The law is the law

Kieran_Burns

Manc - look... you've got this idea firmly stuck in your head that is based on an utterly false premise that seems to fit your world view and you refuse to let go.

You get basic facts incorrect (no more hangings for petty crimes since the 16th Century? Derby didn't even HAVE a gaol until 1652 (17th Century) and there were plenty of hangings then. (http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/derbygaol.html) for reference if you want to get some facts.

Let's start with a good one from the 19th Century:
On the 12th of April 1833, 20 year old John Leedham from Ashbourne became to the first to be hanged at Vernon Street Gaol, for bestiality with a sheep


You use other people's arguments without actually checking their veracity and are unable to provide any evidence despite being repeatedly asked. All you do is turn the question back and do a written version of asking everyone to prove something does not exist. (logically impossible)

You also provide 'evidence' to support your claim in which you very clearly do not see what is written in front of you. This is simple confirmation bias (in that you will only acknowledge that which suits your world view and not 'see' what does not) and is in complete contradiction to what is in front of you.

Just go away and spend some time looking for real evidence to back up all your claims of people 'winning' using your arguments and then come back to us when you do.

Manc33

I'm not out by 300 years because I said for "petty crime" and you just aren't reading.

Chris Bass wrote:

So do you think it is ok for people to drop litter, not wear seat belts and park illegally?

Let's say you drop litter (a wooden lolly stick for example) and get fined £30. Where's the £30 of criminal damage you caused in the world because you dropped a wooden lolly stick?

Let's say you get fined £80 for not wearing a seat belt. Where's the £80 of criminal damage you caused in the world because you didn't wear your seat belt? If you're going to use the pathetic excuse of flying through the windscreen and hurting someone, show me a case where that happened, one case.

Let's say you park on double yellow lines for five minutes while you pop in somewhere and get fined £80. Where's the £80 of criminal damage you caused in the world because you parked on double yellow lines?

Chris Bass wrote:

People enter into mortgage agreements knowing the terms, to try and wriggle your way out of it is in effect steling, if you don't like the interest you have to pay, don't get a mortgage, job done.

You're not exactly on the same page as me here are you.

I am not talking about "wriggling out" of anything. I can see how it might appear that way to someone that doesn't know their rights.

Imagine your mortgage company writing to you and saying "Sorry Mr. De Burgh, we appear to have accidentally misplaced your mortgage agreement, actually it never existed on paper, so you don't really need to keep on paying us because we can't prove a case" would you write back and say "But I bought that house, I owe it you" lol. Yes you probably would, but you'd be totally in the wrong and on top of that, a sucker of the highest order.

It would be unlawful to take money from an individual without any documentation to show why the money is being taken. Stopping paying your mortgage in such a situation would merely be your duty.

il_principe

Best. Thread. Ever.

DrLex

Il Principe wrote:

Best. Thread. Ever.

Hmmm - I liked Hambone's one about the Receptionist more (but then I haven't lawyered for 20 years).

walkingbootweather

Il Principe wrote:

Best. Thread. Ever.

Entertaining yes, but better that 'The secretary' or 'I blame wiggle' ? not yet - come on Manc33 you need to try a bit harder for that.

Edit - Dr Lex beat me to it - I think it was the receptionist not the secretary, but I don't think her precise job description was key....

Kieran_Burns

DrLex wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Best. Thread. Ever.

Hmmm - I liked Hambone's one about the Receptionist more (but then I haven't lawyered for 20 years).

viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12765242

For those trying to refresh their memory

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

I'm not out by 300 years because I said for "petty crime" and you just aren't reading.

Chris Bass wrote:

So do you think it is ok for people to drop litter, not wear seat belts and park illegally?

Let's say you drop litter (a wooden lolly stick for example) and get fined £30. Where's the £30 of criminal damage you caused in the world because you dropped a wooden lolly stick?

Let's say you get fined £80 for not wearing a seat belt. Where's the £80 of criminal damage you caused in the world because you didn't wear your seat belt? If you're going to use the pathetic excuse of flying through the windscreen and hurting someone, show me a case where that happened, one case.

Let's say you park on double yellow lines for five minutes while you pop in somewhere and get fined £80. Where's the £80 of criminal damage you caused in the world because you parked on double yellow lines?

Chris Bass wrote:

People enter into mortgage agreements knowing the terms, to try and wriggle your way out of it is in effect steling, if you don't like the interest you have to pay, don't get a mortgage, job done.

You're not exactly on the same page as me here are you.

I am not talking about "wriggling out" of anything. I can see how it might appear that way to someone that doesn't know their rights.

Imagine your mortgage company writing to you and saying "Sorry Mr. De Burgh, we appear to have accidentally misplaced your mortgage agreement, actually it never existed on paper, so you don't really need to keep on paying us because we can't prove a case" would you write back and say "But I bought that house, I owe it you" lol. Yes you probably would, but you'd be totally in the wrong and on top of that, a sucker of the highest order.

It would be unlawful to take money from an individual without any documentation to show why the money is being taken. Stopping paying your mortgage in such a situation would merely be your duty.

Yellow lines aren't there for the fun of it, they are usually in places that are inconvenient to others or dangerous to park. So, for example, you park on double yellow lines at a junction, someone can't see if it is safe to go, has a crash, I'd say that is a lot more than £80.

seat belt - could cost the NHS a lot more than the fine in avoidable injuries.

dropping litter is a bad thing, the fine is a deterrent.

You can't spin the mortgage thing around - you said people were asking for the mortgage company to provide a statement of their mortgage (which they will be sent every year and they themselves should have a copy from when they took out the mortgage) and if it didn't arrive on time (who sets this time limit?) then they can just not pay their mortgage and that's fine. That sounds a lot like someone wanting to just get away without paying for what they owe.

No one gets tricked into taking out a mortgage - if you don't like it don't get one.

davis

Manc33 wrote:

You're not exactly on the same page as me here are you.

That is certainly one way of putting it.

Manc33

Chris Bass wrote:

Yellow lines aren't there for the fun of it, they are usually in places that are inconvenient to others or dangerous to park. So, for example, you park on double yellow lines at a junction, someone can't see if it is safe to go, has a crash, I'd say that is a lot more than £80.

The law doesn't work on "usually" and "if".

Chris Bass wrote:

seat belt - could cost the NHS a lot more than the fine in avoidable injuries.

So the NHS treats them then, so what. We go rescuing people off the sides of mountains taking part in leisure activities - at a cost of thousands or even tens of thousands to rescue them.

Chris Bass wrote:

dropping litter is a bad thing, the fine is a deterrent.

I was talking about a biodegradable lolly stick with a £30 fine. A lolly stick made from the same material as millions of twigs that fall off trees naturally all over the place all through Autumn and not one eyebrow is raised to it. My point is if it doesn't matter that much about little wooden sticks falling off trees (in terms of it being "litter") then a human leaving a wooden stick on the ground is not littering either.

Aren't people just being made to think they should be feeling guilty all the time?

Chris Bass wrote:

You can't spin the mortgage thing around - you said people were asking for the mortgage company to provide a statement of their mortgage (which they will be sent every year and they themselves should have a copy from when they took out the mortgage) and if it didn't arrive on time (who sets this time limit?) then they can just not pay their mortgage and that's fine. That sounds a lot like someone wanting to just get away without paying for what they owe.

Maybe that would be true in a world where signed paperwork meant nothing.

Chris Bass wrote:

No one gets tricked into taking out a mortgage - if you don't like it don't get one.

That's debatable since the bank doesn't tell you one single thing about Fractional Reserve Lending - they are lending you the mortgage money on the back of no assets whatsoever, yet you have to pay them back real assets and if you don't, they take a real asset - your house. This stuff isn't explained... even in the microscopic fine print no one reads.

Ian.B

Kieran_Burns wrote:

DrLex wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Best. Thread. Ever.

Hmmm - I liked Hambone's one about the Receptionist more (but then I haven't lawyered for 20 years).

viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12765242

For those trying to refresh their memory

I was just thinking that either this is top class trolling or pure deluded madness, but either way Manc33 has earned his place in the pantheon of Commuting Chat greats 8)

The Receptionist was indeed one of the finest. Also DDD's mouse, and the shaving one (no, not cut-throat shaving, the other one), and Kieran's good deed with the young lady cyclist spring to mind. Happy times.

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

Too long to quote

So trees falls on cars in storms and destroy them, does that mean it is ok for me to smash up anyone's car? I mean if trees are allowed I am too, is that how it works?

You still haven't answered me - is it ok if everyone dropped their lollipop sticks on the ground? exactly how long do you think they would take to biodegrade? People sweep up the leaves and twigs off trees so it isn't like they are just left there to rot away is it?

Do you have a mortgage?

I think you'll find most banks do have quite a few real assets. And in fairness my wages go into my bank, I never see them, my mortgage come straight out of my bank, I never see it, so is it really a real asset that I am paying?!

Manc33

Chris Bass wrote:

So trees falls on cars in storms and destroy them, does that mean it is ok for me to smash up anyone's car? I mean if trees are allowed I am too, is that how it works?

No, because trees cannot be held accountable for causing a loss, whereas human beings can. If twigs fall on the floor, or someone leaves a wooden lolly stick on the floor, no one loses out in either case. Therefore it is unjustifiable to enforce a fine, it doesn't match up with the "crime". You cannot show any loss or harm being caused by it.

Chris Bass wrote:

You still haven't answered me - is it ok if everyone dropped their lollipop sticks on the ground?

Yes if it is made of wood, because you have no rational argument against that when bits of wood already fall on the ground all over the UK in Autumn. I mean someone is being punished for something that already happens and no one really cares.

Why does no one care about bits of wood dropping from trees but if a human does it they are liable to suffer a financial loss? Look at what you're subscribing to.

Chris Bass wrote:

exactly how long do you think they would take to biodegrade? People sweep up the leaves and twigs off trees so it isn't like they are just left there to rot away is it?

In that case the same can be said about litter - it will just get cleaned up along with all the twigs. This is kinda why we pay for street cleaning services (and would be prosecuted for not paying). Are you saying street cleaning services should just be paid money and expected to do nothing for it?

Chris Bass wrote:

Do you have a mortgage?

How is this relevant?

Chris Bass wrote:

I think you'll find most banks do have quite a few real assets.

Again you're not talking about the same thing I am for some reason. When did I ever say banks have no assets? I didn't say that. I said they use Fractional Reserve Lending against people. They obviously don't have enough reserves to back up their lending, because they practice Fractional Reserve Lending.

It stems back to when bankers first realized people keeping money in the bank don't all come back at once to draw the money out. So they started creating paper receipts to say "I promise to pay" because the bankers counterfeiting these notes say so... it was sold to people on the basis that its safer carrying paper notes around than real gold, which is true.

They always have to have a legitimate "release valve" to it (its safer etc etc) to employ these behind-the-scenes tactics at all, otherwise it would never work.

Yes its safer and easier carrying paper money around than gold, but why on Earth would people then think that is the sole reason and totally ignore it allowing the banks to unlawfully lend out money they don't really have?

It used to be called usury, before they came up with the term "Fractional Reserve Lending".

Chris Bass wrote:

And in fairness my wages go into my bank, I never see them, my mortgage come straight out of my bank, I never see it, so is it really a real asset that I am paying?!

Your own labor is a real asset and you're paying with that, along with everyone else.

Its pretty astonishing that most people have been fooled this way, but when you start trying to explain it to people, you realize why. They laugh at it, because its too far fetched for them to consider it might be true I suppose, I don't know, I just don't think that way and only go off whatever I find is true.

This is what's most annoying about these debates on here, you never say "Ha, Fractional Reserve Lending doesn't exist" or anything else like it. I would instantly shut up if you did, by the way.

Even the bible details it so its not like this stuff isn't known about, whether you believe in the spiritual side of the bible or not has nothing to do with it and is often used to trash anything the bible says.

The fact is the book is hundreds of years old and even it is warning people about usury.

You can say "You're showing me the bible haha" like I fully expect you to, but I ain't showing it you in the context of a religious belief. I am saying here's a book thats hundreds of years old telling us about this guy that noticed what was going on back then and tried to do something about it. Like everyone that directly f**ks with the bankers, he didn't stay alive much longer. You don't need miracles and all that crap to see this. Even if none of it happened, it is written to warn people, like even if you don't believe Jesus existed or did this, the story is still there for some reason isn't it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple

bompington

Ha, Fractional Reserve Lending doesn't exist!

Now please keep your promise.

Manc33

bompington wrote:

Ha, Fractional Reserve Lending doesn't exist!

Now please keep your promise.

Its a chore to have to think isn't it, I get that. You could just skim past my posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

cruff

Manc33 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

So trees falls on cars in storms and destroy them, does that mean it is ok for me to smash up anyone's car? I mean if trees are allowed I am too, is that how it works?

No, because trees cannot be held accountable for causing a loss, whereas human beings can. If twigs fall on the floor, or someone leaves a wooden lolly stick on the floor, no one loses out in either case. Therefore it is unjustifiable to enforce a fine, it doesn't match up with the "crime". You cannot show any loss or harm being caused by it.

Chris Bass wrote:

You still haven't answered me - is it ok if everyone dropped their lollipop sticks on the ground?

Yes if it is made of wood, because you have no rational argument against that when bits of wood already fall on the ground all over the UK in Autumn. I mean someone is being punished for something that already happens and no one really cares.

Why does no one care about bits of wood dropping from trees but if a human does it they are liable to suffer a financial loss? Look at what you're subscribing to.

Chris Bass wrote:

exactly how long do you think they would take to biodegrade? People sweep up the leaves and twigs off trees so it isn't like they are just left there to rot away is it?

In that case the same can be said about litter - it will just get cleaned up along with all the twigs. This is kinda why we pay for street cleaning services (and would be prosecuted for not paying). Are you saying street cleaning services should just be paid money and expected to do nothing for it?

Chris Bass wrote:

Do you have a mortgage?

How is this relevant?

Chris Bass wrote:

I think you'll find most banks do have quite a few real assets.

Again you're not talking about the same thing I am for some reason. When did I ever say banks have no assets? I didn't say that. I said they use Fractional Reserve Lending against people. They obviously don't have enough reserves to back up their lending, because they practice Fractional Reserve Lending.

It stems back to when bankers first realized people keeping money in the bank don't all come back at once to draw the money out. So they started creating paper receipts to say "I promise to pay" because the bankers counterfeiting these notes say so... it was sold to people on the basis that its safer carrying paper notes around than real gold, which is true.

They always have to have a legitimate "release valve" to it (its safer etc etc) to employ these behind-the-scenes tactics at all, otherwise it would never work.

Yes its safer and easier carrying paper money around than gold, but why on Earth would people then think that is the sole reason and totally ignore it allowing the banks to unlawfully lend out money they don't really have?

It used to be called usury, before they came up with the term "Fractional Reserve Lending".

Chris Bass wrote:

And in fairness my wages go into my bank, I never see them, my mortgage come straight out of my bank, I never see it, so is it really a real asset that I am paying?!

Your own labor is a real asset and you're paying with that, along with everyone else.

Its pretty astonishing that most people have been fooled this way, but when you start trying to explain it to people, you realize why. They laugh at it, because its too far fetched for them to consider it might be true I suppose, I don't know, I just don't think that way and only go off whatever I find is true.

This is what's most annoying about these debates on here, you never say "Ha, Fractional Reserve Lending doesn't exist" or anything else like it. I would instantly shut up if you did, by the way.

You are either on the best wind-up of all time or - if you genuinely believe what you wrote - you are beyond help.

You say that, because trees shed wood on the ground, no-one can be legally held accountable for throwing lolly sticks on the ground. If that's the case, because dogs sh1t on the ground in parks, is it then permissible for me to do the same? Trees also sometimes catch fire - is it then permissible for me to set fire to my neighbour's fence?

Someone DOES lose out if people throw lolly sticks on the floor. YOU lose out, and I lose out - through the council (whose boroguh you live in, and whose services you avail yourself of) having to pay someone to pick that lolly stick up. If enough people do it, they have to pay ANOTHER person to pick all the EXTRA lolly sticks up and before you know it, you can't move for lolly sticks and the army of lolly stick picker uppers.

Your main problem appears to be that you believe you can live outside the 'norms' of society, and that conventions don't apply to you because you interpret the 'law' in the manner in which you do. Sadly for you - and luckily for 99.9999% of the world, that isn't the case. If it were, you see, people would be able to do pretty much exactly as they pleased, and simply say that their interpretation of 'the law' permitted them to do it. I suspect you idolise those people who set up micronations ('Sealand' et al) - holding them up as the example to which you aspire. Unfortunately for you, the only reason those people are allowed to perpetuate their little fantasy worlds is because the conventions of society (the society your world view can't understand) protect them from governments simply annihilating them though force (oh the irony)

Setting aside your risible arguments, your knowledge of the law is incredibly naive - almost mind-bogglingly so for an adult. Just because some swivel-eyed loon sitting behind his computer in his pants ranting at the world says something is true doesn't mean that is the case. You have made the fatal mistake that all conspiracy nutjobs make in giving equal credence to both fallacious arguments & statements; and known facts.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Manc33 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Do you have a mortgage?

How is this relevant?

Just answer the question. Yes or no. No need to be evasive. It's not a trap.

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

far far too much to quote

I would imagine if a tree was seen to be intentionally spreading leaves and twigs around it would be cut down so in effect it would be executed.

people need to be paid to collect litter and there is the cost you are after, do you think all the fines they collect for littering pays enough for the people to pick it up? (spoiler alert - it isn't!)

If you don't like banks and lending then don't put money in a bank and don't borrow any - easy.

I am glad that it i like that, I couldn't afford to buy a house and I definitely couldn't build one so i borrowed money to buy one and i am currently paying that off. Seems fine to me.

veronese68

bompington wrote:

Ha, Fractional Reserve Lending doesn't exist!

Now please keep your promise.

Thank you for trying. Unfortunately his grasp of English seems to be even worse than his knowledge of legalese. That, or everything he reads he takes to mean the exact opposite of what it says.
If it's the latter he's a genius

Manc33

zebulebu wrote:

You say that, because trees shed wood on the ground, no-one can be legally held accountable for throwing lolly sticks on the ground.

Are you saying someone should be prosecuted for something that happens all the time in nature without humans causing it? There's no logic to that.

Cue the "So a tiger kills a gazelle in nature..." no because that is happening as a survival thing (a bit like the girl stealing the blanket in the 1600s) whereas a human wouldn't be killing another human for survival reasons unless in self defence, or unless they were a cannibal and even then there's probably gonna be something else to eat before they have to resort to that!

You're mixing up extremely serious deliberate crimes with spurious technicalities as if it is all the same thing.

zebulebu wrote:

If that's the case, because dogs sh1t on the ground in parks, is it then permissible for me to do the same?

If you would become ill as a result of not letting it out there and then yes I would argue you're allowed in that case.

What are you going to do go arrest all the cows, sheep and deer all over the UK?

Look at all that National Trust land being crapped on by animals. Doesn't matter if they all do it, but if a human does it, thats different? Again the harm or loss thing comes in.

I have just proven right there that we are being treated as below animals. We actually have less rights if you think about it. No animal except humans suffer a loss from taking a dump (aside from the dump itself).

zebulebu wrote:

Trees also sometimes catch fire - is it then permissible for me to set fire to my neighbour's fence?

No because you'd be doing that on purpose and you can't legislate for "allowing accidents", its an oxymoron.

zebulebu wrote:

Someone DOES lose out if people throw lolly sticks on the floor. YOU lose out, and I lose out - through the council (whose boroguh you live in, and whose services you avail yourself of) having to pay someone to pick that lolly stick up.

People that are already employed to do that exact thing and have been for years.

Its also cheaper to have criminals picking up litter rather than housing them in jails, but its a business so what do you expect, the public to get helped, not on your nelly if money can be made instead. Its far worse in the US and far more blatant, but we're getting there.

zebulebu wrote:

If enough people do it, they have to pay ANOTHER person to pick all the EXTRA lolly sticks up and before you know it, you can't move for lolly sticks and the army of lolly stick picker uppers.

This assumes that just because something is legal everyone will do it. Not true. Really no more sticks would get dropped just because some recent legislation was reversed, for a start no one would even know it had been reversed unless they decided to check into it.

zebulebu wrote:

Your main problem appears to be that you believe you can live outside the 'norms' of society, and that conventions don't apply to you because you interpret the 'law' in the manner in which you do. Sadly for you - and luckily for 99.9999% of the world, that isn't the case. If it were, you see, people would be able to do pretty much exactly as they pleased...

They already can if they don't cause any harm or loss to anyone else.

zebulebu wrote:

...and simply say that their interpretation of 'the law' permitted them to do it. I suspect you idolise those people who set up micronations ('Sealand' et al) - holding them up as the example to which you aspire. Unfortunately for you, the only reason those people are allowed to perpetuate their little fantasy worlds is because the conventions of society (the society your world view can't understand) protect them from governments simply annihilating them though force (oh the irony)

That's why we have international law, it is basically again saying harm or loss is criminal.

zebulebu wrote:

Setting aside your risible arguments, your knowledge of the law is incredibly naive - almost mind-bogglingly so for an adult. Just because some swivel-eyed loon sitting behind his computer in his pants ranting at the world says something is true doesn't mean that is the case. You have made the fatal mistake that all conspiracy nutjobs make in giving equal credence to both fallacious arguments & statements; and known facts.

OK.

chris_bass

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Do you have a mortgage?

How is this relevant?

Just answer the question. Yes or no. No need to be evasive. It's not a trap.

Actually it was a trap! I was going to find his house and cover it in lolly sticks!!

Manc33

I don't live in a house I am orbiting the Earth in a capsule.

veronese68

Manc33 wrote:

I don't live in a house I am orbiting the Earth in a capsule.

That's the most plausible thing you've written in this thread.

surrey_commuter

I like the idea of telling my mortgage lender that I do not have a mortgage with them.... as the holder of the deeds I assume they would do a corporate rofl and prepare the eviction notice

davis

Manc33 wrote:

It used to be called usury, before they came up with the term "Fractional Reserve Lending".

Usury is extortion. Oversubscription of assets is something else.

I'm not sure I can pick my way through the rest of the doublethink.

davis

Manc33 wrote:

Again you're not talking about the same thing I am for some reason. When did I ever say banks have no assets? I didn't say that. I said they use Fractional Reserve Lending against people. They obviously don't have enough reserves to back up their lending, because they practice Fractional Reserve Lending.

...but....

Manc33 earlier wrote:

That's debatable since the bank doesn't tell you one single thing about Fractional Reserve Lending - they are lending you the mortgage money on the back of no assets whatsoever

bendertherobot

Quick question. Most criminal law is based on statute. If I kill a homeless person, what loss is there?

Manc33

Banks have tangible assets - but those tangible assets don't cover all the paper receipts created. They don't even come close. This is simple to find out because that amount of gold has not been mined in the whole of recorded history. Even if you included lost treasures it still wouldn't match the paper receipts.

Someone borrowing £50,000 to buy a house and having to pay back £150,000 is exactly what usury is. It would be even if the "money" they were lending you existed, which it doesn't.

Yes, if you write off to your mortgage lender and they cannot provide you with your signed mortgage, they have no lawful basis to be claiming money from you, in any way, shape or form. If they provide that proof, there's no problem.

A guy gets pulled over, can he just say "Its OK guv I do have an MOT certificate honest" nope, he has to produce the document and so it goes.

Interesting isn't it that we are expected to view what big companies do wrong on a totally different basis to when we do it as individuals, when the former is far more financially damaging to the public as a whole. For example one guy legitimately not paying his mortgage (when the paperwork exists and checks out) doesn't amount to much, but a bank using their system to dupe hundreds of thousands of borrowers is a crime far worse.

We let it get to this stage due to ignorance, is all. The bankers are laughing their heads off (assuming they have some last scraps of a sense of humour left in them) and have been for centuries. Maybe its their lack of a sense of humour that makes them hate us all so much, you know what people are like.

Like I have already said even the bible highlights usury as something that is wrong. Islam also forbids usury too, you never hear them telling you that side of Islam on the news, why not if they claim to be balanced? They aren't balanced, they are absolute liars.

It also explains why Muslims are being demonized, because if their banking system took any kind of a foothold we wouldn't be paying any interest rates! That stuff doesn't fly if you're a Muslim, they retained some rights somehow in their culture and simply don't stand for certain crap we think is normal. No wonder we get told not to live that way and they are some sort of nutty sub-human species all the time, oh I bet they are. The only way to really know is by switching off the stupid lying TV and study their culture.

Wait for it... "So you agree with people having their hands cut off like in Saudi Arabia" nope, I said they don't have usury and forbid it, which is a good thing. I never once said we should go along with everything Muslims believe. Notice there I said Saudi Arabia... one of our allies. :roll: They have the same religion as Iraq and Afghanistan but those nations are supposedly bad and Saudi Arabia is supposedly good? Right, just one problem with that - its nonsense.

bendertherobot

Any idea what needs to happen to get a mortgage and then what happens in relation to the documents?

Now, loans, even those secured on a property, are a better example of when the paperwork might go missing and that MIGHT have an effect. Even then it's really not as straightforward as the loan being void.

bendertherobot

Oh, and, by the way. Mortgages. Even when the documents don't create a binding legal mortgage there is still the potential for the Court finding in equity.

Oh, and, guess what equity is. Yep, common law.

itboffin

Did someone mention shaving?