Sheriff Sues Craiglist For Prostitution Ads

Amerika writes "Craigslist is 'the single largest source of prostitution in the nation,' according to Cook County, Illinois Sheriff Thomas Dart. He has announced that he's filing a lawsuit against the popular classifieds site. Craigslist says it's determined to prevent criminal activity." NewYorkCountryLawyer adds a link to the 28-page complaint (PDF), which "alleges that Craigslist maintains 21 classifications of sex-for-hire, coded as 'w4m,' 'm4m,' 'm4w,' etc." and that it has facilitated child prostitution and kidnapping and human trafficking.

Comments

Re:He didn't sue the mortgage banks G&P

[davidsyes]

Speaking of greed and power, i at first was going to insinuate that there are OTHER forces behind this:

microsoft and churches...

Forming an un-wholey (d)alliance. MS can't compete with Craigslist for the hearts and minds of database developers, and the various top-line churches cannot bare to compete with the parts and hinds of offerors and acceptors. So, they join forces and contract a sheriff who acts as cock-blocker and interceptor.

Wait... i hear a deltree and a cruci *(##L&( E# (lost carrier)

There are other issues here.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

"Hmm... renter in good standing making monthly payments, owner in bad standing not making monthly payments. Maybe we should offer them the house in exchange for them continuing to pay. The worst that could happen is they say no and move out."

This might work for a single-occupant building. For a multi-unit building it's not practical.

Selling to another landlord with tenants in place might improve the value - or it might drop it. After all, with the current tenants at their current rent and payment rates the previous landlord couldn't keep the payments up. So the bank might have to clear out the existing tenants to give the building a chance to become a profitable income property.

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to cut the original owners the deal, instead of repossessing and reselling at the lower monthly rates?

Unintended consequence of such a policy: Essentially EVERY borrower immediately defaults to get the same deal.

So the banks won't offer the deal to the existing owners.

(I don't like it either: I'm an existing owner of an owner-occupied property who has kept up payments. I wanted to refinance at the crash-related lower rates. But it looks like I may have to refi with another lender to get it to happen just because of such a policy - assuming I haven't missed the window. Fortunately, keeping up the payments, having a house that's still above water, and having both a job and assets combine to give me a dandy credit rating.)