Cheez moved out to wilderness, then got free housing, & going back to Wilderness

Page 77 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
67,871
12,346
126
www.anyf.ca
Good to see he's still at it. I'm surprised the city has not kicked him out from that location yet. Cities don't like people living for free or cheap even if it's on private land.
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,179
1,490
126
He has another new video up, something about update over last 10 months, click through the last one to his channel to see it.

I imagine the city isn't doing anything because of what Cheez mentioned, there's other homeless people in the area. If the city acts, they might end up having to find something to do with them all, not just Cheez. Considering SJW's with phone cams, it could turn into bad PR.
 
Last edited:

Torn Mind

Lifer
Nov 25, 2012
11,782
2,685
136
Yeah think he is, but even then, I know in my city, say I let someone live in my shed I'd get fined for it and be forced to evict them. They have lot of dumb rules. Might be more lenient where he is though and maybe they don't care.
Technically, you'd be the landlord of a residential space and with that comes implicit legal obligations to provide a warranty of habitability. That includes utilities, which a shed won't have. Smoke/CO detectors, the whole shebang. Failure to do so would constitute constructive eviction.

With that said, you still could rent out the shed if no one raises a stink about it...but good luck finding that situation.

IIRC, he's entered and taken possession of a small chunk of undeveloped forested land that belongs to a railway. Thus, the railway is not a "landlord".

He's technically trespassing since he has entered the enclosure, but it is civil trespass and it is probably not worth the cost of litigation for the business to sue him. Now, if enough time passes and his possession is open, notorious, and hostile...he could file in court for adverse possession.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,442
10,113
126
He's technically trespassing since he has entered the enclosure, but it is civil trespass and it is probably not worth the cost of litigation for the business to sue him.
I'm not so sure trespass is civil on railroad property.

You can be arrested in my state for crossing railroad tracks "not at an authorized crossing". IOW, criminal trespass, not civil.
 

Torn Mind

Lifer
Nov 25, 2012
11,782
2,685
136
I'm not so sure trespass is civil on railroad property.

You can be arrested in my state for crossing railroad tracks "not at an authorized crossing". IOW, criminal trespass, not civil.
I don't think he's near the tracks themselves, so if there is a similar law in Indiana, it wouldn't apply.

I guess criminal trespass depends on signage(No Trespassing signs) or a notice to cease the trespass(wanton trespass). In my state, criminal trespass is met only if at least one of these conditions are met; the notice is likely to satisfy due process and to keep the state's power in check.(Also stimulates money into the courts and lawyers' hands because civil actions takes client money to gain the courts' power)

I think he was in Indiana?
The laws are different there, in which breaking and entering(not merely entering) a dwelling is could be a level 6 felony. Other violations are misdemeanors. What appears to be consistent is the need to be notified to stop the trespassing in order for the action to be criminal. So, without essentially a cease and desist request...cheez is free to continue.

If you are a property owner, be aware that the police cannot remove someone from a property if they do not suspect that there is a crime in progress or recently committed.
So, if cheez merely behaves himself, the cops are legally unable to remove him.

 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
67,871
12,346
126
www.anyf.ca
He might be far enough from the actual rail that most of the rail related rules don't apply as well. Sounds like he may have actually done his research before picking that spot.
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,179
1,490
126
^ The law doesn't make that distinction. All property set aside to run the track is their right-of-way. Granted, police look the other way at lots of things they don't perceive as a problem.
 
Reactions: lxskllr

Torn Mind

Lifer
Nov 25, 2012
11,782
2,685
136
^ The law doesn't make that distinction. All property set aside to run the track is their right-of-way. Granted, police look the other way at lots of things they don't perceive as a problem.
As stated before, in Indiana, the cops are literally prohibited legally from removing a trespasser if no crime is in progress.
 

WilliamM2

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2012
2,511
548
136
As stated before, in Indiana, the cops are literally prohibited legally from removing a trespasser if no crime is in progress.

Where did you get your law degree. Trespassing is a Class A misdemeanor in Indiana. Just like most states, and you will be removed, Trespassing is a crime.
 

Torn Mind

Lifer
Nov 25, 2012
11,782
2,685
136
Where did you get your law degree. Trespassing is a Class A misdemeanor in Indiana. Just like most states, and you will be removed, Trespassing is a crime.
Crimes are in, in law paradigm, and not the lay paradigm, simply violations of text as stated by statute. What lay people wish the legal system was is basically God. An omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity that can adjudicate perfectly with the aforesaid omniscience, which is a fantasy.

That trespassing is a crime does not automatically grant Government eviction or equivalent "possession-taking powers" and enforcing possession via its biggest gun toting employees.

In addition, a feature of English common law is that possession is something that has substantial protections, far more than the eviction tug-a-heart story lets on; non paying tenants can get 2-3 months of possession before some sheriff comes, and if one dodges service or hides money assets, that counts as essentially rent-free living. Heck, Cheez could even sue to quiet title and adverse possession if he keep it up for Indiana's specified statutory period of 10 years.

The lawyer's blog I linked to stated that violations of section 7(b)(2) contain a prohibition against removal if some other crime in progress is not occuring courtesy of section 7(f)

(7) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters or refuses to leave the property of another person after having been prohibited from entering or asked to leave the property by a law enforcement officer when the property is:
(A) vacant real property (as defined in IC 36-7-36-5) or a vacant structure (as defined in IC 36-7-36-6); or
(B) designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be:
(i) abandoned property or an abandoned structure (as defined in IC 36-7-36-1); or
(ii) an unsafe building or an unsafe premises (as described in IC 36-7-9);



(e) A law enforcement officer may not deny entry to property or ask a person to leave a property under subsection (b)(7) unless there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred or is occurring.

Anyone who reads section (e) would infer that the criminal activity is something else besdies just taking possession.

In additoin, unsafe building in Indiana is defined as the following.
(1) in an impaired structural condition that makes it unsafe to a person or property;

(2) a fire hazard;

(3) a hazard to the public health;

(4) a public nuisance;

Sure, cheez's shed could fit the conditions of fire hazard, public nuisance, or unsafe in the legal sense(not following code, for one. Things like no smoke dectectors, no running water, etc). But if that is the case, then the section (e) prohibition against law enforcement removal does apply. The only course for the property owner would then be eviction or some other civil injunction, all of which costs money and may not make a material impact with regards to business.

Then there the matter of whether the municipality has even been brought in to determine the safety of the structure.

Neither the cops nor the railroad want to bother with lawsuits, so cheez's pet project is allowed to slide.
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,179
1,490
126
General tresspassing and being on railroad right-of-way are two different things, is why they made a law specifically to cover it.

If police encounter Cheez on railroad property, he is violating the law every moment he is there, so yes they can remove him, if they had nothing better to do, lol.
 
Reactions: Captante
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |