It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
§ 2-103. Definitions and Index of Definitions.
(1) In this Article unless the context otherwise requires
(a) "Buyer" means a person that buys or contracts to buy goods.
(b) "Conspicuous", with reference to a term, means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. A term in an electronic record intended to evoke a response by an electronic agent is conspicuous if it is presented in a form that would enable a reasonably configured electronic agent to take it into account or react to it without review of the record by an individual. Whether a term is "conspicuous" or not is a decision for the court. Conspicuous terms include the following:
(i) for a person:
(A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and
Originally posted by Honor93
i've proven you absolutely wrong on numerous posts in this thread and not once have you even acknowledged your own error
whatever, theft is theft ... i don't care what name you give it.
i understand the process,
we are discussing eternal extortion ... generational even ... so, how is that not stealing ??
you cannot lawfully repossess property that has been PAID IN FULL.
and if a retailer were to try it, they would be jailed.
transferring a title doesn't necessarily involve sale or purchase.
i was referring to the TAXman, not the mortgage company and you know it.
when did the State/taxman ever even have an 'investment' to re-claim via perpetual, fluxuating extortion ?
no, my point has been 'taxes' and theft, just like what the OPPT appears to address.
Vermont ?? no thanks, i left the north for a reason.
no, you avoided it then and you're avoiding it now.
Originally posted by Honor93
why are you stuck on defaulting a loan ?
Originally posted by LEL01
I can't see how anyone can win against the governments but I like to see people try.
Originally posted by Crakeur
Legal definition of conspicuous
definitions.uslegal.com...
And Cornell explains the all caps in names on ucc docs here
www.law.cornell.edu...
§ 2-103. Definitions and Index of Definitions.
(1) In this Article unless the context otherwise requires
(a) "Buyer" means a person that buys or contracts to buy goods.
(b) "Conspicuous", with reference to a term, means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. A term in an electronic record intended to evoke a response by an electronic agent is conspicuous if it is presented in a form that would enable a reasonably configured electronic agent to take it into account or react to it without review of the record by an individual. Whether a term is "conspicuous" or not is a decision for the court. Conspicuous terms include the following:
(i) for a person:
(A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and
Originally posted by hawkiye
Originally posted by forgetmenot
I'm just going to add that a right to travel has nothing to do with a car. It would be an amazing display of foresight if it did.
And you would be wrong of course...
Here are the supreme court cases affirming this right:
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
Mudook v. Penn. 319 US 1051943)
“A state may NOT impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution
... No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”
Its time to learn and understand your constitution and the land mark cases that affirm and uphold it folks!
privateaudio.homestead.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
Originally posted by Crakeur
Legal definition of conspicuous
definitions.uslegal.com...
And Cornell explains the all caps in names on ucc docs here
www.law.cornell.edu...
§ 2-103. Definitions and Index of Definitions.
(1) In this Article unless the context otherwise requires
(a) "Buyer" means a person that buys or contracts to buy goods.
(b) "Conspicuous", with reference to a term, means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. A term in an electronic record intended to evoke a response by an electronic agent is conspicuous if it is presented in a form that would enable a reasonably configured electronic agent to take it into account or react to it without review of the record by an individual. Whether a term is "conspicuous" or not is a decision for the court. Conspicuous terms include the following:
(i) for a person:
(A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and
in a truly capitalist society, SKILL is the primary trade value.
Money marks social relations in capitalist societies
and i'd have to firmly disagree.
Debt and credit are two sides of the same coin
no kidding.
The role of state-sanctioned banks in creating money involves some sleight of hand
again, i disagree.
the norm of economic growth is fed by our own desire to get ahead, not just by bank interest
Originally posted by Crakeur
Legal definition of conspicuous
definitions.uslegal.com...
And Cornell explains the all caps in names on ucc docs here
www.law.cornell.edu...
§ 2-103. Definitions and Index of Definitions.
(1) In this Article unless the context otherwise requires
(a) "Buyer" means a person that buys or contracts to buy goods.
(b) "Conspicuous", with reference to a term, means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. A term in an electronic record intended to evoke a response by an electronic agent is conspicuous if it is presented in a form that would enable a reasonably configured electronic agent to take it into account or react to it without review of the record by an individual. Whether a term is "conspicuous" or not is a decision for the court. Conspicuous terms include the following:
(i) for a person:
(A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and
that sounds like a good and worthy program.
A lot of communities in my state have a system where if you lose your job, or end up geting old and can't pay the taxes on your home any longer they waive the tax and allow people to keep their homes.
Originally posted by Honor93
as for this line ... i disagree.
sure they are ... as requested, link ANY residential (since you specified 'living') arrangement that doesn't involve a property tax.
Paying such taxes are not a prerequisite to living.
Would I agree with the city taking a home due to non-payment of the taxes? In most cases, probably not
in 08, under the advisement of counsel, that was the 'plan' (to sell the property) ... hence, the advice to withhold 09's payment.
What I could see them doing is placing a lien on the property the home sits on, making the owner unable to sell the property unless the lien is satisfied or an agreement is worked out to pay the lien off with proceeds from the sale.
Originally posted by Springer
For those who seem to be confused about mortgages and foreclosure, it's simple.
Whether you borrow gold, "fiat currency" (US Dollars), diamonds, or plutonium, from another person to finance your new home, the lender, unless he's he's simply giving you the property by buying it for you and states that in the contract, is going to require the property to be put up as collateral, in the event you fail to make the monthly payments.If you fail to repay the lender gets to foreclose to recollect his investment in the hope of selling it and being brought back to unity.
Why would anyone lend anyone else anything of value to buy a house or any property without knowing he can recoup most if not all his risk in the event of a default? This is silliness. The ownership question is answered in the deed of title on all transactions. There's no question about who owns the property in a sales transaction. If there is a question the title insurance won't be issued and the deal will not go through.
Springer...