Wow, just wow....

foxtrapper · #21 08/08/13, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrainChaser

What the 'ELL are you talking about?????

A private contract of sale is a completely legal sale, the property owner (the old lady) was simply the person holding the note, not a bank. This takes place all over the U.S., all states, every day. In fact, my neighbors next door are buying their house under just such a contract.

The city coerced the old lady into selling them the mortgage, then they called it in for payment in full, which he obviously couldn't do.

Here's a brief outline from Wikipedia, and all points are as I have understood them for the last 20 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_contract

And I do agree that he should have taken some of the city SOBs with him.

Since you like Wikipedia, you might want to look at their entry regarding that important word, forclosure.

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

am1too · #22 08/08/13, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GunMonkeyIntl

My point was not that the "chicken man" was wrong, or that the city was right. I was only stating that the article was clearly written with a healthy dose of spin, and that that harmed the credibility of the details cited by the article. If you re-read my post, I think it is pretty clear that is all I was saying - if I wasn't clear, then I apologize.

One of my considerations for selling my last home and buying my farm was that I lived in a very restrictive village and had an HOA on top of that. I am quite sympathetic to the plight of those bullied by the rule-makers. However, I have learned not to take the word of any journalist, especially when their work is spin-heavy, even when their spin suits my own sensibilities.

A perfect example of the spin in this article is the use of the term harassment. Even one of the responders here said:

The only evidence that we have that it was harassment is the “journalist’s” statement that it was so. It’s possible that his firewood was stacked outside of approved offsets, or was a danger to the public somehow – the fact is that we don’t know. Rather than tell us the dry facts and let us make our own judgment, the author colored it in hopes that we would come to his desired conclusion. Which some of us obviously did without question.

You are absolutely correct on a couple points there. I agree that when you are paying a lien holder on loan for a piece of property, then you rightfully consider yourself the owner. And we agree that the lien holder can give you the boot if you stop paying. But, the disconnect seems to be on how the city bought the property, and why they initiated a foreclosure.

To salmonsayer’s point:

They can’t do that. When you buy a note, you also assume the terms of that note. Modern mortgages have provisions against the lender being able to call in the note whenever they choose. Unless the lady that sold this guy the land had it stipulated in the loan that she could call it in at anytime (which would make this guy a complete idiot for signing it), then the city could not either after they bought the note from her. Whether he stopped paying his mortgage before or after the city bought the note, the rules of foreclosure would have been the same.

Again, I am not trying to, nor am I interested in defending what the city may (or may not) have done to this guy. I was simply rebuking the tactics of the story’s author. I believe that we’re all adults and capable of making our own judgments based on the facts – and accept the holes where we do not have them because we were not there.

Huh? Does not compute. Nevermind, don’t want to know.

If your name appears on the record you are guilty period. They will not investigate.

salmonslayer · #23 08/08/13, 09:47 AM

Something just doesnt match with this story and none of the accounts of this sordid story match the description provided by Wharton so we either have a cabal of incompetent liberal and conservative media outlets hiding the truth or the truth is a little more complex. In the pictures in the links below you can see a suburban brick two story home on a large lot full of what some would call junk. He also seems to have been mentally ill to a degree but its also clear he was harassed and the foreclosure seems to have been illegal under Georgia law.

http://firegeezer.com/2012/03/27/chi...house-ka-boom/ This has a link to a FOXNews story

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1380775.html This is the Huffington Post story

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-...-s-foreclosure Looks like it was probably an illegal foreclosure in violation of Georgia law..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...explosion.html

Why is any of this important to us as homesteaders or small farmers? Because of the push for things like this just released this morning - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...-diversity-in/

This isnt a liberal or conservative political post or debate, its a prime homesteading concern because we are all subject to people not understanding how or why we live like we do and rules and laws that can get enacted to make people conform to what others think we should live like.

Nimrod · #24 08/08/13, 10:27 AM

I think I read through all the posts and unless I missed it the posters missed the most important point. According to the story I reference here
http://www.americandailyherald.com/p...y-of-the-state
the city had a reason for wanting his land. The article says,
It's clear that the city certainly had the opportunity, between their rewriting laws to suit their acts of aggression against Andrew and his property, and at least one Stasi-style local resident denouncing (complaining about) Andrew, they had all the opportunity they needed. So what's the motive?
The answer came from the city itself, as I discovered when going over this page from Off Grid Survival: back in 2003, the city drew up its '2030 Comprehensive Plan,' including a map of the proposed area it affected, and apparently Andrew's property was smack in the middle of it. The city wanted Wordes' property and boldly planned to use it themselves.

This puts a whole different spin on the situation. The city used all legal and illegal means at their disposal to get him off his land. They drove him to commit suicide and should be prosecuted. So much for property rights.

foxtrapper · #25 08/08/13, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod

This puts a whole different spin on the situation. The city used all legal and illegal means at their disposal to get him off his land. They drove him to commit suicide and should be prosecuted. So much for property rights.

Since they can take his land easily enough through eminent domain, I highly doubt they used other nefarious methods.

Nimrod · #26 08/08/13, 01:09 PM

Depends on the law locally. There have been many examples of abuse of eminent domain in the last few years that have prompted laws that restrict what it can be used for. GA has restrictions so maybe they couldn't just take his land. http://sonnyperdue.georgia.gov/00/pr...296917,00.html

GunMonkeyIntl · #27 08/08/13, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by am1too

I'm now a criminal simply because my name appears on the court record even though documentation shows no guilt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GunMonkeyIntl

Huh? Does not compute. Nevermind, don’t want to know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by am1too

If your name appears on the record you are guilty period. They will not investigate.

BS. Despite what you have conditioned yourself to believe, you do not live in nazi-occupied Europe, and this type of exaggeration cheapens the legacy of those who actually did live under that sort of tyrany.

Every now and then, your need to turn off the Alex Jones. That shiz will rot your brain.