
Squatters Refuse to Leave Illinois Man's Home, So He Moves in With Them
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A state lawmaker has spoken out over the plight of a Chicago property owner who took matters into his own hands by moving in with alleged squatters who refused to vacate his home.
Marco Velazquez, who owns a South Side property and was preparing it for sale told local media he took action when his estate agent discovered two people already in the house.
Illinois State Representative La Shawn Ford told Newsweek: "I am distraught by the situation that Marco Velazquez has faced. This incident is a stark reminder of the challenges that many property owners encounter across Illinois."
Newsweek has contacted Chicago police outside of regular working hours via email for comment.
Why It Matters
Squatting disputes in Illinois, and particularly in Chicago, have drawn increasing attention as homeowners encounter major legal hurdles when trying to remove unauthorized occupants. Under current state law, police often cannot immediately remove individuals who claim to have a right to be on the property.
The episode has brought renewed attention to Illinois' laws around property rights and squatting, as lawmakers consider revisions to how law enforcement can respond to such incidents. Just last month, a proposed "Squatter Bill" sponsored by Ford was passed in the state Senate and is awaiting further action in the House.
File photo: the skyline of Chicago.
File photo: the skyline of Chicago.
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP
What To Know
The alleged squatters, identified as Shermaine Powell-Gillard and her boyfriend Codarro, claimed they had purchased the home owned by Velazquez, according to local news outlet ABC7 Chicago.
They showed the police a mortgage document but Cook County officers did not find the mortgage on record, said the report. Velazquez told an ABC reporter police informed him that they weren't able to do anything and that the case needed to go to a civil court.
"When police told me they couldn't do anything, I said, 'I'm not going to leave,'" Velazquez said. "I called a couple of friends, stayed overnight and I knew they were not going to like that."
Ford said a loophole in existing laws gives people "legal standing to illegally possess real estate owned by property owners."
Velazquez, his wife, and several friends spent the night on air mattresses in the home's living room while the couple stayed in one of the bedrooms. "At one point they've got to leave, they've got to get tired of us being in the property," he told the news outlet.
After a tense standoff, Powell-Gillard and Codarro allegedly demanded $8,000 to leave the property. Velazquez negotiated a lower amount and ultimately paid $4,300 through a cash-for-keys agreement to get them out.
"We didn't want to give them money, but we heard really bad stories about squatters taking over properties for six, eight, 10 months, even a year," Velazquez told ABC.
He later learned that Powell-Gillard is the same woman arrested and charged with multiple offenses, including burglary, forgery, criminal trespass, and obstruction of identification, after allegedly squatting in another Chicago home, belonging to Marcia and Carlton Lee.
Powell-Gillard denied wrongdoing in a statement, saying the claims are "false and unfounded," and asserted her right to be presumed innocent.
No charges have been filed in Velazquez's case to date.
What People Are Saying
Illinois State Representative La Shawn Ford, told Newsweek: "No one should be powerless in their real estate investment, losing control because of criminals and criminal trespassing. Unfortunately, Illinois' law is on the side of the criminal trespasser. The rise in squatting cases is a growing concern nationwide, including in Illinois. The number one reason is a loophole in existing laws that gives criminals legal standing to illegally possess real estate owned by property owners. When laws do not adequately protect property owners, they create environments where such abuses can thrive."
He added: "We need robust legislative action to address these issues. I am proud to sponsor the state's Squatter Bill, which aims to strengthen property owners' protections and streamline law enforcement's process for addressing unlawful occupancy. I stand with Mr. Velazquez and all homeowners struggling with similar challenges, and I am committed to working collaboratively with community leaders and law enforcement to find practical solutions."
Illinois State Senator Lakesia Collins, discussing the proposed "Squatters Bill" last month, according to ABC7: "Senate Bill 1563 will give clarity for law enforcement to go in and remove trespassers. Squatters currently have to go through the legal process, which is sometimes long and lengthy, and it's a burden for someone trying to remove them from their property."
Newsweek has contacted the office of Senator Collins outside of regular working hours via email for comment.
What Happens Next
With pressure mounting over a spate of squatting incidents, Illinois lawmakers may soon be forced to reexamine the balance between property rights and due process.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
33 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Suffers Double Legal Blow Over Migrant Arrests Within Hours
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration suffered two legal defeats on Friday when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sustained a court imposed ban on immigration enforcement being conducted on the basis of language or occupation. And a district judge banned the Department of Homeland Security from using a controversial tactic against those with immigration parole. Newsweek contacted the Department of Homeland Security for comment on Saturday via email outside of regular office hours. Why It Matters Donald Trump was elected as president for a second term in November 2024 after vowing to crackdown on illegal immigration into the United States, and his administration has said it hopes to deport at least 1 million illegal migrants per year. With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress in addition to the White House, the courts have emerged as one of the main impediments to Trump administration policy. Courts have struck down punitive measures introduced by the president against legal firms involved in cases against him; removed sanctions targeted at International Criminal Court employees; and blocked a bid to strip thousands of Haitian migrants of legal protections. What To Know On Friday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a temporary restraining order preventing immigration enforcement agents from detaining people on the basis of their occupation or language was legally valid and can remain in force. It said part of U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong's order had been vague, but added that "defendants, however, are not likely to succeed on their remaining arguments." The initial case was brought by two U.S. nationals who said they were stopped and questioned by immigration enforcement, despite confirming they were citizens, and by three people who were detained at a bus stop where they were looking to find work. File photo: Donald Trump pumps his fist while gesturing to a group of supporters as he departs the White House on August 1, 2025 in Washington, D.C. File photo: Donald Trump pumps his fist while gesturing to a group of supporters as he departs the White House on August 1, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Win McNamee/GETTY Separately, Friday also saw U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ban the Department of Homeland Security from using a controversial tactic against migrants who had been granted immigration parole, allowing them to live and work in the U.S. legally. In a number of cases in recent months, the pending cases against such migrants were dismissed after which they were detained outside the courthouse and put through an expedited removal deportation process. Cobb said that her decision will impact "hundreds of thousands" of migrants. It effectively overrules a Trump administration directive issued on January 23 instructing that "expedited removal," a swifter deportation process, should be used widely. What People Are Saying Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass welcomed Friday's appeals court ruling, saying: "Today is a victory for the rule of law and for the City of Los Angeles. "The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now." Referring to migrants granted immigration parole in her judgment, Judge Cobb said: "In a world of bad options, they played by the rules. Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here." Speaking to Politico, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said: "Judge Cobb is flagrantly ignoring the United States Supreme Court which upheld expedited removals of illegal immigrants by a 7-2 majority. This ruling is lawless and won't stand." What Happens Next District Judge Frimpong's restraining order only temporarily restricted the use of employment and language as the sole factor in detaining suspected illegal migrants, and the full case has yet to be heard. The Trump administration could seek to escalate either case all the way to the Supreme Court, which has a conservative-leaning majority.


Newsweek
10 hours ago
- Newsweek
Ghislaine Maxwell Subpoena Update as House Waits on Supreme Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer told Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys the panel is willing to delay her subpoenaed deposition until after the Supreme Court rules on an appeal she has filed, a decision expected in late September. Maxwell's legal team had warned she would invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination unless certain conditions were met, including congressional immunity, conducting the deposition outside her prison, receiving advance questions, and waiting for the appeal's conclusion. Comer said Maxwell's testimony remains "vital" to the committee's Jeffrey Epstein investigation but ruled out granting immunity or providing questions in advance. He added the panel is "willing to engage in good faith negotiations" and will continue its practice of holding detailed discussions about the scope of testimony. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.


Axios
11 hours ago
- Axios
Federal judge defers ruling on Alina Habba's legal authority
A federal judge on Friday deferred ruling on Alina Habba's legal authority as a prosecutor after President Trump tapped her to lead the U.S. attorney's office for New Jersey. The big picture: A lawyer sought to get a criminal case in New Jersey dismissed by questioning Habba's legitimacy to lead the U.S. attorney's office in the state and arguing that the way the Trump administration restored her authority over the office was "unconstitutional." Catch up quick: In March, Trump appointed his then-presidential counselor Habba to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. That allowed her to work in an acting capacity for 120 days while awaiting Senate confirmation. With Habba's confirmation stalled, the local district court appointed a new prosecutor to serve until the vacancy was filled. Attorney General Pam Bondi terminated the appointment hours later. Trump then withdrew Habba's nomination as the U.S. attorney so that she could be appointed to the position of first assistant U.S. attorney, making her the acting leader of the office. Driving the news: Judge Matthew Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania wrote in the opinion that the motion to dismiss the case is both denied in part and deferred in part. The defendant, Julien Giraud Jr. who is facing charges in a drug and gun-related case, is entitled to injunctive relief "precluding Ms. Habba from participating in their prosecution if they are correct that she was appointed in violation of statute or the Constitution." That injunctive relief, the judge wrote, should extend to Assistant United States Attorneys "purporting to operate pursuant to Ms. Habba's authority." The judge added, "Because relief will be available to them if they are correct, the court should reach the merits of the Girauds' claims," Brann added. Context: Attorney Thomas Mirigliano asked the court to dismiss the indictment or stop Habba and any other attorney acting under "her purported authority" from prosecuting the case.