BIZARRE: Media allowed into CA terrorists’ apt; FBI and Police says investigation wasn’t

It's like an Airplane when the press comes in and says "alright boys let's take some pictures". Then everyone starts grabbing all the pictures off the walls and leaves.

originally posted by: errck
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

It does not.

If the deceased tenant had a lease agreement for a specified term, the tenancy continues to the end, even though the tenant is dead.

I don't know man. How can you sue a dead person, and how can they sue you as a land lord? How can a dead person still carry out a contract. Hell, even people that are married...but still alive end their contract upon divorce. We're talking dead here. The land lord would lose money, by letting an empty apartment sit there uninhabited. The dead can't sue, so what's to lose for the land lord?

originally posted by: sueloujo
a reply to: Harvin

Why leave passports, driving licences, university passes and personal photos (including the baby's) for all and sundry to see or even perhaps take. surely these are all security breaches.

Because the conspirators are getting desperate. They need to meet their duplicitous agenda.
Their fake 'terrorist events are not working anymore. The Hollywood B-movies are no longer duping the masses.
No Oscars on this one.
Back to the drawing board...idiots!

originally posted by: mahatche
I feel like shredded papers in the trash should be high on the list of things investigators should not leave behind.

I think the same thing and I find the whole situation odd.

However, for all we know is that the FBI finished with the apartment and those shredded paper could have been worthless scraps shredded by the FBI themselves?

It so odd that I wonder if this wasn't done intentional not only for the angle to destroy evidence but perhaps to observe what chatter comes from it?

Showing those personal items , ids, and pictures could be a method to send a message?

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

I don't know man. How can you sue a dead person, and how can they sue you as a land lord? How can a dead person still carry out a contract. Hell, even people that are married...but still alive end their contract upon divorce. We're talking dead here. The land lord would lose money, by letting an empty apartment sit there uninhabited. The dead can't sue, so what's to lose for the land lord?

The dead person's estate carries out the contract. The dead person's estate, represented by the executor, can sue.

a reply to: errck
actually we're both right,

If the deceased tenant had a lease agreement for a specified term, the tenancy continues to the end, even though the tenant is dead. Responsibility for the lease agreement passes to the deceased tenant's executor as named by the court. If the tenant had a month-to-month lease agreement, notice of the tenant's death acts as the end of the lease, and the executor's responsibility ends 30 days after the tenant last paid rent. For example, if the tenant last paid rent on April 5, then died on April 20, the rental agreement ends on May 5. Lease agreements cannot pass onto survivors, according to California law.
Landlord Rights in the Event of a Tenant's Death

so it depends on when the rent was last paid, month to month or long term.
now if this was a long term lease, he could be in for legal problems if the family wants to start something, but i doubt very seriously they want anything to do with that right now.

a reply to: grey580

It is very atypical. Many things pertaining to this shooting are bizarre.

I looked up the woman who told the press she overheard the religious argument between Farook and Nicholas Thalasinos while on the phone with Thalasinos. The story just sounded odd to me. I wondered if anyone else looked her up?

Her name is Kuuleme Stephens (aka Justice Lee)....aside from being a former adult entertainer, her bio includes:

Pima County Republican Member-At-Large, Actress, Model, Singer, Speaker, and Writer...

AND

She is one of the Co-Founders of The Last Civil Right and a Co-Author of a newly released book titled "The White Folks Guide to Understanding the Black Community," and "Get Out the Vote." She is also a member of the Tea Party, the Disabled American Veterans, the NRA, an Arizona Republican Committeewoman, and a proud United States Navy Veteran.
Her articles have been featured on Red White and Blue News, Herman Cain PAC, Enidnews.com, Rightlinksblogs.com, Amplify.com, The Conservative Praetorian, The Rowdy Republican, and many others.

She actually has a brief IMDB entry and a blog. I read one entry where she railed against Islam -- she is vocal about her religious feelings.

Anyway, I keep wondering how this will all be exploited by partisans...to me, this woman's bio reads like a political operative and provocateur. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
There are so many things wrong with this its hard to pick where to begin. There is definitely more happening that what appears on the surface. The FBI was there and running the show. Responsibility for this is at the federal level.

The idea that this was not sealed off completely is mind boggling. Anything that may or may not have been in there that could have been used as evidence or of any value in finding those who aided the attack in any way is now a moot point. It cant be allowed as evidence and the chances of a crime scene technician even finding his own fingerprints is pretty much gone.

This is either the worst crime scene screw up in history, or, this is the most blatant in your face example of a false flag on record. Either way, it doesn't look good.

I'll go for the option #2.
They're getting sloppy. Blinded by their hubris.
Or, maybe there are so many false-flags yet to be committed that they're confused about which script is which!.

Where is all the dusting from the fingerprint testing ?

This place should have been in lockdown, in the event investigators will need to return for any reason, the apartment is now tainted.

originally posted by: Starling

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Wasn't the last time we got to see a terrorist's pad so soon when they put a bullet in bin Laden?

The Bin Laden 'take-down' was so obviously a falsified, staged set up that I never believed it from moment #1.
I think it was that shot of him taken from behind-left, watching TV, fer godsakes, that convinced me that it was fake.
And it WAS fake: OBL was long-time dead when that happened; that's why the CIA couldn't produce a body and dumped the evidence at sea, like it was the live Kraken!

Yeah, they had me at 100% when they dumped his body in the ocean.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: errck
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

It does not.

If the deceased tenant had a lease agreement for a specified term, the tenancy continues to the end, even though the tenant is dead.

I don't know man. How can you sue a dead person, and how can they sue you as a land lord? How can a dead person still carry out a contract. Hell, even people that are married...but still alive end their contract upon divorce. We're talking dead here. The land lord would lose money, by letting an empty apartment sit there uninhabited. The dead can't sue, so what's to lose for the land lord?

Supposedly the mother and law lived there to. I'm guessing when she gave them the interview she allowed them to look around maybe

originally posted by: scubagravy
Where is all the dusting from the fingerprint testing ?

This place should have been in lockdown, in the event investigators will need to return for any reason, the apartment is now tainted.

Says the head 'investigator' for the false flag staging:
"I need a large group of press guys to come in and contaminate the scene"...
"Oh and, add a little extra evidence there, will ya; you know, like shredded documents and such".
Scrap the evidence. That way, nobody can sue them for staging a government sponsored faux terrorist act, designed to deceive the public...

I think it's getting close to the point where these 'staged events' won't be believed by the general public anymore.

No crime tape = no crime scene.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: errck
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

It does not.

If the deceased tenant had a lease agreement for a specified term, the tenancy continues to the end, even though the tenant is dead.

I don't know man. How can you sue a dead person, and how can they sue you as a land lord? How can a dead person still carry out a contract. Hell, even people that are married...but still alive end their contract upon divorce. We're talking dead here. The land lord would lose money, by letting an empty apartment sit there uninhabited. The dead can't sue, so what's to lose for the land lord?

What are the lease obligations for a deceased tenant’s estate?

When an individual passes away, most of the assets belonging to that individual become part of that individual’s estate. The assets have to be distributed somehow, and this is done under state laws in a process called probate. During this process, the courts – basically a group of lawyers who sit around meeting rooms going through files – notify known beneficiaries and creditors, and attempt to settle accounts.

The critical question from the landlord’s position is this: Can you file a claim against the deceased’s estate for unfulfilled lease obligations?

As with most probate issues, this is a matter for state law. In your case, we need to turn to Texas law. And yes, under the law, unless you have a clause in the lease that terminates the lease on death, the estate’s obligation to pay rent does not cease with the death of the tenant.

Source

I hold a Florida Real Estate license. I am not 100% on the California law, but the landlord is responsible for the property of the deceased individuals and must pack them up and put the property in storage. I suspect the terrorists families will file suit against the landlord in this case since he allowed this. There is no guarantee one of these people would not take something or plant something, although I doubt they would. You can't let the public in to go through a tenants personal property! The landlord is the one that is going to face any repercussions. Not to mention profiting off of it.

originally posted by: spirit_horse

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: errck
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

It does not.

If the deceased tenant had a lease agreement for a specified term, the tenancy continues to the end, even though the tenant is dead.

I don't know man. How can you sue a dead person, and how can they sue you as a land lord? How can a dead person still carry out a contract. Hell, even people that are married...but still alive end their contract upon divorce. We're talking dead here. The land lord would lose money, by letting an empty apartment sit there uninhabited. The dead can't sue, so what's to lose for the land lord?

What are the lease obligations for a deceased tenant’s estate?

When an individual passes away, most of the assets belonging to that individual become part of that individual’s estate. The assets have to be distributed somehow, and this is done under state laws in a process called probate. During this process, the courts – basically a group of lawyers who sit around meeting rooms going through files – notify known beneficiaries and creditors, and attempt to settle accounts.

The critical question from the landlord’s position is this: Can you file a claim against the deceased’s estate for unfulfilled lease obligations?

As with most probate issues, this is a matter for state law. In your case, we need to turn to Texas law. And yes, under the law, unless you have a clause in the lease that terminates the lease on death, the estate’s obligation to pay rent does not cease with the death of the tenant.

Source

I hold a Florida Real Estate license. I am not 100% on the California law, but the landlord is responsible for the property of the deceased individuals and must pack them up and put the property in storage. I suspect the terrorists families will file suit against the landlord in this case since he allowed this. There is no guarantee one of these people would not take something or plant something, although I doubt they would. You can't let the public in to go through a tenants personal property! The landlord is the one that is going to face any repercussions. Not to mention profiting off of it.

Don't worry about the landlord. I'm sure he's been well remunerated for writing a false lease agreement.
The place is probably a CIA sponsored 'terrorist' housing unit anyway. A place to stage the scene for their main actor(s).

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Don't worry about the landlord. I'm sure he's been well remunerated for writing a false lease agreement?
The place is probably a CIA sponsored 'terrorist' housing unit anyway. A place to stage the scene for their main actor(s).

I'm not, but how do you think it was a false lease agreement. An owner can engage in a lease with a tenant by law? He does not need a real estate license to do so. Farook was a US citizen, born here. He got married and as such his spouse can live with him even if she wasn't on the lease. The only illegal action concerning the landlord was his allowing the public in the home. You can not let anyone into a leased property with the exception of the owner for inspection or to make a repair. However, you must notify the tenant in the case of bringing in an outside contractor.

For all intents and purposes a lease give the lease holders the same rights as an owner. It is why landlord owners are often sued for screwing up according to the law. When you sign a lease with a Realtor, you will get all the necessary laws and notifications about these things usually.

Also, I suspect they released the crime scene to the owner so he could pack up said belongings and get his property ready for lease. The law enforcement agents may have assumed he would follow the law and didn't admonish him to the law. The landlord then decides he can make money off letting the media (public) in to rifle through the property, which was blatant violation of the law, which he profited off of at least $1,000. The Farook family already has lawyers. It won't take the lawyers very long to clarify the law to his clients and it is an easy target for money.

Another great case of "they can't win." We hear repeatedly how the police are so wrong for now sharing info / evidence with the public.. because you know, they are obviously hiding something. So they DO share.. and now.. false flag. They really can't win no matter how they approach it, admit it.

a reply to: grey580

Ok, off to investigate more, then read thru the rest of the thread, but I'm through a page and nobody has proven this to be an elaborate hoax? What in the [string of several words definitely against T&C]?!?!?

This might be the most insane, ludicrous, ridiculous thing I've read. Ever.

Anybody ever having returned to their home thats been rifled by police just know that place appears too pristine. Nothing is turned over, scattered about. They obviously went through it with a fine tooth comb, forensically they want every hair, fibre, fingerprint, DNA, etc, etc. But the way the rest of it looks like it is still where the family left it is surely out of sorts for the aftermath of an extensive search.

They want the media to have plenty of fodder for rebroadcasting over and again to keep the terror alive. Obviously they can't keep showing armed to the teeth 'police' running up and down the streets of SB.

"Look how ordinary these people lived", i.e., anyone can become a terrorist at any time. Be very suspicious of those around you, if you see something say something, (tell on each other).

originally posted by: yakidnme
Thought they lived in a house, hence the neighbor concerned about late night activity coming from the garage? Idiot...

Some people use their garages as workshops. Engineers are notorious for pulling "all-nighters". Some even work 16 hour days for three days, then take four days off.

But this is very strange. Whenever someone has been caught making pipe bombs, the feds would yellow-tape the property, and the white-suit people would go in, seal everything from clothes to containers up in evidence bags (for chemical analysis, fingerprints), computers would be seized for data forensics. The place would be torn apart to see if there was anything hidden under floorboards or in the attic. ID cards would be seized to see if they were forged or real. Anyone can buy a $20 paper shredder. That really looks like it was either planted to look like evidence of a crime. Why didn't they throw the shredded paper out into a neighbor's trash bin?