A homeowner can’t sell their house because a squatter has moved in and is renting the place out on his own. Another couple purchases a house for $2 million, but can’t move in because a caretaker claims to have an agreement with a dead man. Meanwhile, the state plans to seize President Trump’s properties simply to file an appeal.
Imagine inheriting a home from your parents, the very place you grew up in, and while still grieving from the loss, preparing the property for sale. You invest a little money and time tidying up the place, maybe making a couple of improvements to maximize the value, work with a realtor to put it on the market, get the for sale signs in place, and hope that it sells quickly, at a fair price. You can use the money at this point in your life and even beyond any financial gain, you just want to put the memories of your mother and father filling the house with joy behind you, moving on rather than succumbing to the past. One day, however, you swing by the house to check on things, making sure everything remains presentable for the sale, and notice the signs have been removed and the property has been vandalized in your absence. Suspecting something is amiss, you hire a locksmith to better secure your inheritance and protect your belongings, but when you arrive to put the new locks in place, someone who illegally broke into the house calls the police to have you, the lawful homeowner arrested. Instead of the burglar, it is you are forcibly removed from a property you own in handcuffs and issued a summons for unlawful eviction. The person in your house is a “squatter,” you see, and though they illegally entered your home, committing a crime in the process, it is they who have rights to your property, not you. Somehow, this criminal is magically entitled to remain in your place without paying rent while you continue to pay all the taxes and utility bills because they are automatically a tenant. Though you had no contract or agreement with them of any kind and you are not a landlord by any means, you cannot have them removed under any circumstances without going to court for a formal eviction, a process that can take months and will cost you thousands of dollars. Throughout, the person who invaded your home is allowed to remain inside, completely rent free, you must continue to pay all the bills, and there is nothing you or the government, whose primary job is to protect your property rights, can do about it. This would likely be bad enough for anyone, filling you with the obvious fear that you could easily lose the house and all of your inheritance, but just when you thought the story cannot get any stranger, you learn that the home invader is renting out your home to four new tenants, at least one paying $1,500 per month, earning thousands of dollars off of your property and once again, there’s nothing you can do about it except try to have the man evicted.
Admittedly, this scenario sounds rather far-fetched, almost impossible to believe. How could the law possibly be designed to protect someone who broke into your home illegally and then rented it out for quick cash, also illegally? If you live in New York, however, this is your reality. The story above, or at least something frighteningly close to it, actually happened to Adele Andalaro from Flushing, Queens, who saw her family home taken over by a criminal and now fears she might lose it entirely. “It’s enraging,” she said. “It’s not fair that I, as the homeowner, have to be going through this.” A neighbor who did not want to be named agreed, “It’s horrible. It’s her home. I’m glad it’s coming to the forefront, because it’s a disgrace. They can just come and take your house.” “It’s just crazy. We don’t know how they got in, when they got in. We have no idea. How these people found out about the house being empty, I don’t know,” the neighbor added. One has to wonder why the police and prevailing authorities appear to reflexively side with the criminals rather than the obvious homeowners, but regardless of how the dispute is ultimately resolved in the courts, it takes significant time and money in addition to maintaining the property itself. Essentially, there is no end in sight for the beleaguered homeowner, neither to the bills they have to pay or when they can sell the home. “It’s much harder to remove them now because the courts are so backlogged,” explained Alan J. Goldberg, a lawyer who specializes in these unfortunate matters. “I think there should be a fast-track court for squatters and licensees. They should have an expedited-type hearing.” This has led Ms. Andalaro to conclude that the process is rigged against her and she might well lose her home. “By the time someone does their investigation, their work, and their job, it will be over 30 days and this man will still be in my home,” she said. “I’m really fearful that these people are going to get away with stealing my home.” Nor is this the only case in New York. Also in Queens, a house was sold to a couple after the original homeowner passed away, but when Susan and Joseph Landa tried to take possession of their home in October 2023 after paying $2 million for the property, they learned that the former caretaker had taken up residence, claiming he had an agreement with a dead man. The squatter has also attempted to rent out rooms and as of March 1, he remains there – while the Landa’s pay thousands of dollars per month for taxes and utilities. Recently, the squatter’s lawyer has promised some new revelation that will upend the entire case, but whatever that maybe, the fact remains that a couple spent $2 million on a home they cannot move into and have been forced to fit the bill for months while the state and city government do absolutely nothing to protect their rights.
Ironically, the same state government is simultaneously doing precisely the opposite when it comes to former President Donald Trump. In his case, they plan to launch an all out assault on his property, literally taking it for themselves, if he remains unable to post a bond for some $550 million simply to file an appeal after losing a civil case. Last week, Attorney General Letitia James filed judgements in Westchester County, which was seized upon by the media as “the first indication that the state is preparing to try to seize Donald Trump’s golf course and private estate north of Manhattan, known as Seven Springs.” to use CNN’s phrasing. Here, the state plans to take over these properties, foreclose them and force sales, while attempting to put liens on other assets and freeze bank accounts, all while an appeals process that may not go in their favor plays out in higher courts. The Westchester County move follows similar judgments in New York City including Trump Tower, a hotel near Central park, and numerous apartment buildings. Though President Trump had offered to post a whopping $100 million in bonds to begin his appeal, the Attorney General wants more up front, recommending that he simply selling any and all assets to the raise the full amount or place his properties entirely under the control of a third party during the appeal – even though it is unknown if the judgment against him by an out of control Judge in New York City will ultimately stand. The former President’s lawyers responded by noting the obvious, “The suggestion is both impractical and unjust. The Attorney General cites no New York case law to support this contention. In any event, from the perspective of risk, the Attorney General’s proposal of a ‘court-appointed officer’ to ‘hold real estate’ is functionally equivalent to what Supreme Court has already imposed through the requirement of a court-appointed monitor to oversee Defendants’ business operations.” To be sure, the same out of control judge who decided Trump was guilty on his own and assigned a never-before-seen-in-history $450 million fine even though no one was harmed and no actual fraud occurred given the banks that were supposedly defrauded did not rely on the property values the former President provided, has already ordered a monitor in the Trump Organization. “The Trump Organization shall inform the monitor, in advance, of any efforts to secure surety bonds, including any financial disclosures requested or required, any information provided in response to such requests, any representations made by Trump Organization in connection with securing such bonds, any personal guarantees made by any of the defendants, and any obligations of the Trump Organization required by the surety,” the judge ordered. This monitor is empowered by a single judge to have full access to the day to day financial transactions of all the former President’s companies. Ultimately, the monitor will submit a report in May “describing her assessment of the Trump Organization’s internal controls and shall recommend proper internal controls for the Trump Organization.” Effectively, the company no longer belongs to Trump. It’s been forcibly taken from him by a single person who obviously loathes him and has the proverbial ax to grind.
Granted, the Trump Organization’s corporate structure is exceedingly complex, making it unlikely Attorney General James will be able to take possession of any properties any time soon, but that’s not really the point. The very fact that she believes a judgment by a single person, both determining guilt and assessing fines with no basis in reality, empowers her to seize private assets to fulfill an obligation that may well be overturned, much less that the law empowers her to do so, demonstrates just how backwards property rights are in New York as effectively as the inverse situation facing these homeowners. In both cases, the government, which is supposed to be a bulwark and defender of your individual rights including ownership of property, has completely abandoned its role, either prioritizing the rights of criminals or claiming previously unheard of rights to seize and dispose of property as they wish even for a decision that might well be overturned. I am certainly not a lawyer, but there is no plain reading of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that supports or permits any of this, not by any means, at least in my humble opinion. At a minimum, these state laws appear to infringe on the Fourth Amendment – in Trump’s case, there was no probable cause of any kind for the investigation, and in the property owner’s case, they are certainly not “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” The Fifth Amendment, given a half billion penalty constitutes a “capital, or otherwise infamous crime” by any reasonable standard and there was no “indictment by a grand jury” for President Trump. “Private property” is undoubtedly being taken, or will be attempted to be taken without “just compensation” in both cases. The Seventh Amendment, which guarantees a trial by jury in any common law suit over $20, and preserves the rights of the jury. The Eighth Amendment where no “excessive fines [may be] imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” and the Ninth where certain rights cannot be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. There is also likely an equal protection argument under the Fourteenth Amendment, where the government is prioritizing the rights of one group (tenants) over another (homeowners), or simply denying that anyone has any property rights at all. Beyond the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence was at least partially based on the work of the famous philosopher, John Locke. Locke was among the first to assert that all people are created equal and are endowed with certain “inalienable rights” including “life, liberty, and property.” New York, at least, no longer believes in the third. It will not be long until others are assaulted as well.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 