Illinois No Trespass Letter: Fill & Download for Free

It’s hard to understand what your situation is. I can only assume that you are trying to help out your daughter to kick out her boyfriend, whom she wants out of your property. As you know, right now is State moratorium on evictions. The better option for you, with or without moratorium, if he is not on her lease in any form and never ever paid you rent in any traceable form e.g. no checks, no wire, no transfer, no online payment, no phone applications and no receipts, to serve “No Trespassing” letter. That letter sample form you can find online. The possible problem you can face is jurisdiction and how to serve that letter properly. Since after service, you are dropping copy of it to local PD, your first step should be talking to some sergeant at the station before service. And retrace steps as s(he) directed. They might require, that police officer must serve that notice to be valid or some other things that are not really by the book. This might be faster way to achieve your goal. Otherwise you have to wait few months

I tend to dislike any statement that uses the term “Native Americans”. It’s like you took a look at Poland and used this example to state generalities about “Indo-Europeans”, whether they live in Portugal or are Indians. As if worshippers of Ganesh were Catholics!Also people tend to project fantasies on ancient indigenous societies and want to find in them the lost Paradise of Eden, “primitive communism”, or “anarcho-primitivism”, or whatever… But the more I read about them, the less pleasant I find these societies, and the XXIst century still is probably more comfortable in many ways.I don’t think any indigenous society had a total absence of property or territorialism, even in the nomadic societies, it’s just that they had very different priorities, that were the product of a different lifestyle.In nomadic cultures speaking Algonquian languages (this is what I will discuss, don’t generalize outside of these cultures), French missionaries would notice that indigenous were often « chapardeurs » (pilferers). In French it would usually imply you’re a petty thief, but that’s not what it means here. They meant that when they left their own personal possessions around, it was likely an indigenous would just pick it up, pass it to someone else, it would circulate among them and they would not have any inhibition thinking that the item belonged to the missionary. This is usually where the notions that they did not have a notion of private property is from and that they shared everything. Several of these nomadic Algonquian-speakers found simply offensive that missionaries would consider certain items were their exclusive possessions, it was regarded as an anti-social behavior; you liked objects more than people. Also, it was common that when a missionary gifted something, the indigenous that received it requested the missionary to keep custody of it, because otherwise he would lose the exclusivity over the object (eventually, indigenous accepted that the French did not like their items to be passed around without their permission).(Map of the Algonquian family of languages, named from the Algonquin nation. This is not a political map and a lot of indigenous polities are missing.)« […] quand vous refusez quelque chose à un Sauvage, aussitôt il vous dit Khisakhitan : Tu aimes cela, sakhita, sakhita, aime-le, aime-le, comme s’ils voulaient dire qu’on est attaché à ce qu’on aime. »“[…] when you refuse something to a Savage, right then he tells you Khisakhitan: You like this, sakhita, sakhita, like it, like it, as if they wanted to say one is attached to what one likes.”(Relations des Jésuites)Paradoxically, this propensity to share everything was the cornerstone of inequality in those nations: social prestige was derived from the ability to gift a lot of wealth to everyone. Europeans had a similar concept, called with the Greek word evergetism, when rich bourgeois were expected, as good Christians, to donate a lot to their city, as compensation for being rich. For the French in America, you have an example of this when the rich bourgeois Charles Aubert de La Chesnaye donated money to relieve people that lost their homes in a fire in Québec City. I would also find a similarity with Soviet bureaucracy: a Soviet official was not supposed to own anything, he had to temporarily use a car or an house issued by the State during his lifetime, but not formally owning those did not mean that their way of life was not superior to most people because in the end the exclusive right to use something can resemble a lot to property when it’s reserved to the elite. Wealth, in many indigenous cultures, was to give every wealth you could capture to the entire nation, as a mean to strenghten political bonds and assert your political power, which would put you in an unequal position as you would have more influence.Because no, these societies were not completely equal. And missionaries paid a lot of attention to how power worked because a common evangelization strategy was to target the most influential people, convert them, and use their influence to convert everyone else, so they were actively looking for powerful figures. While, for example, the offices of what we tend to call “chiefs” in our languages (it can be military chiefs, political chiefs, who are rarely the same people), or as the French said “captains”, were not hereditary, in reality some families were capable to reproduce themselves in these positions and create a quasi-heredity. For example, among the Odawa ogimaag (“chiefs”), you had a chief called Nissowaquet, and the name was transmitted to another individual when the former one died, and it tended to remain in the same family. In short, some people had better contacts, and could achieve more, obtain more wealth for their clans trough warfare or trade, and be more politically influential, despite there was no power as concentrated as anything the Europeans were familiar with.Another factor of unequality was eloquence. If you had better rhetorics and could persuade others with seductive words, you could go far in life in these societies. It sounds awfully like the Roman politicans that cultivated the art of rhetorics precisely for the same goal. Some missionaries studied so well indigenous languages that they became truly eloquent and got the admiration of the nation, and were sometimes even given important responsibilities.(A French drawing of an Illinois nation, with a female Fox slave sat at the lower left corner of the picture. The standing man in the right is not Illinois but an Attakapa.)(An indigenous-crafted halter for slaves)Something leftists often like to overlook and forget is that there was in fact ONE private property in these societies: slaves. And yes, there was a slavery, but often its cultural peculiarities confuse people that grew with the European notions about slavery. First of all, indigenous slaves were pretty much never hereditary. You can’t be born a slave. This is a problem as it’s often part of the definition of slavery for Europeans. Another problem is that there is great variance in the treatment of slaves and so sometimes it can be so soft you wouldn’t want to use the word “slave”:The best-case scenario is that you are a kid captured in a raid, you are a prisoner of war that is enslaved, and you are tortured by cutting you a finger, but you impress the indigenous by remaining stoic. A family among your captors wants to replace one of their dead so you are adopted. Initially, you are a prisoner: you are not free to escape, you will be pursued if you try to escape. But over time, the nation trusts you, you become a full member of the nation, and you may even become someone important. This happened to a few French as well, like Guillaume Couture, who is the only European in history to become a member of the Iroquois Council. Due to this scenario, many historians considered that there was no indigenous slavery, merely adoption. [Yes, I know Iroquois are to be excluded from the Algonquian peoples, but I think that phenomenon may also happen among them.]Indigenous typically torture enemy warriors. It was in fact an honor, it was “manly” to remain stoic in front of pain and indigenous admired that quite a lot and even trained their children to be used to pain. Sometimes they even practiced ritual cannibalism with their enemies (which was otherwise a terrible crime within the nation). This is the fate of those who are not enslaved because they are killed right away.The French hated that custom, because they were from a culture in which officers moved around with their bed and tea set and enemy officers exchanged pleasant conversations before shooting at each other. (« Messieurs les Anglais, tirez les premiers. », Battle of Fontenoy) Despite this, they resolved to do it as well in Détroit, for example, because they found that if they did not torture enemy indigenous, they lost all respect and credibility and were not considered powerful. So the French reluctantly tolerated that sort of torture and would also let their allies burn indigenous enemies alive. The depiction in the series Barkskins that the French would hang Iroquois on a tree to spread terror is outrageously inaccurate and contrary to their entire culture of war of the time.Read more: the criticism of how New France is represented in Annie Proulx’s Barkskins (book and TV) by the Franco-Ontarian historian Joseph Gagné, Barkskins: Dud on Arrival (let’s just say it’s awfully inaccurate)Another possibility is that you are captured, but you resist too much. They kill you brutally and dishonorably, they are losing patience.Or you are too weak to walk, they lose patience, they kill you. Indigenous hate slaves that are slowing them down.You are forced to walk with an halter. When the band stops to sleep, you have to lie down and you are tied to poles so you can sleep while not being able to escape.Your social standing is that of a dog, and indigenous treat dogs very badly. In fact, the word for slave is the word for dog, or any other domestic animal. A dog is malnourished by definition, that’s what they consider good training for a dog. You may regularly be beaten.Their treatment of dogs shocked the French, at least the nobles among them, because for the French the dog was a prestigious noble animal used by the nobles in their hunts in the super prestigious chasse à courre, and there was an entire science of taking care of dogs, called vénerie, with detailed treatises explaining how to take care of dogs. French peasants however, not so much, they regarded them just as tools.Yes, indigenous that practiced agriculture would use you as forced labor for agriculture, but what differs from Europeans of the sugar colonies is that slaves were not really essential for that and their absence was not much of a problem.You would be used as a messenger, run errands.You could be a sexual slave. In the specific case of the Illinois, who were a patrilocal and patrilinear society as opposed to many of their northern cousins, a man could have four “wives”, several of which were slaves. The Illinois, unusually for the nations of their language group, were pretty patriarchal and female slaves had the tip of the nose cut off if they “cheated” on their “husband”.The French punishment for the same offense was to send the woman to a convent for some time and to ban the man she cheated with.As a slave, your life was disposable and you could be killed on a whim for no reason if one of your captors had a moment of anger.Slaves could be gifted to another nation as diplomatic present. For example, the father Marquette learned the illinois language by using a slave that the Illinois gifted to the Odawa, who in turn gifted him to Marquette.The Illinois considered that enslavement was an “ingurgitation” into the nation, and that manumission was “vomiting”.So to go back to private property, a slave was typically reserved to an individual, and you had to ask permission to borrow a slave. So this is totally unlike material possessions which were communal properties. So slaves are a big exception. In Illinois society, social prestige was proportional to the number of slaves you captured in war, and they got a tattoo for each slave they captured.Source for slavery : Brett Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries in New France, 2012.Algonquian-speaking nations didn’t really have a notion of obedience or chain of command. Military leaders were appointed by their peers for a campaign, and it was not a sense of obedience that bounded the people “under” them to them but mere admiration. Indigenous warriors could simply decide to leave a campaign and it was not considered “desertion”. What made a military leader followed was just admiration, and that admiration replaced quite well obedience. They would follow the commander everywhere and sometimes would prefer to die rather than admit to them they did a mistake. Indigenous stopped frequently to debate the next move, military decisions were collegial. So this is very different from Europe, where armies were very coercitive. A form of obedience was obtained but trough persuasion, which is why again rhetorics makes a huge difference. Class is the product of speech. Another difference is that indigenous do not observe “articles of capitulation”. There is no such thing as conditionnal surrender. You can’t capitulate to indigenous, they will take your belongings and kill anyone that resists and you can’t negociate anything, yet another offensive thing for Europeans.As for territory, it’s a difficult thing to address. Algonquian societies lived in a world in which there was no territorial stability for anything. Populations moved, even sedentary villages moved, game and fish moved, etc. Therefore a notion of border was not really possible, and anyways we tend to forget that Europe in the Middle Ages had not borders either but at best “marches” (sort of buffer zones). What complicates things even more is that there was a sort of “expanded territory” used for hunting, which was much bigger than the core territory they regarded their own, and often indigenous disputes are in these territories. Indigenous lived in a world in which spirits inhabited everything and you negociated with them to get meat or maple sap or corn.It’s difficult to understand what conquest means for them. My hunch is that conquest is more about dominating populations rather than territories, but even then I’m not sure. Indigenous did make war on the resources : they sometimes overhunted on purpose on their enemies’ territories just to disrupt their economy (especially once the beaver became a commodity to trade with the French). For the indigenous, it’s not possible to own “land” as for them, “land” is something that cannot be measured and quantified (much like the sea), therefore you can only be a caretaker of the land; there can be attribution but not possession in the sense Roman law understands it. Land is seen as infinite and boundless. So any use of land in the details is necessarily temporary, transitory; only vague regions can be claimed.Yes, there is territoriality. They did not consider that everyone could just pass through their territory and they even enforced “customs” for people that passed trough them for trade. The Algonquins for example watched the circulation of canoes at the île aux Allumettes to charge a toll on passing merchants.L'Isle-aux-AllumettesThere exists a fascinating French document that reveals a lot about how territoriality works between nomads. Let us remember that the French governor, known as Onontio to the indigenous, pretended to become the arbiter that would solve conflicts between all the nations. Some nations took that seriously and asked the French for arbitration in their disputes.In March 1705, a band of Innu indigenous [Montagnais in French] known to the French as Guillaume Chische, Joseph Marachualik and François ȣcachy [ȣ is a Latin ligature of letters that is an O topped with an U, making the sound [u], spelled OU in French], had a camp in the territory where they hunted beaver. They were somewhere around their summer quarters at the Lac Saint-Jean, and they were traveling west to reach their winter quarters. Then, they sighted numerous footprints in the snow. They suspected it was Abenakis, and they considered them trespassers that were “pillaging” their furs.Their suspicions proved correct : they encountered a band of 6 Abenakis led by François Thékȣérimat. The Innu were at a disadvantage, they had numerical inferiority. The Abenaki first sent to the Innu a delegation matching their numbers. They were warning the Innu that they were trespassing, and for now they would not resort to violence, but it was a warning. According to what the Innu told the French :“Thékȣérimat told us that the lands of Lac Saint-Jean belonged to the Abénaquis and that they had come to hunt on them”This claim meant that the Abenaki considered they could “pillage” what the Innu had hunted, as they considered that their property. It’s interesting to note that Innu and Abenaki were military allies. Nethertheless, there is a lot of tension in the situation. The Abenakis are not doing acts of war but they are forceful towards their allies.This Innu band could not resist as it was in inferiority and so gave in : they offered 6 moose hides to be spared from pillage. They also let the Abenaki sleep in their lodge and in the morning, they were intimidated enough to reveal the location of their food caches. They even gave the Abenakis a toboggan to carry their loot.The French were an interested party indirectly: the merchant François Hazeur sold things on credit to the Innu, and now the Innu were not able to pay their debt due to the Abenaki incursions. This is why Hazeur insisted that the French, as arbiters of the indigenous nations, obtain justice for the Innu. Hazeur also suspected that a rival French trader based in Trois-Rivières was backing the Abenakis.All of these people went to meet the French intendant, the highest magistrate for civilian matters, to begin an inquiry. The 3 Innu were interrogated with the help of an interpreter and a clerk recorded their words.The intendant summoned Louis Thékȣérimat, son of the Abenaki chief involved in the dispute, and held a separate interrogation. The Abenaki version said that the lands belonged to his father, and that they visited the Innu camp to lodge a protest.“They [the Abenaki] complained that the Montagnais were hunting on their lands, and that they had so thoroughly destroyed the animals on it, that they could find no food, to the point where they had had to make canoes in order to return [to Saint-François].”The Abenaki complained that the Innu were killing all the moose, even the ones that they had cared to “raise” and “conserve”. Even more scandalously, the Innu would have killed all the beavers.In the Innu testimony, the French asked: is it not a rule among them never to hunt without permission on the lands of another?The Innu answered :“it is a rule for us that each hunter hunts on his own lands.”The French asked to the Abenaki Louis Thékȣérimat : did the Abénaquis usually hunt in this area?“Replied that they go there whenever they want and that no one has ever opposed them. Being presently numerous, they have been obliged to go and seek their livelihood where they could and the land in question belonged to his grandfather who in turn gave it to his father. In killing all the animals that were in this place, the said Montagnais have, in effect, killed the Abénaquis themselves.”Interestingly, neither party uses any landmark and they are not trying to place a boundiary.In the end, the French were baffled, had no idea how to solve the issue, and so did not decide anything for the Innu and Abenaki (presuming both sides would have accepted their ruling) and left them to solve their issue, but ordered new regulations for the French King’s Posts in Innu territory in relation to this episode.So I would say nomadic territories are the hunting grounds used by a band (a hunting party, a fraction of a nomadic nation). They belong to a specific band in the nation. The animal resources on the territory belong to the band. Perhaps when they all meet in the summer, properties are communal, but in the winter it’s to the band. I guess the summer territory is the core territory, less prone to disputes between nations, but the winter territory (hunting grounds, with the nation dispersing) is much bigger and so more prone to disputes.Source for this episode : Allan Greer, Property and Dispossession: Natives, Empires and Land in Early Modern North America, 2018, pp. 298–305.So yes, there is inequality (but it’s rather light), there is private property (slaves), there is territoriality. It’s just really not similar to European notions.When I did not quote a specific source, I probably took it in Le Piège de la liberté and in Le Pays renversé. Both these books draw heavily on La Relation des jésuites. There may also be Masters of the Middle Waters as well.What I discussed here is entirely irrelevant to the Mexicas of Tenochtitlán. These people, who built an aggressive empire, had sort of notaries that recorded the information on who owned what, and the lands used for agriculture had boundiaries (in the form of agave plants). In their case you could almost say they had a cadastre, a land survey.EDIT : Since you may want to study the documents pertaining to the territorial conflicts between the nomadic Innu and Abenaki, I will put here what Allan Greer quoted exactly :France, Archives nationales d’outre-mer, colonies (shortened ANOM), C11A, vol. 25, fol. 27–36, Requête du Sr. Hazard [could it be a typo of Hazeur ?] à Jacques Raudot, 3 August 1706, plus attached documents.See also ibid., 25: 82–87v, Déclaration à Messieurs les directeurs general [directeurs généraux] de la Compagnie de la colonie de Canada, 19 June 1705; ibid., 25: 76v; Petition of Sr. Hazeur to Govr. Vaudreuil, 4 November 1705; ibid., 27: 55v, Hazeur to Pontchartrain, 5 November 1707.These were studied in Toby Morantz, “Colonial French Insights into Early 18th- Century Algonquians of Central Quebec,” in Papers of the Twenty-Second Algonquian Conference, ed. William Cowan (Ottawa: Carleton University, 1991), 213–24; Sylvie Savoie and Jean Tanguay, “Le nœud de l’ancienne amitié: La presence abénaquise sur la rive nord du Saint-Laurent aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles,” Recherches amérindiennes au Québec 33 (2003): 36–41; Nelson-Martin Dawson, Feu, fourrures, fléaux et foi foudroyèrent: les Montagnais: Histoire et destin de ces tribus nomades d’après les archives de l’époque coloniale (Sillery: Septentrion, 2005), 182–84.FR

I’m looking in my clipboard and see at least two copies of each of the following:Trespass Notice. This is a generic letter saying, “Don’t come back to X for a year from this date.” The officer fills in the name and identifying information of the person being trespassed and the information on the property involved (store name, address, etc.), then gives the trespassed person a copy. One copy stays with the store or “victim” and another copy goes to the PD’s records section. The information is listed as a “special alert” if the person’s name is checked in the computer system.State Notice to Appear (aka a summons) This is actually an arrest, but the person ends up being released immediately. The paperwork goes to the State’s Attorney’s office and the subject has to appear in court on an assigned date.“No Report Required” City Ordinance Citation. These are used for minor ordinance violations such as minor in possession of alcoholic beverages, public urination, carrying alcoholic beverages out of a bar, etc. There’s room for a short narrative.“Report Required” City Ordinance Citation. These are used for more significant ordinance violations which require a separate narrative. After one of these is issued, the officer still has to generate a written narrative about the incident.Tow Report. Tow a car for any reason? Fill one of these forms out.Miranda Warning. This is for documenting the arrestee’s waiver of his/her Miranda rights.Consent to search. Similar to the Miranda Warning, a form noting the subject’s consent to search his/her person or a place s/he has control over. This is not needed if a search warrant is being served or if one of the recognized exceptions to a warrant is present.Domestic Violence packet: A large manila folder with various forms to fill out and information for both the offender and victim in a domestic violence situation.DUI packet: A large manila folder with various forms needed for DUI investigations.Stop Receipt: This is a new addition for Illinois officers (January ‘16). The State now requires officers to issue a “receipt” after any subject stop which involves any “hands-on” contact with the subject. For instance, if I conduct a Terry pat-down for weapons on a jaywalker, I have to give the jaywalker a receipt with an explanation of why I performed the pat-down.I have a separate, smaller clipboard for my traffic citation and traffic warning books.I noticed your comment to Mark Werner’s answer that your project is set in the mid-80s. If so, you could probably eliminate many of the forms I listed.The Miranda form would have been used. Miranda was decided nearly 20 years earlier and had been subjected to a few additional cases to “tweak” it already, so officers probably had some standardized form for arrests.The DUI packet (if it existed) probably only had a few items in it (the NHTSA had only just established the Standardized Field Sobriety Test battery in 1981).The domestic violence packet wouldn’t exist at all unless the department was a very progressive one. While the women’s rights movement had been going on for a decade or so, many agencies did not embrace “must arrest” policies or actual intervention until later.The Notice to Appear or summons was used.There was probably a trespass notice available. I don’t know if the tow report would be used, since many tow policies evolved from search and seizure cases through the years.The biggest difference, as Mr. Werner noted in his answer, is that officers would have multiple blank copies of reports. Before in-car computer-generated reports became possible, reports were handwritten on blank forms. Some agencies wouldn’t allow officers to come back to Post to write the reports, so you’d sit in the back corner of a parking lot somewhere and fill out everything in medium-point black ink. Some agencies had specific report forms for specific crimes, but my agency used a generic blank form.