upworthy

laws

Democracy

Man figured out how to beat squatters at their own game. Now he helps others do it.

"If they can take a house, I can take a house."

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio/Pexels

When people move in and refuse to move out, what do you do?


Squatters' rights laws are some of the most bizarrely misused legal realities we have, and something no one seems to have a good answer for. Most of us have heard stories of someone moving into a vacant home and just living there, without anyone's permission and without paying rent, and somehow this is a legal question mark until the courts sort it out.

According to The National Desk, squatters' rights are a carryover from British property law and were created to ensure that abandoned property could be used and to protect occupants from being kicked out without proper notice. It should go without saying that squatter law isn't meant to allow someone to just take over someone else's property, but sometimes that's exactly what happens.

It's what happend to Flash Shelton's mother when she put her house up for rent after her husband passed away. A woman contacted her with interest in the property, only she wanted to do repairs and look after the home instead of paying rent. Before anyone knew it, she had furniture delivered (which she later said was accidental) and set up camp, despite Shelton's mom not agreeing to the arrangement.

But since the woman had expressed her intention and already moved in, the matter was out of police hands, as Shelton found out when he tried to contact the local sheriff.

“They said, ‘I’m sorry but we can’t enter the house, and it looks like they’re living there, so you need to go through the courts',” he shared in a YouTube video.

Shelton rightfully didn't want the expense of a court battle, so he took matters into his own hands—not with violence, but with logic. He had his mom lease the home to him, and then told the squatter that she had to move everything out because he was moving things in.

“If they can take a house, I can take a house," he said.

He was calm and clear about her having to get everything out within the day or he would have people come and take it, and thankfully, she didn't put up a big fight.

That experience made him realize how squatter law can be abused, but that there's a faster system for removing a squatter than to go through the court system. If a squatter can move in and force a homeowner to take them to court to prove they are living there illegally, then he could simply move in alongside the squatter, putting the squatter in the position of having to take the homeowner to court instead.

"The legal process is so slow, and at some point when they're in there, you're going to feel like they have more rights than you do and that's how you're going to be treated. So even though you it's your house and you're paying the mortgage or whatever, at some point squatters feel like they have more rights than you, so they don't have an incentive to leave until a judge tells them to, until they're actually ordered to, and that could take months."

After successfully removing the squatters in his mother's house, Shelton has been tackling similar squatter situations for other homeowners in California, earning him the nickname "The Squatter Hunter."

"All I'm doing is becoming a squatter and flipping this process on them," Shelton told CBS News. "I figured if they could take a house, I could take a house."

According to CBS, he's successfully removed a dozen squatters in the past year. ""I'm not going in and I'm not hurting anyone," he said. "I'm not kicking them out, I'm not throwing them out." He's literally just moving in himself, setting up cameras, and then creating small annoyances until the squatters get fed up enough to move out.

California isn't the only state that has seen issues with squatters. There are squatter stories from all over the U.S. of people moving into a property and refusing to leave without a court order, tying owners up in lengthy, expensive legal battles.

Shelton even has a Change.org petition to try to get squatter laws changed to "make squatting in residential maintained homes criminal." Making squatting illegal "will shift the burden of proof onto the squatter and make the crime punishable with restitution an option for damages," the the petition states.

Watch Shelton share his personal story:

This article originally appeared in April.

From Your Site Articles
housing
Wellness

A mother's heartbreaking story highlights the challenge of defining 'late-term abortion'

Haylie Grammer/Facebook

Part of the problem with debating abortion legislation is that there is no clear definition of what it even is. Some might say it's the termination of an unwanted pregnancy, but sometimes a pregnancy that ends in abortion was very much wanted. Some might say it's the killing of a baby in the womb, but plenty of abortions take place after a baby has already died in utero.

Merriam-Webster defines abortion as "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus"—a definition that points to the following heartbreaking story and the reason why abortion is not as cut and dry an issue as many make it out to be.

Haylie Grammer shared her family's experience with "late-term abortion" in the death of her daughter, Embree, at 25 weeks, and it illustrates how abortion can look very, very different than what people imagine it to be.

Grammer wrote:

"I saw this article today about Senator Gary Peters and his abortion story. It reminded me why I am pro-choice and reminded me that people need to hear my story too. Some of you may have already heard my story, but I think it is a good reminder of how politics are used to control women's bodies and how everything isn't always what it seems on the surface.

4.5 years ago, I gave birth to my first born. Her name was Embree Eleanor Grammer. She was born via c-section on April 25, 2016. She weighed 4lbs 4oz. She was only 25 weeks gestation. She lived for approximately 20-30 minutes. She was born with a tumor that was roughly the size of a volleyball that was invading her body both externally and internally. It was sucking her blood supply, pushing her organs out of place, deforming her body, and overworking her heart. We found out about the tumor only 5 weeks prior. In that 5 weeks the tumor grew from about the size of a walnut to the volleyball. I grew along with it, from the tiny bump of a first time mom at 20 weeks to measuring the same as a pregnant woman who was roughly 36 weeks along. In 5 weeks.

That 5 weeks was the hardest 5 weeks of my life. We had sonograms twice weekly, traveled across the state to visit more specialists, and were told that essentially our sweet Embree would probably not make it. We had a choice to make. The state of Texas allows an abortion a time period after 20 weeks if the pregnancy is life threatening to the mother or if the fetus has "abnormalities." We qualified for this. I have always been pro-choice, but I have never been pro-abortion for myself. While I agree that women have the right to do what is best for them, I myself wasn't ever planning on getting an abortion. I also had hope. Hope that Embree would be healed. Hope that the tumor would stop growing. So we chose to push on with the pregnancy, hoping that Embree would have a chance. I was counting down to the age of viability, just hoping that if I could keep Embree cooking until then, maybe.... just maybe, modern medicine and prayers could keep her alive.

We were not only closely monitoring Embree, but doctors were closely monitoring me. Even though Embree was still alive, she was not in good shape. She was developing Hydrops and I was at a risk of developing mirror syndrome. This would be life threatening to me if it fully developed. On April 22 I went to my second sonogram of the week and my doctors were concerned with the swelling in my feet. I was told that I had a decision to make. Not only was I starting to develop the beginnings of mirror syndrome, but we were 2 weeks away from 27 weeks. This was important because at 27 weeks, I would no longer be able to deliver Embree in Texas via c-section. Why? Because according to the law, by choosing to deliver Embree this early, I would be having an abortion. And while at 24.5 weeks I was still in the grey area of Texas Abortion law where I could deliver her, at 27 weeks I would not be. Surprised this is considered an abortion? Many are. Stay with me.

We decided to schedule our c-section for that Monday. I would be 25 weeks. We made it past the age of viability, but it was becoming obvious that she would not make it. We met with NICU doctors and they reviewed our case. They decided that they would not be attempting any life saving attempts on Embree after she was delivered. This meant officially, we were choosing to have an abortion. We were giving birth to our child early, knowing full well that she would not survive. This is what 'late term abortion' looks like. Catch that political buzz word? I will explain more below.

As you can imagine, this was the worst and longest weekend of our life. We knew that in 2 days we would be meeting our daughter and letting her go. But it gets so much worse. Again, this is considered an abortion. A late term abortion. The State of Texas, like most states who have a large majority who claim to be 'pro-life,' has many restrictions in place to prevent abortions from happening. Here is the thing about abortion legislation.... it doesn't differentiate between what we were going through and what the 'pro-life' groups think they are preventing. The laws in Texas stated that in order for us to give birth to Embree and have a chance to hold her while her soul still resided in her body, we had to do the following: 1. Our doctor had to apply for permission to perform the c-section from the state. This had to be done 24 hours before the surgery. We had to go to the hospital on the Saturday before we were to give birth, in the midst of our mourning, to sign a paper requesting an abortion. Put yourself in that situation. Forever, in the records of the State of Texas, there is a piece of paper that says that I aborted my precious Embree. 2. On top of filing this paperwork for us, our doctor also had to give me a pamphlet published by the State of Texas about the consequences of abortion. By law, she was required to give me a booklet that told me that if I had the abortion I would suffer from depression and anxiety for the rest of my life, have an increased risk of breast cancer, and possible be infertile in the future. Think I'm kidding? Have a look: https://hhs.texas.gov/.../women.../womans-right-to-know.pdf

If you consider yourself "pro-life" you are probably thinking something like, "yes but your situation was different. This isn't what I'm fighting against." Or maybe you're thinking "but I don't consider this abortion." Great. But the actual definition of abortion is "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus." So while YOU might not consider what we went through to be an "abortion," it was. I had an abortion. I had a late-term abortion.

Why am I bringing this up? Why am I telling you this? Because when lawmakers and people fight to end 'abortion,' they are talking about this too. When you hear about 'late term abortions' taking place, THIS is what is happening. It's not women who have carried babies to full term and then just deciding to have an abortion. It is women and families who are devastated that they are in a situation in which they have to decide whether to let a child suffer in the womb, or end their suffering. 'Pro-life' laws are designed to make this process difficult. They are designed to put obstacles in place. This process is already difficult enough. Even women who are deciding to have an abortion at 8 weeks. It's already a hard decision so why are we allowing people to torture them too. Every time people talk about saving the babies and being pro-life, I cringe on the inside. Not because I don't want to save babies, but because I want to save babies. Save babies from suffering that they are made to endure because some man who has no medical training has decided that he knows women's bodies better than doctors. I cringe because I know as a survivor of these terrible 'pro-life' laws that these laws are being used to trick women in America to vote against their own interest in hopes that they are saving the unborn. I cringe every time I hear people call those who vote in favor of Pro-Choice laws... 'murderers,' because they are saying I murdered my Embree.

I chose to deliver Embree on April 25, 2016 via c-section. I chose late-term abortion. I did so because it was the only way I could hold my baby girl while she was still alive. It was the only way I could encounter her soul until we are together again in heaven. This is why I am Pro-choice. Remember Embree and I when you vote."

If your first response to this story is, "But that's not abortion!" you're not just incorrect, you've also missed the point. Due to the circumstances and the laws of the state she was in, yes, this was legally considered an abortion. And if you think it shouldn't be, who do you think should make that decision? Who gets to define abortion so that it accounts for the millions of different individual circumstances that come into play? Most of us don't even want the government deciding which doctors we can go to—do we really want elected officials with no medical training making decisions about our specific, personal medical care?

Grammer isn't alone in sharing personal abortion stories that people don't think of as abortion. The families who desperately wanted a baby, who ended up having to make the rock-and-a-hard-place choice to abort because the alternative would have been a short, pain-filled life for their child. The mothers having to endure long, drawn out, potentially dangerous miscarriages and being forced to carry a dead baby inside of them because abortion restrictions gave them no other choice.

Some might say that these stories and experiences are not the norm, but they actually are when it comes to late-term abortion. Third trimester abortions are medical choices that aren't easy for any individual or family, and they are situations that medical professionals and patients need to make together, not the government. Pete Buttigieg said it beautifully: "The bottom line is, as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
women's rights
Wellness

Pete Buttigieg gave the best possible answer to Fox News' 'late-term abortion' questions

A G/Fox News/YouTube

The subject of late-term abortions has been brought up repeatedly during this election season, with President Trump making the outrageous claim that Democrats are in favor of executing babies.

This message grossly misrepresents what late-term abortion actually is, as well as what pro-choice advocates are actually "in favor of." No one is in favor of someone having a specific medical procedure—that would require being involved in someone's individual medical care—but rather they are in favor of keeping the government out of decisions about specific medical procedures.

Pete Buttigieg, who has become a media surrogate for the Biden campaign—and quite an effective one at that—addressed this issue in a Fox News town hall when he was on the campaign trail himself. When Chris Wallace asked him directly about late-term abortions, Buttigieg answered Wallace's questions is the best way possible.

"Do you believe, at any point in pregnancy, whether it's at six weeks or eight weeks or 24 weeks or whenever, that there should be any limit on a woman's right to have an abortion?" Wallace asked.


"I think the dialogue has gotten so caught up on where you draw the line that we've gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line," Buttigieg replied, "and I trust women to draw the line when it's their own health."

Wallace wanted to clarify that Buttigieg would be okay with late-term abortion and pointed out that there are more than 6000 women who get third trimester abortions each year.

"That's right," responded Buttiegieg, "representing one percent of cases. So let's put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it's that late in your pregnancy, than almost by definition, you've been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."

And that's really the gist of the pro-choice stance. Why would we want the government to be involved in our most difficult medical and moral dilemmas and decisions?

Some may try to argue that an abortion isn't "a medical decision," but that is objectively untrue, especially in the case of late-term abortion. There are thousands of different scenarios that might lead to needing an abortion, and laws that place arbitrary limits on those decisions do real harm to families who are already suffering a loss.

Take the story of sitting U.S. Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, who just shared his family's tragic story "of how gut-wrenching and complicated decisions can be related to reproductive health" with Elle magazine.

Peters and his first wife were excited to welcome their second child to the world, when his wife's water broke four months into her pregnancy. There was no way for the baby to survive without amniotic fluid, and they were told to go home and wait for the miscarriage to happen. But it didn't happen. His wife's health deteriorated, and when she went back to the hospital three days later, the doctor told them the situation was dire. She could lose her uterus within hours, and her life was at risk as well if she went septic due to uterine infection. He recommended an abortion. However, the hospital refused to allow the procedure due to its anti-abortion policy, despite the doctor's appeal to the board.

"I still vividly remember he left a message on the answering machine saying, 'They refused to give me permission, not based on good medical practice, simply based on politics. I recommend you immediately find another physician who can do this procedure quickly,'" Peters told Elle.

The couple was able to get into another hospital and get the necessary procedure because Peters was friends with the chief administrator. But the experience illustrated how an abortion isn't always the choice to end a pregnancy out of convenience—or even the choice to end a pregnancy at all. Peters' wife called it "traumatic and painful," and said in a statement, "If it weren't for urgent and critical medical care, I could have lost my life."

Savita Halappanavar, a woman who needed an abortion in Ireland and was denied one, did lose her life in a high-profile 2012 case that prompted voters to overturn the abortion ban in the Catholic-majority country 2018. And there are too many other stories of close calls or having to endure painful experiences to make drawing legal lines far too fuzzy a prospect to endorse.

Whether it's about the life or health of the mother or about the life or death of the fetus, the decisions surrounding the end of an individual pregnancy should be made by the medical professionals and families involved, not by government officials.

Buttigieg summed that idea up perfectly and compassionately in his town hall response.

Here's the full clip of Wallace's and Buttigieg's exchange.

Pete Buttigieg on late term abortionwww.youtube.com

Once again, well said, Mayor Pete. Being pro-choice isn't about being pro-abortion, but rather pro-keep-the-government-out-of-my-personal-medical-decisions and trusting women and medical professionals to make those difficult choices for themselves.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
politics
Equality

Idaho House passes two transgender bills; major Idaho businesses urge Senate to reject them

Photo by Mercedes Mehling on Unsplash

Idaho's House of Representatives has passed two bills affecting transgender people—one that blocks transgender people from changing their birth certificates, and one that blocks transgender girls and women from playing on female sports teams.

The fate of the bills now lies with the state Senate, and some of Idaho's largest employers have some words for the lawmakers.

Most states allow people to change the sex on their birth certificate, just as people can change their name or parentage after a legal name change, adoption, or other major life change. Birth certificates are used as the legal determiner of gender for schools, healthcare, and the law—including legal IDs like driver's licenses—which is why it's important for transgender people to have the option of changing them.

Ohio and Tennessee are the only other states that don't allow transgender people to augment their birth certificates.

The text of the new law says "there is a compelling interest in maintaining accurate, quantitative, biology-based material facts on Idaho certificates of birth that provide material facts fundamental to the performance of government functions that secure the public health and safety."

However, Idaho's law flies in the face of a 2018 federal court ruling forbidding the state from blocking transgender citizens from changing their birth certificates. That court ruling stated, "A rule providing an avenue to obtain a birth certificate with a listed sex that aligns with an individual's gender identity promotes the health, well-being, and safety of transgender people without impacting the rights of others."

Debates over transgender rights have far-reaching effects, and not o on transgender people. Major Idaho companies Chobani, Clif Bar, HP, and Micron all have a vested interest in the law, as their ability to recruit employees can be affected by lawmakers' decisions.

In a join letter sent March 2 to Senate State Affairs Committee Chairwoman Patti Anne Lodge, R-Huston, and Vice Chairman Mark Harris, R-Soda Springs, the companies wrote:

Dear Senators Lodge and Harris:

We write to share our concerns regarding legislation that recently passed the House of Representatives and is now pending in the Senate. Specifically, this includes House Bills 500 and 509.

As businesses, we're committed to the principles of diversity and inclusion, and we are very proud to call Idaho home. It's a privilege and honor to be ambassadors for the state in our daily interactions with customers, communities, and companies across the nation and around the world. We proudly talk about its strong and growing economy, and how it's one of the best places in the nation to do business and live. Most important, we talk about the welcoming, big-hearted spirit of its people, and why our employees are so grateful to live and raise their families here.

This is a well-earned reputation and these bills targeting transgender Idahoans puts that reputation at risk and goes against creating a workforce that welcomes all. Passage of these bills could hurt our ability to attract and retain top talent to Idaho, and it could damage Idaho's ability to attract new businesses and create new jobs.

With respect, we ask you to support all of Idaho's diverse communities and reject these measures.

Sincerely,

Chobani

Clif Bar & Company

HP

Micron

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
LGBTQ
Trending Stories