 years. In order to claim and receive title to the land legally, the adverse possessor must bring an action to quiet title in court.


Read more: Michigan Squatters Rights | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_7255743_mi...#ixzz19z8Uucxz

[bailey]

That may be but they[[squatters) are still entitled to their day in court.

no they are not. they are trespassers. they are not renters that overstayed a lease or tenant who refuse to vacate...for which eviction proceedings would be necessary-- No, pursuant to the OP's facts, they picked an empty house and they entered property that isn't theirs and for which they had no license to enter for any purpose. Their intent upon entry was to use the property adversely to the owner's rights. Unless the OP wishes to amend his facts to include that they've been there for 15 years, have been using the property as their own for all that time, and the owner had reason to know they were there and did nothing about it, then they could bring a quiet title action. As it stands now, if they refuse to leave, they are trespassers and their day in court should be as defendants.

as we are past the date for the tear down...did they get out of they way of the bulldozer or not?

[GOAT]

At first I was shocked that this thread was still up. Then secondly, I was shocked at what is being asked and some of the responses [[both positive and negative).

But I would like state that though I do not know the area so here goes;

If there are homeowners in that neighbourhood [[and I am sure there are a few) I have no doubt they would not want this happening.
Isn't this one of the biggest reasons for Detroit's failure as a city? Drug addiction and the taking over of neighbourhoods for crime and squatting?

While I do commend Django for trying to help those who are down and out [[or out of it completely); As a homeowner, I sure wouldn't want this happening in my neighbourhood and I would want them out as soon as possible regardless of the nature of the neighbourhood itself.

Homeowners have a right to defend their neighbourhood and have the biggest say in what happens to it. These parasites only bring more misery and heartache to the rest of us. Let them go elsewhere [[shelter) or assist them in another way.

BTW: What is wrong with the kids [[other than a selfish Mother and I use the word Mother lightly...perhaps birther??) and why can't they assist?

[canuck]

Goat / While I do commend Django for trying to help those who are down and out [[or out of it completely); As a homeowner, I sure wouldn't want this happening in my neighbourhood and I would want them out as soon as possible regardless of the nature of the neighbourhood itself.

All that NIMBYism... How can you say no to a state of the art vacant house abuzz with focussed individuals doing one task well; shooting up? The city should grant them an overhead passageway
[[avoiding traffic delays and bad weather) to the dealer across the street. Every effort should be made to ensure safe, discreet and efficient marketing of drugs to the needy. Whole neighborhoods should be given over to this effort at simplifying drug use and corollary crime in order to protect and solidify the trade. Victimization is the key to freedom.

[gazhekwe]

So, is the house torn down?