Anyone need any stuff for their current residence?

[Enorah]

Cardiff!

I have started to see them pop up now, foreclosures in the beach towns, slowly, very slowly, but it is happening.

[sdrealtor]

Its the lowest end condo complex in CBS. Hardly the harbinger of doom right now.

[sdrealtor]

Its the lowest end condo complex in CBS. Hardly the harbinger of doom right now.

[sdrealtor]

Its the lowest end condo complex in CBS. Hardly the harbinger of doom right now.

[sdrealtor]

Its the lowest end condo complex in CBS. Hardly the harbinger of doom right now.

[sdrealtor]

Its the lowest end condo complex in CBS. Hardly the harbinger of doom right now.

[temeculaguy]

uco, while your theory makes sense, it doesn’t fit into current laws. I could bore you with the statutory law and the case law involving theft, contracts and loans but I wont. Let’s just say pretend I know what I’m talking about. If you buy a car, replace the goodyear tires with the cheapest tires you can find after the original tires wear out and the car gets repo’d. Are you guilty of theft for not returning the original tires or replacing them with equally expensive tires. The answer is you are not, the contract nullifies the theft. You can search cases, millions of theft cases and you will not find a single prosecution that fits into the scanario of tires, ovens, granite, etc. as long as the “thief” was a party to the contract and disposed of it while in lawful possession. There are factors that can change the scenario such as returning the day after being evicted and taking fixed items but if you dispose of them while in possession, no crime. If the lender was smart they could seek an injuction to bar the owner from removing fixed items at the point of the nod, then the violation doesn’t need to satisfy the theft statute, it would be an offence to violate the court order.

Affecting the loan securitization is not a criminal act, there is no applicable statute. Theft requires the taking and the permanent deprivation of the property of another. Having a loan does not make the bank the owner in the eyes of the law, they have a contractual interest but it is still your house. The bank can’t come in when they feel like it, they can’t sleep on the couch without permission, because in the eyes of our laws it is your house, loan or not. If you fail to pay the bank can go to the court and have the contract enforced, thus removing your interest and your person from the house but only with the court’s ruling, not because they feel like it. If your car is stolen, you are the victim, not the bank that holds a lien on the car. It’s your car, despite the loan, lenders are not the owner. The exception is identy theft where visa eats the loss, making them the victim, but theft is not about loss it about taking what is not yours, if you go bankrupt and don’t pay visa, no theft, it was contractual, you were a party to the contract, the identity thief was not.

See, i’ve done it, I gone off on tangents, can we just go back to the beginning and not force me to reveal my vocation and education and just stipulate that I am not a stranger to the legal arts. I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is no criminal act here. It is not because lenders or the system is lazy, it is because the law does not apply to this scenario. You can’t prosecute because something should be a crime, it actually has to be one.

[temeculaguy]

uco, while your theory makes sense, it doesn’t fit into current laws. I could bore you with the statutory law and the case law involving theft, contracts and loans but I wont. Let’s just say pretend I know what I’m talking about. If you buy a car, replace the goodyear tires with the cheapest tires you can find after the original tires wear out and the car gets repo’d. Are you guilty of theft for not returning the original tires or replacing them with equally expensive tires. The answer is you are not, the contract nullifies the theft. You can search cases, millions of theft cases and you will not find a single prosecution that fits into the scanario of tires, ovens, granite, etc. as long as the “thief” was a party to the contract and disposed of it while in lawful possession. There are factors that can change the scenario such as returning the day after being evicted and taking fixed items but if you dispose of them while in possession, no crime. If the lender was smart they could seek an injuction to bar the owner from removing fixed items at the point of the nod, then the violation doesn’t need to satisfy the theft statute, it would be an offence to violate the court order.

Affecting the loan securitization is not a criminal act, there is no applicable statute. Theft requires the taking and the permanent deprivation of the property of another. Having a loan does not make the bank the owner in the eyes of the law, they have a contractual interest but it is still your house. The bank can’t come in when they feel like it, they can’t sleep on the couch without permission, because in the eyes of our laws it is your house, loan or not. If you fail to pay the bank can go to the court and have the contract enforced, thus removing your interest and your person from the house but only with the court’s ruling, not because they feel like it. If your car is stolen, you are the victim, not the bank that holds a lien on the car. It’s your car, despite the loan, lenders are not the owner. The exception is identy theft where visa eats the loss, making them the victim, but theft is not about loss it about taking what is not yours, if you go bankrupt and don’t pay visa, no theft, it was contractual, you were a party to the contract, the identity thief was not.

See, i’ve done it, I gone off on tangents, can we just go back to the beginning and not force me to reveal my vocation and education and just stipulate that I am not a stranger to the legal arts. I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is no criminal act here. It is not because lenders or the system is lazy, it is because the law does not apply to this scenario. You can’t prosecute because something should be a crime, it actually has to be one.

[temeculaguy]

uco, while your theory makes sense, it doesn’t fit into current laws. I could bore you with the statutory law and the case law involving theft, contracts and loans but I wont. Let’s just say pretend I know what I’m talking about. If you buy a car, replace the goodyear tires with the cheapest tires you can find after the original tires wear out and the car gets repo’d. Are you guilty of theft for not returning the original tires or replacing them with equally expensive tires. The answer is you are not, the contract nullifies the theft. You can search cases, millions of theft cases and you will not find a single prosecution that fits into the scanario of tires, ovens, granite, etc. as long as the “thief” was a party to the contract and disposed of it while in lawful possession. There are factors that can change the scenario such as returning the day after being evicted and taking fixed items but if you dispose of them while in possession, no crime. If the lender was smart they could seek an injuction to bar the owner from removing fixed items at the point of the nod, then the violation doesn’t need to satisfy the theft statute, it would be an offence to violate the court order.

Affecting the loan securitization is not a criminal act, there is no applicable statute. Theft requires the taking and the permanent deprivation of the property of another. Having a loan does not make the bank the owner in the eyes of the law, they have a contractual interest but it is still your house. The bank can’t come in when they feel like it, they can’t sleep on the couch without permission, because in the eyes of our laws it is your house, loan or not. If you fail to pay the bank can go to the court and have the contract enforced, thus removing your interest and your person from the house but only with the court’s ruling, not because they feel like it. If your car is stolen, you are the victim, not the bank that holds a lien on the car. It’s your car, despite the loan, lenders are not the owner. The exception is identy theft where visa eats the loss, making them the victim, but theft is not about loss it about taking what is not yours, if you go bankrupt and don’t pay visa, no theft, it was contractual, you were a party to the contract, the identity thief was not.

See, i’ve done it, I gone off on tangents, can we just go back to the beginning and not force me to reveal my vocation and education and just stipulate that I am not a stranger to the legal arts. I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is no criminal act here. It is not because lenders or the system is lazy, it is because the law does not apply to this scenario. You can’t prosecute because something should be a crime, it actually has to be one.

[temeculaguy]

uco, while your theory makes sense, it doesn’t fit into current laws. I could bore you with the statutory law and the case law involving theft, contracts and loans but I wont. Let’s just say pretend I know what I’m talking about. If you buy a car, replace the goodyear tires with the cheapest tires you can find after the original tires wear out and the car gets repo’d. Are you guilty of theft for not returning the original tires or replacing them with equally expensive tires. The answer is you are not, the contract nullifies the theft. You can search cases, millions of theft cases and you will not find a single prosecution that fits into the scanario of tires, ovens, granite, etc. as long as the “thief” was a party to the contract and disposed of it while in lawful possession. There are factors that can change the scenario such as returning the day after being evicted and taking fixed items but if you dispose of them while in possession, no crime. If the lender was smart they could seek an injuction to bar the owner from removing fixed items at the point of the nod, then the violation doesn’t need to satisfy the theft statute, it would be an offence to violate the court order.

Affecting the loan securitization is not a criminal act, there is no applicable statute. Theft requires the taking and the permanent deprivation of the property of another. Having a loan does not make the bank the owner in the eyes of the law, they have a contractual interest but it is still your house. The bank can’t come in when they feel like it, they can’t sleep on the couch without permission, because in the eyes of our laws it is your house, loan or not. If you fail to pay the bank can go to the court and have the contract enforced, thus removing your interest and your person from the house but only with the court’s ruling, not because they feel like it. If your car is stolen, you are the victim, not the bank that holds a lien on the car. It’s your car, despite the loan, lenders are not the owner. The exception is identy theft where visa eats the loss, making them the victim, but theft is not about loss it about taking what is not yours, if you go bankrupt and don’t pay visa, no theft, it was contractual, you were a party to the contract, the identity thief was not.

See, i’ve done it, I gone off on tangents, can we just go back to the beginning and not force me to reveal my vocation and education and just stipulate that I am not a stranger to the legal arts. I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is no criminal act here. It is not because lenders or the system is lazy, it is because the law does not apply to this scenario. You can’t prosecute because something should be a crime, it actually has to be one.

[temeculaguy]

uco, while your theory makes sense, it doesn’t fit into current laws. I could bore you with the statutory law and the case law involving theft, contracts and loans but I wont. Let’s just say pretend I know what I’m talking about. If you buy a car, replace the goodyear tires with the cheapest tires you can find after the original tires wear out and the car gets repo’d. Are you guilty of theft for not returning the original tires or replacing them with equally expensive tires. The answer is you are not, the contract nullifies the theft. You can search cases, millions of theft cases and you will not find a single prosecution that fits into the scanario of tires, ovens, granite, etc. as long as the “thief” was a party to the contract and disposed of it while in lawful possession. There are factors that can change the scenario such as returning the day after being evicted and taking fixed items but if you dispose of them while in possession, no crime. If the lender was smart they could seek an injuction to bar the owner from removing fixed items at the point of the nod, then the violation doesn’t need to satisfy the theft statute, it would be an offence to violate the court order.

Affecting the loan securitization is not a criminal act, there is no applicable statute. Theft requires the taking and the permanent deprivation of the property of another. Having a loan does not make the bank the owner in the eyes of the law, they have a contractual interest but it is still your house. The bank can’t come in when they feel like it, they can’t sleep on the couch without permission, because in the eyes of our laws it is your house, loan or not. If you fail to pay the bank can go to the court and have the contract enforced, thus removing your interest and your person from the house but only with the court’s ruling, not because they feel like it. If your car is stolen, you are the victim, not the bank that holds a lien on the car. It’s your car, despite the loan, lenders are not the owner. The exception is identy theft where visa eats the loss, making them the victim, but theft is not about loss it about taking what is not yours, if you go bankrupt and don’t pay visa, no theft, it was contractual, you were a party to the contract, the identity thief was not.

See, i’ve done it, I gone off on tangents, can we just go back to the beginning and not force me to reveal my vocation and education and just stipulate that I am not a stranger to the legal arts. I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is no criminal act here. It is not because lenders or the system is lazy, it is because the law does not apply to this scenario. You can’t prosecute because something should be a crime, it actually has to be one.

[drunkle]

first they came for the trailer homes and i did not speak out because i was not a trailer home.
then they came for the condos and i did not speak out because i was not a condo.
then they came for the starter homes and i did not speak out because i was not a starter home.
then they came for the overpriced overbuilt overhyped tract mansions and there was no one left to speak out for sdr.

[drunkle]

first they came for the trailer homes and i did not speak out because i was not a trailer home.
then they came for the condos and i did not speak out because i was not a condo.
then they came for the starter homes and i did not speak out because i was not a starter home.
then they came for the overpriced overbuilt overhyped tract mansions and there was no one left to speak out for sdr.

[drunkle]

first they came for the trailer homes and i did not speak out because i was not a trailer home.
then they came for the condos and i did not speak out because i was not a condo.
then they came for the starter homes and i did not speak out because i was not a starter home.
then they came for the overpriced overbuilt overhyped tract mansions and there was no one left to speak out for sdr.

[drunkle]

first they came for the trailer homes and i did not speak out because i was not a trailer home.
then they came for the condos and i did not speak out because i was not a condo.
then they came for the starter homes and i did not speak out because i was not a starter home.
then they came for the overpriced overbuilt overhyped tract mansions and there was no one left to speak out for sdr.

[Author]

Posts