(no subject)

[which_chick]

It's illegal in Bedford County to write bad checks. You can prosecute assholes who give you bad checks UNLESS, and this is both (a) important and (b) not written down anywhere so that you can only find out about it when it happens to you, UNLESS that bad check is for rent and/or deposit on an apartment.

So, y'know, the seven hundred and fifty dollar rubber check that the cunt at 633 gave us? That one? We were told by the district attorney that he "declines to prosecute bad checks for rent" and so we can't do a fucking thing about it. Since this was the first time we'd ever gotten a bad check for rent that was not made good, we didn't KNOW that our district attorney "declined to prosecute" bad checks for rent. Bad checks for all other things are okay, though. You can prosecute those in Bedford County, just not bad checks for rent. Apparently the choice of which bad checks to prosecute is a matter of preference for the district attorney and if he (or she, but ours is a guy) does not feel it's a prosecute-worthy matter, you're up the fucking creek without a paddle. Huzzah!

This has been your daily helping of and justice for all.

Comments

[sara-merry99.livejournal.com]

How the hell does he justify that?

I mean, checks for rent are typically for large dollar values, so you'd think that'd make it a juicier prospect for prosecution than something piddly and small.

Maybe it's because people need to live somewhere even if they can't afford to pay the rent. But that's really *not* a good precedent to set.

On the other hand, it is probably for the best that it's not written down anywhere because otherwise assholes would be bouncing rent checks like a rubber ball factory.

[which-chick.livejournal.com]

He justified it by saying that landlords "... have the deposit to make up for the check." (No, we don't. The check was for deposit and first month's rent.)

When we informed him of that, he offered us the following very helpful advice: "Don't give them the keys until the check clears." -- in other words, it is our fault for being dumb enough to take a tenant's check. I'm sure glad that I got that deeply insightful advice for free. Gee, thanks, Mr. District Attorney!

See, the thing is that we were operating under the impression that it was illegal to kite checks and that persons who wrote bad checks would go to jail if they didn't make good on the bounced checks. If we had KNOWN that it was A-OK to write bad checks to landlords (but NOT to other businesses or people) for your rent and deposit in this county because the DA's office didn't bother to prosecute such things, we would bloody well not have taken a fucking check for deposit and rent.

As a side note, only checks worth $200.00 or more go to the unhelpful District Attorney. Checks worth less than that amount are handled by the district justices and they actually do things like send the bad-check-writers to jail if they don't make good on the checks.

I think it would be very helpful for the public to know that our DA declines to prosecute rubber rent checks because District Attorney is an elected office. Our current DA ran on a tough on crime platform. I guess he meant other kinds of crime besides kiting checks against landlords.

[fooliv.livejournal.com]

This is in Bedford, right? That limb might be already-half-sawed-off, I'd be careful about climbing out onto it. Namely, you guys aren't residents, just out-of-town landowners. Your vote of, hrm, nobody, does not out-vote the DA's apparent base of resident cheats and cheque-bouncers. It's populism vs. the plutocratic!

Of a sort. Sorry, Mr. Potter. The audience thinks Jimmy Stewart is prettier.

About the only way you could swing this is if you convince the hoopleheads that the DA's "landlords are open season" policy means a great deal of inconvenience and bad-blood between the renters in town and their prospective land-lords, who now will refuse to take cheques, or impose cheque-handling fees, or refuse access to new-rented properties until the cheque clears.

As a renter myself, I aver that such a prospect would definitely get *me* voting against such a personage. But then, I'm kind of a law-and-order sort, myself. Regardless of the interests.

[ksleet.livejournal.com]

Hoopleheads?

[which-chick.livejournal.com]

We deserve the same protection under the law as, say, Giant Eagle, Bedford Carpet One, SAC Motors Inc., Oralee's Golden Eagle Inn, and a slew of other local businesses, none of whom are told that they have to suck it up when presented with a bad check. This is selective lack-of-enforcement aimed at a single kind of business. Either kiting checks is wrong or it is not wrong. You can't make it *wrong* to kite a check at Giant Eagle (for groceries) but *okay* to kite a check to VHDAI (for rent).

I'm writing a letter to the local paper. :)

[electroweak.livejournal.com]

I think he's relying on the local landlords not getting together and funding the campaign of a competitor in either the primary or the general election. Prove the jackass wrong.

[fooliv.livejournal.com]

Deadwood reference. About the only reference from that show which *isn't* an outright obscenity.

Discretion of DA

[ardvaark99999.livejournal.com]

I deal with the issues of DA and police discretion all the time. I recently had a client who obtained a judgment against a tenant for nonpayment of rent. Tenant then filed for bankruptcy but failed to do the things required under the new bankruptcy act to protect himself versus eviction. My client filed for an order of possession and got it and enforced it. The constable came out and threw out said ex-tenant.

Then it got interesting.

Tenant kicked in the door and moved back in. My client called the cops. "It's a civil matter, we won'e get involved. There's a bankruptcy. Blah, blah, blah." Fine. My client goes to the bankruptcy court in Harrisburg and Judge France says "there's no stay vis a vis the landlord, since you blew it. Landlord can evict you." We take this to the local cops. They still won't do a fucking thing.

We file a private criminal complaint, which requires approval of the local DA for anything that's remotely serious, including F3 criminal trespass. They sit on it and refuse to do anything. Meanwhile, the "tenant" has continued to live in the home AND reattached to my client's privately run water system.

Ultimately we negotiated a settlement.

On the flipside, I have a client who was charged with burglarly and felony 3 criminal trespass for going to a friend's house for a pool party, invited by the friend, when friend's parents were not home. Friend's parents are born again theists who have told their daughter not to visit the house when they are not around. They set up video surveillance to make sure she stays out. Their daughter is a hellion, and I can understand this. My client, however, knows none of this and is simply going somewhere it is reasonable to believe she should go, upon invitation, and she gets hit with burglary and f3 trespass because her friend's boyfriend lifted some pills from mommy's medicine cabinet. "Accessory liability" says the cop. The DA agreed to drop the burglary at the preliminary, but we're still fighting the criminal trespass.

It gets even worse later, factually, but my long rambling point is that, yes, the DA can decide what crime is in your county. Your remecy is to un-elect him. That's it.

Re: Discretion of DA

[ardvaark99999.livejournal.com]

You think I would at least proof what I post. That was awful. Many mea culpas.

[electroweak.livejournal.com]

It's probably an obscenity in Etruscan or something like that.