[troglo-byte]

If you're wondering how a "specialized rent-a-cop" like this guy gets away with using physical force in the context of a civil law dispute, here's the relevant quote:

> When Jacobs takes on a job, he and his contractors sign temporary leases with the property owner. This move is his secret weapon.

> Jacobs is a big fan of California’s “castle doctrine.” The state law says someone has no duty to retreat in defending themselves against an intruder in their home. They can legally use force, even deadly force, to protect themselves — so long as the force used is proportionate to the threat.

The signing of a lease makes the aggressor look like the aggressee. This strategy seems really shaky to me. I can't help but wonder how well it's been tested in court.

Once someone gets seriously hurt, some of these landlords might end up wishing they had just waited out the regular eviction instead.

[tripletao]

> in the context of a civil law dispute

The squatters are very frequently committing criminal fraud, by showing a fake lease to the police to portray themselves as legitimate tenants. Leases aren't recorded like deeds, and landlords' signatures often appear in public records. So it's easy to make a good enough fake that the police will take the squatters' side. I don't know why this article doesn't mention that, but a web search ("fake lease squatter") will show this is routine.

The squatters don't expect to win their dispute in court, just to take advantage of the extended time to trial. Oakland's eviction moratorium lasted for literally years, and they're still working through the backlog. When the case finally reaches court, the squatters will get evicted but the fraud is almost never charged. So from the squatter's perspective, it makes sense to fake the lease.

From a small landlord's perspective, the tradeoff may thus be certain financial ruin waiting for the judicial process vs. a slight chance of ruin if the "nightmare cotentant" approach goes wrong. So it's no surprise the sword guy has business. The risk that his services would be used against a real tenant is partially mitigated by the risk that that tenant would sue. The fake tenants prefer to stay out of court, since the judge (and opposing counsel) will look more carefully at their fake lease than the police did.

Georgia recently created an accelerated judicial review for cases where the landlord is alleging that the lease is fraudulent, separate from default on a non-fraudulent lease. That seems like the right approach to me.

[compsciphd]

I think all leases (or at least rent stabalized ones) are recorded in NYS (I remember being able to get the recorded rent history of my apartment which included the names of all the previous renters), so it is possible for this to occur.

[like_any_other]

> I don't know why this article doesn't mention that, but a web search ("fake lease squatter") will show this is routine.

Same reason the article put "empty" in the title to imply they were just sitting around for speculative investing, when there's every indication the houses were intended to be immediately rented out, and are only "empty" because squatters moved in first.

[compsciphd]

one can combine the above issue with the force recording of leases to require every unit to pay a "residence" tax that if not recorded as being occupied by someone other than the owner is assumed (even if owner has other place of residence) to be occupied by the owner.

This does a few things. 1) it encourages the owner to rent out empty places, as empty places are no longer simply lost opportunity cost, but actually cost money in what they have to pay in this tax 2) requires people record who is legally living in a place to avoid these issues 3) enables areas to discount this tax for poor / disabled (or other logical reasons that they already have procedures for) for people who live in the area that they want to support.

[mothballed]

If I did this to someone society liked (say, a girlfriend who had moved in and claims she is now a tenant), even as a fellow tenant, invited someone over with a sword to bear (but not "use") that sword as part of a pattern of activities intended to deprive her of her peaceful enjoyment of her tenancy including deploying "tear gas" and "smoke grenades" and play "extremely high-decibel sound" I would expect, at a minimum, I'd be looking at

1) Domestic violence 2) Harassment 3) Possibly Assault

At the very least I would expect to get booked, even if the charges didn't stick.

If I did this to some random homeless person or gang member, I'd expect basically a high five from the cops and nothing else.

Of course I do not live in CA, I live in AZ. In my state, ranchers have just straight up shot trespassers and nothing happened to them, despite the fact that by the book this would be highly illegal.

The guy doing this has discovered that in order to be convicted someone has to complain, then the police have to care, then a judge has to let it go to trial, a prosecutor has to actually want to competently build a case, and then after all that a jury actually has to convict you. I'm guessing the chance of all those stars aligning when the squatters are people literally spray painting "Kill all Bailiffs" (in one ASAP website screenshot) is next to nill.

[Sabinus]

Your analogy breaks down because the girlfriend might have a genuine claim to being a tenant and can defend that in court.

Squatters can't and won't. The whole point is it's time and money consuming to prove they're not tenants and legally evict them, not they they're actually tenants with rights to peaceful enjoyment of the property.

[troglo-byte]

> I do not live in CA, I live in AZ

I've never lived in AZ, but it sounds like this may have a lot to do with it. ;-)

Personal injury is an area where plaintiffs start out with a huge advantage. Judgments are large and cases are often settled out of court by landlords' insurance companies. Not only would you have no trouble finding a lawyer, they might actively seek you out.