As Banks Continue to Foreclose with False Documents, Men Accused Of Taking Over Vacant Houses To Stand Trial

Kangaroo Court

As Banks Continue to Foreclose with False Documents, Men Accused Of Taking Over Vacant Houses To Stand Trial

Jurors are scheduled to hear opening statements Monday in an unusual trial in Cook County criminal court. The defendant is charged with theft of more than a million dollars — in the form of houses, many in Chicago’s Morgan Park and Beverly neighborhoods.

Even more unusual: The defendant doesn’t dispute he took the homes, but he denies it was a crime.

His project was part protest, part Robin Hood, and part hustle. Its roots go back more than a decade.

In 2005, Chase Home Finance filed foreclosure papers on the condo where Torrez Moore lived. He fought eviction for years, acting as his own attorney. He had read up on the law and developed some do-it-yourself legal theories.

By September 2012, he was gone from the condo, but he had also developed a new legal theory, one he thought could get him a free place to live, and other benefits.

To test that theory, he picked a house at 10929 S. Esmond St. It was foreclosed, bank-owned, and vacant.

Rest here…


2 Responses to “As Banks Continue to Foreclose with False Documents, Men Accused Of Taking Over Vacant Houses To Stand Trial”
  1. Vic Hentz says:

    “Some people on the block figured out the new neighbors hadn’t acquired the house through
    normal channels and called (Alderman) O’Shea.”

    Lets see now!

    Someone moved into one of the four abandoned properties on my road.
    The siding was,fixed,damaged roof repaired,the lawn was
    mowed,seasonal decorations went up,nice people wave whenever
    I drive by, kids are polite. An eyesore had new a life and we had
    nice quiet neighbors living in it.

    At no time did I question or CARE how the nice new neighbors acquired
    their property. It wasn’t any of my business.
    So I am wondering what prompted the neighbors in the article to “figure out”
    that the new family had not acquired their home thru “normal channels.

    Even when the politico and the jackboots went in the first time,
    they said that everything looked quite normal.

    OH that’s right. The neighborhood is WHITE and IRISH!
    That woman and her daughter could have been Nobel laureates who bought
    the place outright with their prize money and the fact that they were black would
    still have caused the you-know-what to hit the fan!

    I don’t know if what these two jokers pulled off was legal or not,
    but considering how much the banksters have stolen from the rest of us,
    and how completely the parasites (that’s politicians) and the sheriff’s departments
    and the DA’s and the judges are OWNED by the aforementioned banksters,
    you would NOT want me on that jury.

    In my book, a little pay back would be just fine!

    And long overdue!

  2. Randall Stephens says:

    There are powerful, legitimate counter arguments, affirmative defenses, counterclaims, etc., to what has been passing as foreclosures. When properly applied adverse possession could be included among them.

    But Moore’s unilateral redefinition (“We never said that we charged them rent,” he said. “We charged them improvement fees” [yeah, right]) doesn’t cut it, and only undermines the credibility of those employing legitimate defenses, and claims.

Leave a Reply