Certification Of Basis For Eviction: Fill & Download for Free

Like all good legal answers… it depends, Chauncey Richburg. You didn’t ask this anonymously, and so I’m going take this question as a sincere one.Define the concept of citizenship as you mean for it to apply here. What differentiates a citizen from a resident?This is important. It was the basis for the 14th Amendment and the basis for those rulings.We need to start with Dred Scott v. Sanford, the infamous 1857 case that ruled that those of African descent, whether slaves or free, were not citizens of the United States and therefore did not have rights under the Constitution. Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote that a “perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery.” It proceeded to strike down the Missouri Compromise and was one of the key events that led to the Civil War.It’s a truly appalling decision in today’s context, if you were to read it. The decision reads like a KKK propaganda piece.After the Civil War, we passed the 13th Amendment officially abolishing slavery. However, it’s key to note here the basis for the American institution of slavery. It was based on white supremacy and the belief that other races, particularly Africans, were inherently inferior, sub-human beings. The 13th Amendment didn’t (and obviously couldn’t) abolish this belief.So, the South immediately moved to adopt “black codes.” These black codes severely restricted the rights of the newly freed blacks so as to essentially place them back in at least the social standing of slavery. White Southerners passed laws restricting the rights of blacks to own real or personal property, to form contracts (meaning whites couldn’t be bound to contracts entered into with blacks and could break them at will,) and instituting severely harsher criminal penalties - essentially jaywalking could get you a death sentence.This was justified because blacks were not citizens either of the individual States nor of the United States, and therefore entitled to no rights under the either the federal or various state constitutions.The first response of Congress was the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It would have granted citizenship to former slaves and anyone else in the borders of the United States. It was fought bitterly by the South and Andrew Johnson, who vetoed the law because he thought it was unconstitutional based on Dred Scott.That was what resulted in the very specific language of the Fourteenth Amendment.Section 1 of the 14th Amendment first guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”However, the Republican drafters of this language were worried that white Southerners could interpret this to exclude any African-born slaves, or even to black people born after secession, and that’s why the drafters went a step further to make sure that the equal protection clause applied to anyone in the jurisdiction of the United States. That’s why the equal protection clause is explicitly guaranteed to “all persons within its [each State’s] jurisdiction.”That’s why, whether a person is a citizen or not, no matter what, that person is still entitled to the equal protection of the laws, including the Constitution.The question then becomes one of what are protections under the Constitution, and what are privileges or rights under the Constitution.The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments deal with protections for those involved in the criminal justice system. The Fourth Amendment covers protections for people in interactions with the government up to the point of arrest. The Fifth Amendment covers protections for people under arrest, but not yet formally charged. The Sixth Amendment covers the protections of those formally criminally accused.There’s a very good reason not to ask whether a person is a citizen or not before enforcing these protections: how do I know whether you’re a citizen or not? Do you have to prove it first? Papers, please? How do I know those aren’t forged?If we start suspending due process and equal protection anytime someone is merely suspected of not being a full citizen, even if they’re a legal resident, it’s just a matter of time before someone innocent gets hammered by the system.This is already happening under the current administration and ICE raids. They’re picking up legal residents, even citizens, and holding them without proof, without charges, without bail hearings, anything.An 18-year-old U.S. citizen, a citizen, was arrested and held for twenty-six days and almost deported, even though he produced a driver’s license, Social Security card, and birth certificate for authorities when they first talked to him.[1][1][1][1] Officers told him he did not have a right to an attorney while in Border Patrol custody, nor allowed him to make any phone calls.That’s what happens when you decide that citizens have protections under the Constitution, and non-citizens don’t.How do you know who is a citizen and who isn’t?It’s funny, because as we are asking this question right now in this country, by this present administration, people with brown skin certainly seem to get looked at a lot closer than people who look like me: a pasty, balding, nearly middle-aged white dude. I don’t get asked about my citizenship. I don’t have to carry a birth certificate around with me.And a guy I know quite well does. He’s a fairly dark-skinned Hispanic man, about the same age as I am. He’s a natural-born citizen. His parents were natural born citizens. His grandparents were immigrants. He worries about this all the time. Every interaction with the police, he has to worry about whether or not they’re going to haul him in under suspicion that he’s here illegally.What’s the difference here between us? I’ll give you three guesses and the first two don’t count.If you value civil rights at all, you don’t want them depending on what you look like and whether or not some officer of the law believes you about your citizenship status.And that brings us back around to your original question, does applying these protections to people regardless of their citizenship status somehow damage what it means to be a citizen?It depends.Do you want to live in that kind of society, one where you have to present papers and hope that an officer believes you? Do you believe that the United States is for white people only and letting anyone else have citizenship dilutes the purity of the country? Do you believe we should still have Jim Crow and black codes and state-enforced apartheid?Then yes, you might believe that equal protection of the laws to everyone regardless of citizenship status damages your concept of citizenship, and denying those protections to non-citizens, when you get to decide who to believe is and is not a citizen, is a rather convenient method of figuring out which people to evict to get the white nationalist society you want.If that’s what you want.What?What’s that? That’s not want you want?I see. You’re totes not racist, but the illegals are voting, you say? Stealing jobs, eh? Gotta put a stop to that, huh?This is why I brought up the protections of the law as distinguished from the privileges of the law.We’re okay with denying non-citizens certain privileges, even some citizen rights under the Constitution. Non-citizen residents may or may not (state depending) have the right to vote. The Supreme Court has upheld restrictions preventing non-citizens from being public school teachers, from holding public office, or from being public notaries. If a citizen gets denied these things, the harm is not as significant.But we’re not okay with denying public school access, the right to an attorney in criminal proceedings, or medical care on the basis of citizenship, because the harm is much greater.We shouldn’t be okay with terrorizing communities by rounding up everyone who looks sorta Hispanic-ish and sorting them all out at the station later.[2][2][2][2] We shouldn’t be okay with indefinitely detaining people, detaining children in ways that could lead to permanent psychological trauma, without charges or trials or any way to challenge the legality of their detention.[3][3][3][3] [4][4][4][4]It hasn’t been particularly clear what standard the Supreme Court has applied to these kinds of cases; at times, it’s appeared to be strict scrutiny, and at other times, it’s more like heightened intermediate scrutiny.But where it comes to discriminatory practices, access to the courts and the protections of criminal justice, and others, aspects of the law where someone innocent could suffer incredible injustice, we really should make sure those protections are afforded to everyone.Because if they aren’t, one day, it might be you who suffers the consequences.First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.— Martin NiemöllerFootnotes[1] U.S. Citizen Detained For Weeks, Nearly Deported By Immigration Officials[1] U.S. Citizen Detained For Weeks, Nearly Deported By Immigration Officials[1] U.S. Citizen Detained For Weeks, Nearly Deported By Immigration Officials[1] U.S. Citizen Detained For Weeks, Nearly Deported By Immigration Officials[2] Four days of terror[2] Four days of terror[2] Four days of terror[2] Four days of terror[3] New Trump Policy Would Permit Indefinite Detention Of Migrant Families, Children[3] New Trump Policy Would Permit Indefinite Detention Of Migrant Families, Children[3] New Trump Policy Would Permit Indefinite Detention Of Migrant Families, Children[3] New Trump Policy Would Permit Indefinite Detention Of Migrant Families, Children[4] Lengthy Detention Of Migrant Children May Create Lasting Trauma, Say Researchers[4] Lengthy Detention Of Migrant Children May Create Lasting Trauma, Say Researchers[4] Lengthy Detention Of Migrant Children May Create Lasting Trauma, Say Researchers[4] Lengthy Detention Of Migrant Children May Create Lasting Trauma, Say Researchers

“Just ask a lawyer.” I hear over and over again. I get a referral, or a consult… They take one look at my case and tell me I need a lawyer, they can't help me.How is he being ordered to pay child support without having established paternity?How is he given time sharing with the children without establishing paternity?How is he allowed timesharing at all with one of the children, while there is a legal father who's paternity hasn't been dis-established?Nothing makes any sense… I don't know if it's even legal.In January, I filed a motion for a temporary relocation pending the final hearing, my ex got fired or quit. He made it clear he wasn't getting a job anytime soon. The case was originally filed by my children's biological father in December of 2016. Over a 100 filings on the docket and paternity still hasn't been established.I'm an idiot, I didn't prepare the right evidence. My ex had been terrorizing me all month before the hearing. I should have expected it, but for some reason I was still shocked that he would lie. Blatantly, about everything. Things that are easily proven wrong.Like being current on child support, despite being unemployed. But I'm an idiot. I didn't think he'd lie about basic facts. About having family and support in the area. How he'd take care of his kids no matter what. None of which is true.I filed exceptions to the magistrate's ruling, got the recording of the hearing, had it transcribed, file the original with court…and wait.I was granted a hearing, it was a month away, but my case was solid now.Yesterday, was the hearing. My ex didn't even show up. But once again I'm an idiot. I thought it was a re-hearing. Nope. It was to challenge the magistrate's ruling, on a legal basis or accuse him of misconduct.I kept it together, until I walked out of the courtroom. Then I just broke down.An hour after the hearing… it comes to me. Does the children's biological father even have standing challenge my motion when he has not even established paternity?All the reasons that I couldn't make it in 2015 leaving my abusive ex. Why I was so unbelievably screwed in 2016, 2017, last year... It's all done. I thought I was good. No matter what happened I'd never be in that position again.All mine and the kids identification has been replaced, my driver's license, birth certificates, social security cards. I have a bank account, a phone, a car. The civil suit against me for eviction has been dismissed, I appealed to have it removed from showing up. Paid off the landlord debt.Now the reasons have nothing to do with me.I've been declined for low income housing, because they anticipate me receiving child support, and it has to be counted as income EVEN IF I'M NOT RECEIVING IT.I was declined at another place for not having enough income, shows up on their income verification form how much was actually received. Even though I should be receiving child support, it's not stable, and there is not a reasonable expectation that it will be.Three years later. I'm faced with the same choices.

Sheriff position in Ireland is not the guy with a six-shooter who meets the bad guy at Highnoon.Currently, there are 16 sheriffs in Ireland. There are two in Dublin (city and county) and two in Cork (city and county), with a dozen more ‘revenue’ sheriffs throughout the country, whose primary responsibility is to collect taxes on behalf of the collector general.They are government-appointed bailiffs empowered to seize goods or enforce eviction orders on behalf of Revenue Commissioners, banks and creditors who secure court orders. They operate as sole traders, taking a cut of whatever assets they seize as payment.Far-reaching powers allow them to break into private homes without a search warrant and seize paintings, furniture or anything else of worth that can be off-set against the debt.The concept of a sheriff is a pre-Norman one and its continued existence in Ireland is a remnant of English law.The word itself comes from the words shire and reeve, where reeve is old English for an agent of the king and shire is an administration subdivision.Originally comprising of a single ‘high sheriff’ with many ‘under-sheriffs’, they were responsible for the enforcement of court judgements.Changes in the 19th century took the enforcement of these judgements away from the high sheriff and into the hands of the under-sheriffs who then, in turn, handed over the responsibility to bailiffs.After independence, the Court Officers Act of 1926 led to the high sheriff being abolished and the transfer of under-sheriff functions to county registrars as each under-sheriff post became vacant.Sheriffs and County RegistrarsSheriffs enforce judgments in counties Cork and Dublin while County Registrars enforce them in all other places.Sheriffs are self-employed people who are paid for their enforcement work on a commission basis. The system is called 'poundage'. The fees that they get are set out in Statutory Instruments. The current one is the Sheriff’s Fees and Expenses Order (SI 644/2005) made under the Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1926. This provides for various fixed fees and a scale of fees related to the amount involved. This is 5% of the first €5,500 and 2.5% of the balance. It also provides for the payment of various expenses incurred in the enforcement process.County Registrars are civil servants whose main job is to organise the business of the Circuit Court in their areas. (They are also Returning Officers for elections and referendums.)As well as County Sheriffs in Cork and Dublin, there are Revenue Sheriffs who enforce debts owed to the Revenue Commissioners. They have the power to collect tax debts. They can do this on the basis of a certificate of liability issued by the Collector General (the official in the Revenue Commissioners who is responsible for collecting taxes) and do not need a court order. Revenue debts can also be collected in the normal way if there is a court orderRoles of the Dublin County SheriffThe Dublin County Sheriff is responsible for the enforcement of Court Orders and Revenue Certificates and for acting as Returning Officer under section 30(2) of the Electoral Act 1992.Role of the Revenue SheriffThe Revenue Sheriff is responsible for the enforcement of Revenue Certificates under Section 960L of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997.So yeah. a Sheriff in Ireland is a million miles away from what it means in The States. Given Ireland's emotional attachment to the land and genetic memory of people being evicted during the famine and land wars. It is a difficult position given that they have powers of repossession and eviction.Explainer: Who and what are Ireland's sheriffs?Good, bad and ugly side of being the city's sheriff - Independent.ieSheriffs (Ireland) Act, 1920