Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
temeculaguy
ParticipantI am a recent convert but haven’t made the jump to their computers yet. I freaking love my iphone 3G, I can’t say enough about it and I’m never going back to blackberry/palm or other phones. I don’t even want to look at macs because I know i’ll want one and they are considerably more expensive. I understand why people love their macs, if my computer was as ingenius and innovative as my phone (while being more user friendly and reliable) then I’ll never look back and become a mac person, and I’ll pay through the nose. I am going to hold off as long as I can.
ParticipantI am a recent convert but haven’t made the jump to their computers yet. I freaking love my iphone 3G, I can’t say enough about it and I’m never going back to blackberry/palm or other phones. I don’t even want to look at macs because I know i’ll want one and they are considerably more expensive. I understand why people love their macs, if my computer was as ingenius and innovative as my phone (while being more user friendly and reliable) then I’ll never look back and become a mac person, and I’ll pay through the nose. I am going to hold off as long as I can.
ParticipantI am a recent convert but haven’t made the jump to their computers yet. I freaking love my iphone 3G, I can’t say enough about it and I’m never going back to blackberry/palm or other phones. I don’t even want to look at macs because I know i’ll want one and they are considerably more expensive. I understand why people love their macs, if my computer was as ingenius and innovative as my phone (while being more user friendly and reliable) then I’ll never look back and become a mac person, and I’ll pay through the nose. I am going to hold off as long as I can.
Participantsd, I agree, karma will be their punisher, there are plenty of bad things that people do that are not criminal acts, they never really get away with it because karma knows no case law.
veritas, good suggestion but no. Conspiracy is like a condiment, it can only be added to a crime, it doesn’t stand alone. Conspiracy to commit….fill in the blank. Conspriracy is just two or more people planning a criminal act and doing something in furtherance of that act. If we talk about robbing a bank=not conspiracy. If we buy guns and scout out the bank, even if we never do it, we did commit conspiracy. If we conspire to make a pie, we cannot be charged with conspiracy because the act in this case (making a pie) isn’t criminal in and of itself.
Participantsd, I agree, karma will be their punisher, there are plenty of bad things that people do that are not criminal acts, they never really get away with it because karma knows no case law.
veritas, good suggestion but no. Conspiracy is like a condiment, it can only be added to a crime, it doesn’t stand alone. Conspiracy to commit….fill in the blank. Conspriracy is just two or more people planning a criminal act and doing something in furtherance of that act. If we talk about robbing a bank=not conspiracy. If we buy guns and scout out the bank, even if we never do it, we did commit conspiracy. If we conspire to make a pie, we cannot be charged with conspiracy because the act in this case (making a pie) isn’t criminal in and of itself.
Participantsd, I agree, karma will be their punisher, there are plenty of bad things that people do that are not criminal acts, they never really get away with it because karma knows no case law.
veritas, good suggestion but no. Conspiracy is like a condiment, it can only be added to a crime, it doesn’t stand alone. Conspiracy to commit….fill in the blank. Conspriracy is just two or more people planning a criminal act and doing something in furtherance of that act. If we talk about robbing a bank=not conspiracy. If we buy guns and scout out the bank, even if we never do it, we did commit conspiracy. If we conspire to make a pie, we cannot be charged with conspiracy because the act in this case (making a pie) isn’t criminal in and of itself.
Participantsd, I agree, karma will be their punisher, there are plenty of bad things that people do that are not criminal acts, they never really get away with it because karma knows no case law.
veritas, good suggestion but no. Conspiracy is like a condiment, it can only be added to a crime, it doesn’t stand alone. Conspiracy to commit….fill in the blank. Conspriracy is just two or more people planning a criminal act and doing something in furtherance of that act. If we talk about robbing a bank=not conspiracy. If we buy guns and scout out the bank, even if we never do it, we did commit conspiracy. If we conspire to make a pie, we cannot be charged with conspiracy because the act in this case (making a pie) isn’t criminal in and of itself.
Participantsd, I agree, karma will be their punisher, there are plenty of bad things that people do that are not criminal acts, they never really get away with it because karma knows no case law.
veritas, good suggestion but no. Conspiracy is like a condiment, it can only be added to a crime, it doesn’t stand alone. Conspiracy to commit….fill in the blank. Conspriracy is just two or more people planning a criminal act and doing something in furtherance of that act. If we talk about robbing a bank=not conspiracy. If we buy guns and scout out the bank, even if we never do it, we did commit conspiracy. If we conspire to make a pie, we cannot be charged with conspiracy because the act in this case (making a pie) isn’t criminal in and of itself.
Participantuco, good try but it’s still not enough. most examples reference intent at the time parties entered the contract, so it wouldn’t apply here. Since you looked up the federal case law, focus on state statues, the feds rarely make simple theft arrests and police won’t arrest for federal crimes. Check 484 through 487 of the California Penal Code, I see no applicable penal code section, nor has any legislator, district attorney or police agency in this state. You can ignore my phantom credentials, just search for a single example in this state, surely with the tens of thousands of incidents, someone got pissed enough to file charges or at least try.
Academicly the bank owns the home when there is a mortgage but not the property rights. The 4th ammendment protects the borrower and to a lesser extent even a renter. Landlords own the home in name, banks have the deed, but the occupant has all the rights. Government agents cannot enter a residence even with the permission of the Landlord and the Bank absent a search warrant. But they can enter the home with permission of the occupant, even with the objection of the landlord and the bank. In this scenario, one might think the landlord or the bank is the more important “owner” but the law only recognizes the occupant. As far as the penal code is concerned, whoever sleeps there is the only one with rights (this does not apply to hotel, motel or employment related housing such as a fireman in a firehouse).
I can point to thousands of examples of fb’s selling off appliances, find me one example where there was a criminal complaint filed and I will concede the point, or find the applicable penal code section, until then, my ruling stands, non criminal.
Participantuco, good try but it’s still not enough. most examples reference intent at the time parties entered the contract, so it wouldn’t apply here. Since you looked up the federal case law, focus on state statues, the feds rarely make simple theft arrests and police won’t arrest for federal crimes. Check 484 through 487 of the California Penal Code, I see no applicable penal code section, nor has any legislator, district attorney or police agency in this state. You can ignore my phantom credentials, just search for a single example in this state, surely with the tens of thousands of incidents, someone got pissed enough to file charges or at least try.
Academicly the bank owns the home when there is a mortgage but not the property rights. The 4th ammendment protects the borrower and to a lesser extent even a renter. Landlords own the home in name, banks have the deed, but the occupant has all the rights. Government agents cannot enter a residence even with the permission of the Landlord and the Bank absent a search warrant. But they can enter the home with permission of the occupant, even with the objection of the landlord and the bank. In this scenario, one might think the landlord or the bank is the more important “owner” but the law only recognizes the occupant. As far as the penal code is concerned, whoever sleeps there is the only one with rights (this does not apply to hotel, motel or employment related housing such as a fireman in a firehouse).
I can point to thousands of examples of fb’s selling off appliances, find me one example where there was a criminal complaint filed and I will concede the point, or find the applicable penal code section, until then, my ruling stands, non criminal.
Participantuco, good try but it’s still not enough. most examples reference intent at the time parties entered the contract, so it wouldn’t apply here. Since you looked up the federal case law, focus on state statues, the feds rarely make simple theft arrests and police won’t arrest for federal crimes. Check 484 through 487 of the California Penal Code, I see no applicable penal code section, nor has any legislator, district attorney or police agency in this state. You can ignore my phantom credentials, just search for a single example in this state, surely with the tens of thousands of incidents, someone got pissed enough to file charges or at least try.
Academicly the bank owns the home when there is a mortgage but not the property rights. The 4th ammendment protects the borrower and to a lesser extent even a renter. Landlords own the home in name, banks have the deed, but the occupant has all the rights. Government agents cannot enter a residence even with the permission of the Landlord and the Bank absent a search warrant. But they can enter the home with permission of the occupant, even with the objection of the landlord and the bank. In this scenario, one might think the landlord or the bank is the more important “owner” but the law only recognizes the occupant. As far as the penal code is concerned, whoever sleeps there is the only one with rights (this does not apply to hotel, motel or employment related housing such as a fireman in a firehouse).
I can point to thousands of examples of fb’s selling off appliances, find me one example where there was a criminal complaint filed and I will concede the point, or find the applicable penal code section, until then, my ruling stands, non criminal.
Participantuco, good try but it’s still not enough. most examples reference intent at the time parties entered the contract, so it wouldn’t apply here. Since you looked up the federal case law, focus on state statues, the feds rarely make simple theft arrests and police won’t arrest for federal crimes. Check 484 through 487 of the California Penal Code, I see no applicable penal code section, nor has any legislator, district attorney or police agency in this state. You can ignore my phantom credentials, just search for a single example in this state, surely with the tens of thousands of incidents, someone got pissed enough to file charges or at least try.
Academicly the bank owns the home when there is a mortgage but not the property rights. The 4th ammendment protects the borrower and to a lesser extent even a renter. Landlords own the home in name, banks have the deed, but the occupant has all the rights. Government agents cannot enter a residence even with the permission of the Landlord and the Bank absent a search warrant. But they can enter the home with permission of the occupant, even with the objection of the landlord and the bank. In this scenario, one might think the landlord or the bank is the more important “owner” but the law only recognizes the occupant. As far as the penal code is concerned, whoever sleeps there is the only one with rights (this does not apply to hotel, motel or employment related housing such as a fireman in a firehouse).
I can point to thousands of examples of fb’s selling off appliances, find me one example where there was a criminal complaint filed and I will concede the point, or find the applicable penal code section, until then, my ruling stands, non criminal.
Participantuco, good try but it’s still not enough. most examples reference intent at the time parties entered the contract, so it wouldn’t apply here. Since you looked up the federal case law, focus on state statues, the feds rarely make simple theft arrests and police won’t arrest for federal crimes. Check 484 through 487 of the California Penal Code, I see no applicable penal code section, nor has any legislator, district attorney or police agency in this state. You can ignore my phantom credentials, just search for a single example in this state, surely with the tens of thousands of incidents, someone got pissed enough to file charges or at least try.
Academicly the bank owns the home when there is a mortgage but not the property rights. The 4th ammendment protects the borrower and to a lesser extent even a renter. Landlords own the home in name, banks have the deed, but the occupant has all the rights. Government agents cannot enter a residence even with the permission of the Landlord and the Bank absent a search warrant. But they can enter the home with permission of the occupant, even with the objection of the landlord and the bank. In this scenario, one might think the landlord or the bank is the more important “owner” but the law only recognizes the occupant. As far as the penal code is concerned, whoever sleeps there is the only one with rights (this does not apply to hotel, motel or employment related housing such as a fireman in a firehouse).
I can point to thousands of examples of fb’s selling off appliances, find me one example where there was a criminal complaint filed and I will concede the point, or find the applicable penal code section, until then, my ruling stands, non criminal.
Participantuco, 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.
-
AuthorPosts
