New CDC Eviction Moratorium

[BTR1701]

The new 60-day CDC eviction moratorium carries steep criminal penalties for
individual landlords who break the law:

- Potential $100k fine and 1 year in jail if eviction doesn't result in
death
- Up to $250k fine and 1 year in jail if evicted person dies

All this despite the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the
CDC has no legal authority to impose such a thing on American citizens.

But Dems apparently no longer care about pesky things like laws and the
Judicial Branch. Professional harridan and Democrat congresswoman Maxine
Waters directly called for the CDC to ignore the Supreme Court, which it
did.

Be interesting to see what happens when the first landlord violates this
ban and Creepy Joe's DOJ tries to prosecute. The DOJ brings charges, the
defense cites the Supreme Court's ruling to the trial court judge, the
judge looks at the AUSA for a rebuttal and he just shrugs and says, "Yes,
judge, we acknowledge that ruling but we don't like it. It's not good for
our political agenda, so we're ignoring it." Judge dismisses the case with
prejudice, issues an injunction against any further enforcement of the
moratorium, and sets a hearing for Merrick Garland to appear before him and
explain why he shouldn't be jailed for abuse of the legal system and
contempt of court, or at the very least reported to the bar with a judicial
recommendation for sanctions.

[RichA]

The moratorium only delays the inevitable. Since they've already doled out trillions in stimulus, they should
do interest free, long-term loans because realistically, the moment the moratorium is lifted and people suddenly
owe say 4-8 months of rent, they are done-for, few will be able to catch-up. But why the government is burning
landlords instead of a doing a loan-package is beyond me.

[trotsky]

On 8/3/21 11:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> The new 60-day CDC eviction moratorium carries steep criminal penalties for
> individual landlords who break the law:
>
> - Potential $100k fine and 1 year in jail if eviction doesn't result in
> death
> - Up to $250k fine and 1 year in jail if evicted person dies
>
> All this despite the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the
> CDC has no legal authority to impose such a thing on American citizens.

Ah, you're starting to see the political see saw we're on now grasshopper.

> But Dems apparently no longer care about pesky things like laws and the
> Judicial Branch.

Kind of like when McConnell denied tradition and the spirit of the
Constitution by refusing to confirm a Supreme Court justice. My
conclusion is you're legitmately mentally ill by constantly thinking in
paranoiac, reality denying terms like this. I've long since concluded
you've had to see a mental health professional about this by you don't
have the balls to answer, of course.



Subsequent bullshit snipped.

[trotsky]

So true. Like me, people are going to have find jobs and go back to work.

[Adam H. Kerman]

BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>The new 60-day CDC eviction moratorium carries steep criminal penalties for
>individual landlords who break the law:

>- Potential $100k fine and 1 year in jail if eviction doesn't result in
>death
>- Up to $250k fine and 1 year in jail if evicted person dies

I read through the order, which is here:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/communication/Signed-CDC-Eviction-Order.pdf

That's kind of disturbing. It's extremely difficult to prove that a
death that followed an eviction was the result of an eviction.

I was wondering about mortgage forclosures, but that's not covered by
the order.

They talked about the 120-day eviction moratorium in the CARES Act
having expired July 24, 2020, and actions taken by governors and local
authorities. None of that was ever litigated.

I still want to know how this isn't a violation of federalism, and if
it's not, how taking away a landlord's right to go to court isn't a
violation of the civil right of due process.

There was another order by CDC issued September 4, 2020, expired December
31, 2020. It was not stated under what statutory authority the order
was issued. I never quite got why that didn't expire with the end of
the Trump administration or maybe till January 31 as long as they were
issuing it illegally.

It said an appropriations act retroactively approved the order and
extended it till January 31. Isn't there something unconstitutional
about ex post facto law? This order was extended multiple times till it
was intended NOT to be extended beyond July 31, but doesn't explain the
statutory authority. It's also bizarrely not new statutory authority but
Congress claiming they had the authority to do so under existing public
health law.

Why do laws get written this way? They are just begging a federal judge
to find them unconstitutional. Why not do it the right way, giving the
authority to the Secretary of Housing for urban areas and the Secretary
of Agriculture for rural areas (and maybe the Secretary of the Interior
for tribal areas) with a finding of excessive disease transmission in
specific areas by the Secretary of Health?

It would make me feel a lot more confortable with this level of
government intrusion into contract law if it wasn't the CDC director
asserting authority over landlord-tenant law and especially the ability
to get into court.

Also, without a federal appropriation that gets this rent paid, I
continue to question how this isn't a taking, and if you don't allow the
states to administer it, a violation of federalism.

>All this despite the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the
>CDC has no legal authority to impose such a thing on American citizens.

Now they're claiming legal authority. 42 U.S.C. 264

They're also claiming that these are emergency orders and not
regulations under the Administrative Procedures Act. Seems to me that
given the length of the pandemic, we could come up with well thought out
permanent regulations after public comment by this point.

I love this finding about how temporarily sharing housing following an
eviction is a health threat:

Shared housing is not limited to friends and family. It includes
a broad range of settings, including transitional housing and
domestic violence and abuse shelters. Special considerations
exist for such housing because of the challenges of maintaining
social distance. Residents often gather closely or use shared
equipment, such as kitchen appliances, laundry facilities,
stairwells, and elevators.

If a tenant is living in an apartment building, then there can very well
be a shared laundry, stairwells, and elevators. This is irrelevant.

>But Dems apparently no longer care about pesky things like laws and the
>Judicial Branch. Professional harridan and Democrat congresswoman Maxine
>Waters directly called for the CDC to ignore the Supreme Court, which it
>did.

>Be interesting to see what happens when the first landlord violates this
>ban and Creepy Joe's DOJ tries to prosecute. The DOJ brings charges, the
>defense cites the Supreme Court's ruling to the trial court judge, the
>judge looks at the AUSA for a rebuttal and he just shrugs and says, "Yes,
>judge, we acknowledge that ruling but we don't like it. It's not good for
>our political agenda, so we're ignoring it." Judge dismisses the case with
>prejudice, issues an injunction against any further enforcement of the
>moratorium, and sets a hearing for Merrick Garland to appear before him and
>explain why he shouldn't be jailed for abuse of the legal system and
>contempt of court, or at the very least reported to the bar with a judicial
>recommendation for sanctions.

We'll see.

[RichA]

Some are not interested. They were, in Canada, paid 75% of their income, got to sit around, no commuting costs, no having to pay for lunches. it was a year-long holiday.

[trotsky]

Well anonyshitted. Since you're an anonyshit, we don't know if you have
a job, but you'll talk shit about those who are unemployment.


Here in the U.S. the jobs report was half what was predicted. If that
happens again they'll be talking about another unemployment extension.

[RichA]

Far as I know, they've never granted extensions in Canada and Ontario, apparently had an eviction moratorium, but landlords
could put in the paperwork so when it lapsed (a few weeks back) the process would begin automatically. Hey! Maybe we'll
see tent cities, like L.A.? Toronto in its ONE non-leftwing act TURFED a whole large group of squatters who were camped-out
on three separate city properties. They basically bulldozed their campsites. Why? Because the verminous trash who inhabited them
couldn't keep quiet at 2am, set fires, produced copious amounts of litter, broken bottles, and some harassed TAXPAYERS who lived in the area.

[ZZyXX]

admit it, most things are way beyond you

[ZZyXX]

is your google broken

[trotsky]

Which process, the eviction process or the moratorium "process"? Your
mind looks really fried now.

[trotsky]

Twenty years ago "Rich" wasn't this bad. Time has ravaged his cognitive
abilities.

[chromebook test]

“The President candidly acknowledged that issuing the extension without legal authority was a delay tactic because, ‘by the time it gets litigated, it will probably give some additional time while we’re getting that $45 billion out to people who are, in fact, behind in the rent and don’t have the money,’ ” Brett A. Shumate, a lawyer from Jones Day who is representing the landlords, said in the emergency application.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/04/politics/landlords-federal-court-block-eviction-moratorium/index.html

[thinbluemime CAN"T KEEP A GOOD MIME DOWN]

Despite tens of billions of dollars in rental relief being made available to tenants who are behind on their housing payments...

While over $46 billion in rental relief was allocated by the federal government, just $3 billion has made it out.

Each state has its own program and process for disbursing the aid. However, tenants face an uphill battle when it comes to getting the relief, since they have to overcome multiple barriers

The most basic barrier, at least in Nebraska, is that many tenants often have no idea the assistance is even available,
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/03/why-tenants-are-still-struggling-despite-46-billion-dollars-in-rental-relief.html



Thousands of Ohioans, who held onto their homes because of a federal moratorium on evictions, could now find themselves without a place to live.

It's not because there isn't money to pay their rent. Ohio has more than $1 billion in emergency rental assistance dollars from the federal government and almost all of it has yet to be spent.

The problem — and it's one community groups across the country are facing — is they can't process applications fast enough.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2021/08/02/eviction-looms-ohio-tenants-rent-assistance-sits-unspent/5427836001/





Summary: Biden employs illegal moratorium on rent to delay evictions until states can distribute emergency federal funds

[BTR1701]

> legal authority was a delay tactic."

It's also an intentional violation of his oath of office. Not that they
care about such things anymore.

[chromebook test]

We are a nation of law, good law is what separates us from the law of the jungle.

But there is the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. The letter is strict, the spirit is compassionate.

Landlords will for the most part be paid once the states distribute the federal money. In the meantime, evoking the spirit of the law avoids massive human hardship and American family displacement, which will make the overall covid recovery quicker, even for those of us sitting comfortably next to our warm hearth.

Do I like what Biden has done? Not entirely, we are living in a world of shit right now, but In this case mime approves.

[trotsky]

Because of Trump?