03-13-2018, 10:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2018, 10:39 PM by dicappatore.)
This is your quote;
then your own reply:
Well which is is it? Did the show stated she owned the land or was it your assumption of most likely?
In this post you contradict yourself in the same post. You start out saying it is not illegal. In the same paragraph you claim there could be a crime. Well just because the forest did not catch fire, arson is arson. Which is it? Not illegal, meaning it is legal or is it a crime? Man, make up your mind!
Another one of your contradiction;
Yea you did say it in this quote;
then more bla,bla,bal;
Here you go again, contradicting yourself; but now you added 'is not a good idea'
OMG, more of your own contradiction by stating;
Then you reply with the quote below claiming you did NOT compare a desert to woods, after you just did on the quote above.
You are just so full of it or just self confusing. You just make it too easy using your own words. Best you try using some other contributors strategy by replying with one liners. Makes it harder to contradict yourself. All those quoted replies are from your post, clipped and pasted. The only thing I added were the HTML commands of {quote & /quote and the lines separations (hr) command}. I did no editing and not taken them out of context. Excluding the BC & WC references, they are basically word for word.
Makes one wonder, whom should be re-reading their posts!
Chuck up another poser finding it hard to swallow with their self-inserted foot in their mouth!
(03-13-2018, 03:38 PM)syscrash Wrote: There is a problem with your assumptions. for one the show stated the property that the trailer was on was in Juliette name. For Nick to charge her with arson he would have to prove the trailer was his and he was renting the land from her. The problem with filling an arson claim is someone would have to investigate the trailer which would expose wesen secrets. The wesen catch twenty two.
then your own reply:
Quote:Re read the contribution. I posted the statement where Nick stated the land was not in his name. that led to making a logical assumption that if most likely would be in Juliette's name. Being an assumption I stated that point was not definitive. But I also questioned who else name could it have been in. Knowing that anyone who name was on the dead would legally own the land and could do what they wanted with it.
Well which is is it? Did the show stated she owned the land or was it your assumption of most likely?
In this post you contradict yourself in the same post. You start out saying it is not illegal. In the same paragraph you claim there could be a crime. Well just because the forest did not catch fire, arson is arson. Which is it? Not illegal, meaning it is legal or is it a crime? Man, make up your mind!
Quote:It is not illegal to destroy your own property. Take a house. as long as the bank does not own it you can bull doze it or do what ever you want. To burn it, the crime is not arson unless you are trying to claim the insurance. The crime would be endangering the properties next to the house. Because the trailer fire was in the forest. There could be a crime of endangering the forest because of the uncontrolled fire.
Another one of your contradiction;
Quote:I never said by owning the land makes it legal to destroy property on the land.
Yea you did say it in this quote;
Quote:It is not illegal to destroy your own property.
then more bla,bla,bal;
Quote:What I said was the land being in her name, supports the argument that the trailer was hers. Since Nick could not dispute that for two reasons. One title was never transferred because of the secrecy behind the existence of the trailer. As a point of law destroying your own property is not against the law unless you are going to claim the lost.
Here you go again, contradicting yourself; but now you added 'is not a good idea'
Quote:An yes as I stated starting a fire in the forest is not a good idea plus it is not legal.
OMG, more of your own contradiction by stating;
Quote:But being unlawful is not true. For a fact I have vacant land in the Mohave desert. I let a guy put his trailer out there. He paid rent for about two years then all of a sudden stopped paying. after being unable to contact him. the trailer was mine. For fun I blow it up. The only problem the city had was they made me clean up the mess. Using that real life experience. the difference with Juliette is she did not declare the property abandoned. But the writers solved that problem by defining the trailer as something that could not be known
Then you reply with the quote below claiming you did NOT compare a desert to woods, after you just did on the quote above.
Quote:I was using my experiences on my desert property to point out actions people where pointing out as illegal are not. In no way was I comparing what you can do in the desert compares to what you can do in the forest.
Quote:The whole point of my comment was to show how the assertions being made actually had a loop hole created by the writers as to provide a reason for why they do not apply. comment on my statement in the context they where stated. Instead of trying to draw an inference to make a point.
You are just so full of it or just self confusing. You just make it too easy using your own words. Best you try using some other contributors strategy by replying with one liners. Makes it harder to contradict yourself. All those quoted replies are from your post, clipped and pasted. The only thing I added were the HTML commands of {quote & /quote and the lines separations (hr) command}. I did no editing and not taken them out of context. Excluding the BC & WC references, they are basically word for word.
Makes one wonder, whom should be re-reading their posts!
Chuck up another poser finding it hard to swallow with their self-inserted foot in their mouth!
You know you are OLD, when you see the Slide Ruler you used in college selling in an ANTIQUE SHOP!!