IL: Joliet has plan to force convicted sex offenders to move from their home: Build a park nearby
Joliet City Council members unanimously voted Tuesday night to buy a house, with plans demolish it and turn the land into a park — a tactic they hope will legally allow them to force out convicted sex offenders who are living in an apartment building nearby.
The move has drawn the ire of the company that houses the sex offenders and some legal experts who argue that the city’s actions are inhumane and actually make the public less safe by making it difficult for people who have completed their sentences to find stable housing.
“This has absolutely nothing to do with community safety and everything to do with lawmakers manipulating the law to rid the community of a population they don’t like,” said Adele Nicholas, a civil rights attorney who is an expert in this area. “It’s an outrageous waste of taxpayer money.”
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is what ignorant tyrants generally end up doing. This has happened in the past. When are the ‘yellow stars’ coming out? The time is coming that registered citizens are going to have to take a stand…even if it is a violent stand. No one wants to but what is the alternative? Facts have no impact as the Brevard County commissioners’ meeting was to prove. Bureaucrats are usually better at creating problems than they are at fixing them
Capt
My ancestors had to fight as well. That includes all native Americans not just the Cherokee Nation. When talks fell through, the powerful started taking land and killing many natives, kidnapping children to teach them English and doing things I cannot type on here to the women.
Then later on it was the freed slaves who were treated badly. The U.S just does not seem to have a great record on treating people like human beings. And no one can tell me to “Go back to my country” because my people have been living here for 1000s of years. This is my country and am ashamed of what has happened to it and become.
Jack, I full well understand. That is why I am such a supporter of FAC and NARSOL. It’s not a battle that is easily won, but one that must be won. We will need to expose some politicians for what they really are. If a person does not have the opportunity to defend him or herself, then the verdict is always guilty. In time we will bring down the Brevard County commissioners by exposing them for whom they really are.
Bad thought of the day…
I hope they do it and then it gets changed but a lawsuit. It’s almost like they magically create a park to keep people away. I think I heard of something like this recently…
They tried that here in Florida to me when passing a proximity to school’s law. My lawyer fought saying you “Cannot retroactively apply making someone move because you don’t like them”. I won the case but lost as it cost me $16 grand to fight it. In the end, I ended up losing the house anyway due to filing bankruptcy after losing my job.
Cherokee, so sorry that happened to you. I also lost my house and everything I worked to achieve since high school. Bankruptcy? Yep. Foreclosure? Yep. Unemployment? Yep. Disdain from neighbors and HOA? Yep. My point is, anyone can and will lose everything besides freedom when charged or convicted of a sex offense. And this article just goes to show how far people will go to make sure we lose (even if we win our own cases).
Just
:(…………
I have no words, only tears.
I always thought this should be a strong argument.
If someone owns property, like a home, i don’t see how they can protect it if they can’t be there all the time.
The right to acquire an protect property is a “INALIENABLE” right. It cannot be taken away for any reason, even public safety.
Even a rental requires a “writ of possession” to evict someone. Therefore IMO, while renting a renter really has “possession” of the property, and even they should be protected by the government from having to give up their inalienable right, declared within Article 1, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution, to possess and protect property.
Florida constitution
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?submenu=3#A1S02
“SECTION 2. Basic rights.—All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
https://share.america.gov/what-does-it-mean-for-right-to-be-inalienable/
An inalienable right, said Richard Foltin of the Freedom Forum Institute, is “a right that can’t be restrained or repealed by human laws.” Sometimes called natural rights, inalienable rights “flow from our nature as free people.”
…” it is a government’s job to protect inalienable rights.”
I guess I posted that comment about Florida’s constitution. Joiliet is in Illinois.
The only power the Illinois legislature has in regard to property possession is that they can pass laws which to secure the right to possess property, not take those rights away. Their constitution specifically disallows removal of inalienable rights and assigns the government the duty to protect those rights.
From Article 1 Section 1 of Illinois’s constitution:
SECTION 1. INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS
All men are by nature free and independent and have
certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights
and the protection of property, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed.
https://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm#:~:text=INHERENT%20AND%20INALIENABLE%20RIGHTS%20All,and%20the%20pursuit%20of%20happiness.
I agree with what you have said. I just want to point out that the constitution says any “natural” person. You know they would take it to court to declare us “un-natural”.
fyi…no such legel term as unnatural person
https://legaldictionary.net/natural-person/
The term “natural person” refers to a living human being, with certain rights and responsibilities under the law. By contrast, a “legal person,” or an “artificial person,” is a group of people that is considered by law to be acting as a single individual.
Cherokeejack, This is why we fight. I am so sorry this had to even happen. I am glad you won. We all appreciate your fight on that and that may very well have helped people you don’t know about. And those people will not know, because of you, that they didn’t face the same problem. We change things in ways we don’t always ever know about. So thank you for that. I hope things are better for you now and we will all keep up the good fight.
Ditto!
Mp
What is that old saying “Nothing is for sure except Death and Taxes”?
I have moved 11 times since the house got taken away. And seems each year I moved, new laws made it harder and harder to find somewhere, where I was not breaking the law, just trying to “Exist”.
Cherokee its sad that many go thru all this registry crap.
Saddles
Sad is not the word I would have used. Disgusting and inhumane comes to mind. I think you are being a bit too nice. You can get over being sad. It is hard to look past disgust and inhumane treatment and behavior by any and all government agencies towards us. Farm animals get treated better than us in some ways.
Not right when are us sex offenders going to stand up and fight back. I need help myself. Someone please help me. I need work and a place. Thank you
How is it grandfather clauses don’t seem to have an effect? If someone built a playground next door to my house, that would be my argument. I was here first, you should have done YOUR due diligence before putting that playground there.
Ben
Odd that they can pick and choose what to grandfather in. Back in 1985, Florida raised the drinking age from 19 to 21. However, they allowed those who were already allowed to drink 19 and 20 year old’s, to continue to legally buy alcohol. If you were 18 or younger, you would now have to wait until you were 21.
Let me get this straight, the mayor and city council are using the force (and resources) of the city government against 5 individuals in order to intentionally force them into homelessness?
There is no law against this sort of (very targeted) harrassment and misuse of public funds?