Direct Tv Landlord Approval: Fill & Download for Free

Lenny Chase has given an excellent answer, clearly defining the difference between a media vendor and owner.Let me take the discussion in a slight different direction to emphasize a key point for all marketers. You might already be your own ‘media owner’…The vast majority of businesses are using ‘rented’ media. This is media where you pay money to use the media. Facebook is a simple example. You pay money to use the media. TV is the same. Instagram and almost every other online and offline media are rented. You will never own them.When you rent, just like renting a house or apartment, the landlord makes the rules. And changes them if they like. Algorithms change with no notice, your ads are dropped or not approved, or few see them. And you can’t do anything about it. If you don’t like it- tough!But there is one media that is ‘owned’. Where you make the rules, changes, and modifications. And can put up any ads you want with your approval only.Amazingly, few businesses really take advantage of this media they own.How can you be a ‘media owner’? If you have a website, a domain, you already are a media owner!All media is just a delivery system for a compelling message to an ideal prospect. And your website should be doing that for you.You control the content, can direct prospects to this media, and don’t have to worry about the ‘media landlord ‘ making changes that devastate all your previous work.Anyone who is in business and not leveraging the media they own is throwing away a lot of money. Or ‘donating’ it to the Zuckerberg s of the world.If you own a media, and a website is a media, then start acting like a media owner!!

In the wake of two no-fault evictions from homes we had poured great deal of effort into, to improve as places to live in in a dignified way, I wrote a 143 page analysis on the imminence of a rental crisis in Seattle, how that would harm social equity, and on ways I thought it could be mitigated. Naively, I imagined that someone on the city council might study what was in that blog in search of ideas of value. Though I sent them the information on how to access the blog, I never heard a peep back from anybody. Your question, however, gives me the opportunity to extract a few points from that blog concerning evictions. Thank you for that.Being evicted, for any reason whatever, is a life-shaking (and sometimes life-shattering) event. It can cause homelessness. It can break a business. It can split up families, lead to divorce and even end in suicide. It imposes upon a renter many of the burdens experienced by refugees who have had to flee to another country, and yet, despite the many so affected, there are no government refugee camps for displaced renters (as if, given the dug-in state of the American Mind, there would ever be).If, as is recognized in some of the more developed nations of the world, access by the individual to safe, secure and healthful housing is indeed a human right, then being evicted without justifiable cause or proper reciprocal is the same as being stripped of a basic human right and, therefore, not to be condoned lightly by society, especially not for purposes of advantage to a landlord that are less socially compelling than those of keeping a citizen housed.I'm sorry, but when it comes to a landlord suddenly thinking he'd like to cash on all the nice work you've been doing around the crappy piece of property he rented to you, just because some real estate agent's client drove by your place and coveted it, (as happened to us), that does not constitute a priority of greater human importance than your being able to continue living there. What is society coming to when the casual coveting of a poor man's home by a rich man trumps the dire need of the poor man and his family to stay there? (Change the gender, if you like; the premise remains). Is this nothing more than a big-dog-eat-little -dog society? Is this all that 400 years of presence on this continent can produce? Relieving a poorer citizen of his/her HOME to indulge the fancy of a richer citizen, without proper reciprocal consideration, is no more the workings of a free society than selling the bodies of young women to rich men is. Why do we shy so away from calling it exactly what it is - namely, greed at work - the worst of the Seven Deadly Sins? Could it be moral cowardice?Since that's exactly what happened to us, not once, but three times, I know all too well what you go through during, and in the wake, of it.Back in 1776, that kind of action on the part of the British security forces was kindling to the fires of revolution, but today, Americans have grown soft and compliant and used to seeing their neighbors financially brutalized in that kind of way. Everyone knows someone to whom this very thing has happened. Do they get upset about it? No, the way they see it, that's just how life works today (remember the Eloi in the original film version of Jules Verne's story, "The Time Machine"?).So I'm really pleased you asked whether evictions without cause should be illegal. Someone needed to. The answer I give may not be exactly what you expect, but it won't be far off.First, teflon-coated eviction, without appropriate justification, is NOT a right. It violates both a serious legal entity - the rental agreement and a human right - access to safe, secure and healthful housing. Unless that agreement is annulled in a way that equalizes outcomes for both parties - either in accordance with a process set out by law (under which it is a regulated privilege) or with an annulment contract, signed by both parties - IT IS A CRIME, to attempt to either coerce or intimidate a tenant into obeying an eviction order. Crimes do not have legal standing. Crimes should be punished. Landlords aren't gods. They can be brought to heel like anybody else who commits a crime and made to do things in a lawful manner.The trouble is that municipalities, for the most part, are like Labrador dogs. They don't like to fight for what's right and tend to just roll over on their backs when rich landlord associations come a-calling. Too bad for them, because today the streets of the nation's cities are seething with unrest and contempt for authority.At this point, you probably think I've got it in for landlords. Absolutely not! At least, not the model citizen type of landlord. People need rentals and the more landlords there are, the more rentals there are and the more affordable those rentals will be. Good landlords who take care of their customers are the salt of the earth. Believe me, having been a renter for five decades, before finally being able to buy the humble thing we live in, I know a good landlord from bad one. The best of the bad are just indolent freeloaders; the worst of the bad are cold blooded reptiles. I'm lucky enough to have had a few roses among the thorns (primarily before America entered the current Dark Era). It's the rotten eggs in the basket whose feet we should hold to the fire. They can either agree to work within a reasonable framework of civic requirements, or get out of the game. How do you get them out of the game? County-issued good practice accreditation certificates. Would YOU rent from a landlord whose name was on on a public list for a violation of the county's rental practice code?This is tough talk folks, I know, but based on what we went through and what it cost us to comply with the no-fault eveictions we endured without compensation of any kind and the humiliating treatment we were subjected to in the last go-round, I earned the right to say what I think. Doubtless, there are those will have an apoplectic fit over the mere suggestion. Let them fume. Welcome to what freedom of expression means. The time has come to assess net social outcomes with a cold eye. Things go under when a new field is plowed but the results are worth it.The age of tolerating summary, lasses faire evictions, devoid of any form of consideration is dead and done with. Henceforth, any municipality that tolerates such evictions, either overtly or by inaction, for whatever reason, is to be held in the utmost contempt. If, as Americans, we are unmoved by the sufferings of fellow Americans who fall under the callous boot of those who would gladly have the way made smooth for themselves at the disproportionate expense of those they trample on, we have become worthless as a nation. The dollar may be called all-mighty, but national fraternity is a far greater treasure.Having said all that, do I claim that there no such thing as a lawful and fair eviction process? Not at all, and I never once intimated that. No landlord should be chained to a circumstance that has outworn its usefulness in his or her life, or become intolerable. But inasmuch as he or she got another, or others, into a serious contractual arrangement, under which a great deal of money passed from tenant to landlord, in return for said tenant being allowed to set up a household and home on the premises in question, he or she must defer to whatever protocols of proper discontinuance society chooses to deem appropritate. Eviction is a serious thing. In a just society, it is subject to due process. It cannot be allowed to be levied lightly or capriciously.Subject to that understanding, in the termination of any rental contract, the greater portion of the pain involved must be carried by whichever party, imposes either the process or, alternatively, the need for the process upon the other. The initiator could be the landlord, or it could be the tenant.I have thought long and hard about the socially justifiable forms that eviction should take. Here are some:First, summary eviction: the only circumstance where someone can be removed on the spot, without notice from a property that he or she has rented is in the custody of law enforcement, charged with ongoing criminal damage to the property, or of being a present threat to the safety of another who also lives at that property. In that case, the individual must appear as promptly as possible before a judge, along with the owner of the property, before any further actions are permitted and summary eviction can be finalized as legal.. In the interim, the county must provide the individual with adequate shelter and sustenance in a situation of secure provisional custody.Second, one-month-notice eviction: only justifiable when the behavior of the tenant has created a situation that makes this option appropriate. An eviction of this kind needs the approval of a judge, qualified in rental law, who reviews the landlord's reasons for requesting the right to issue it.Third, three-month-notice eviction: an option reserved for when a tenant falls behind on rent that can be neutralized, without penalty, if the tenant catches up within the first two months of the order becoming active. The age of our allowing the poor and the struggling to be punished, simply for being poor must be ended. To this end, I recommend all landlords be required to have rent failure insurance before being county certified for good practice in the top class of registered lessors.Fourth, six-month-notice eviction, with relocation compensation: this option is for when a landlord wishes to either sell the property, or change its use, because it will profit him/her to do so. This notice period supplants the lease termination date and mandates some form of limited relocation assistance.Fifth, minimum six-month-notice of intent not to renew lease, to be issued not less than six months before the lease termination date.I, for one, am really tired of hearing politicians say that something has to be done about bringing the earning quintiles closer together, and then having them do squat about it. The trouble with many legislatures is that, for legislators to be elected, they have to appear to be nice. Those to whom niceness comes most easily tend to prevail in elections, mostly because we, the people, have been subtly coaxed toward preferring niceness over the kind of substance and directness that Walter Conkrite and Ted Koppel personified on TV.But niceness, in the crafting of socially advantageous legislation, just doesn't cut it. You have to be a hard-headed S.O.B to get big stuff done and be content with the inevitable flak that always follows anyone who authors social change of any kind. Too many Americans like to pour scorn on those whose work has made life better for them, while almost worshipping others who give them nothing but empty political trope to chew on. Just think of all the blowhards, happily stuffing away their social security checks, who never miss an opportunity to let you know how much of a communist dupe FDR was. Every time I hear that sort of stuff, I kick myself for having been stupid enough to believe it was safe to leave the house.

You need an attorney to advise you.From the general tenor of the question, you are not understanding the situation, and you are not going to be able to do this one on your own without legal advice.Which the following is not; it’s just a 50,000 foot view onto the situation, and parts of the process.A lease is a contract.Leases are never broken in the sense you mean (repudiated).Leases are only ever “broken” in the sense that one or both parties violates the contract terms.Any modification to an existing contract requires the approval of both parties.The only person who can unilaterally terminate a lease without the approval of both parties is an active duty service member under 50 U.S. Code § 3955 - Termination of residential or motor vehicle leases.If this was a service member called to active duty, you can’t sue them for not completing the term of the lease. But they should have provided you with copies of their orders, ir if classified, a copy of a letter from their commanding officer.So let’s throw this whole “break a rental lease” thing under the bus.What you want to sue them for is to enforce their adherence to their obligations under the contract.You can do that; however, there are a number of considerations:How much time is left on the lease?This may push the rent amount owed for the remainder of the lease above the Arizona small claims limit of $10,000. For amounts below $10,000 but above $3,500, you will need to file in Justice of the Peace Court. For amounts of $3,500 or below, you will need to file in Small Claims Division Court.Did you accept a return of possession of the rental unit?Possession of a rental unit is returned when all keys to the unit, mailboxes, laundry, or other facilities are returned to you, and you accept their return. IF you are an apartment complex, it’s customary to issue a receipt (and customary for a tenant to demand one).Throwing all the keys in an envelope and slipping them through the office mail slot/rent payment slot, or mailing them back to you is a grey area: your acceptance of the keys, in that case, was not an affirmative act on your part.If you gave them a receipt, however, it’s tacit acceptance of the lease modification terminating the lease early.Did they remove all their belongings?Part of returning possession in many cases requires that they remove their belongings. You can argue that they still had possession, if they failed to remove them.Again this is a grey area, and has to do with whether or not they could be considered to be physically occupying; a bed and toothbrushes and cooking utensils, for example, would be looked upon by a court as continued occupancy. A broken TV or computer or desk would likely not.If you have possession, then it’s your responsibility as landlord to mitigate their liability.You do that by re-renting the unit to someone else. This limits the liability to the amount of rent you are out as a result of having to find a new tenant.You may also be able to claim advertising and other costs, such as normal downtime for a unit reset, if you had to reset it early. However, a jude will also likely want to prorate your “losses” in this regard by dividing the amount of time remaining by the period of the lease, and awarding fractional damages.Assuming you’ve correctly mitigated the damages due to their skipping out, then your damages are almost certainly below the $10,000 limit.However, if they are above that, then you will need to file in Superior Court; note that the lower bounds on a judgement in Superior Court is $2,500; so a Superior Court has concurrent jurisdiction for amounts between $2,500 and $10,000.If you still do not have possession, then they still owe you rent.This gets tricky in different directions.Clearly, you can evict them for non-payment of rent. An eviction is a separate court proceeding, and occurs in a Justice [of the Peace] Court. Damages are still limited to $10,000, so a separate action may be required.: Eviction ActionsIf you are a new landlord, or this is your first time out, get an attorney.Minimally, you will need to have an attorney walk you through the steps on appropriate and sufficient notice, and all other aspects of your lawsuit.Even if you end up going to Small Claims Division or Justice Court, an attorney can advise you on how to act, what to expect, what you should be asking for, what kind of rebuttal to expect, and so on.Until you’ve done this several times, or if you’ve complicated matters by accepting possession, or engaging in an (illegal) “self help eviction” (aka a “lockout”), you will need an attorney to advise you.