#occupy<insertlocalehere>

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

I dont why people have an issue with these protests. They have been non-violent, they arent hurting anyone or anything, so whats the problem? Let them protest and quit bitching about it.

My main issue with the (two?) group(s) here is the separate camps, namely the group that has decided Olympic Plaza is where they need to be and their willing to work "with any other groups who have booked the space".

I get the right to assembly and protest, and I can live with the shanty town on St. Patrick's Island because at least their trying to play within the rules and not create an additional burden (they got the permits, they don't appear to be holding up any scheduled maintenance or withholding the space from other events).

But the group at Olympic Plaza is simply doubling the cost to tax payers (two camps to monitor/keep sanitary instead of one) while intruding on the rights of others whom have booked the space & holding up maintenance to the plaza.

"We're prepared to work with any other events in the plaza and won't interfere" No, **** you, it's not your place to work with other groups, get the eff out and let those who have PAID for a permit use that space.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Actually, the whole mortgage crisis ensued because the mortgage loans owned by lenders were sold to make MORE money. The people who signed the mortgage papers can stop paying because the loan has been satisfied when it was sold as an investment. Starts 27:30 in the Documentary "Inside Job".

Yeah this just isn’t true at all – I agree with (or at least it makes sense) that if the original mortgage broker or lender can’t produce the documentation to make people pay them than those people who signed the original mortgage would have some grounds not to. However, just because their mortgage was packaged and sold in CDO doesn’t mean they don’t have to pay at all. If that were the case anyone who has bought any form of fixed income securities from anyone but the original lender would be screwed.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

The contract was signed by family x with company A. Company A sells the contract to company B. Company A still wants the money - show me the original contract. If it can not be produced (because they are not in possession of it) but they have received money for the original contract the facts would be the contract has been satisfied.

Now perhaps the company who owns the mortgage would then get the money but those " investment funds" now no longer exist. That's what is different here.

I have no idea about collection debt - this was derived from a guy in Texas who occupied a house that was foreclosed. I'll try to find the news story but I have no idea where I did see it. There is also an 80 year old man who has done the same with many homes in California (I think).

Here it is. The guy didn't own the house previously, but he is still occupying the house today.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/texas...ry?id=14099714

I spent some time last night finding any actual mass example of this being upheld, and I couldn't find it.

There's the whole produce the mortgage note documentation thing, but I have no doubt that the original lender would be able to produce documentation that would stand up in front of a judge.

I almost think it would be funny to see a mass occupy protest where they don't pay thier mortgage and they all end up homeless and facing massive collection fees.

Then they could carry around a sign, I'm in the 99% because I was stupid and believed what a guy on the internet told me.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm curious to how you think that adverse possession applies here.

There is someone still legally holding the mortgage on those houses, and these people aren't living in abandoned properties, they're talking abot not paying mortgages on their own homes.

I'm confused by the connection.

I will give credit to the guy in Texas, he found the perfect storm and matched the perfect law to it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Actually, the whole mortgage crisis ensued because the mortgage loans owned by lenders were sold to make MORE money. The people who signed the mortgage papers can stop paying because the loan has been satisfied when it was sold as an investment. Starts 27:30 in the Documentary "Inside Job".

Really? What courts have upheld that argument?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

The contract was signed by family x with company A. Company A sells the contract to company B. Company A still wants the money - show me the original contract. If it can not be produced (because they are not in possession of it) but they have received money for the original contract the facts would be the contract has been satisfied.

Now perhaps the company who owns the mortgage would then get the money but those " investment funds" now no longer exist. That's what is different here.

I have no idea about collection debt - this was derived from a guy in Texas who occupied a house that was foreclosed. I'll try to find the news story but I have no idea where I did see it. There is also an 80 year old man who has done the same with many homes in California (I think).

Here it is. The guy didn't own the house previously, but he is still occupying the house today.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/texas...ry?id=14099714

Ah I see, the old adverse possession claim. It would be helpful if these people actually understood the laws of adverse possession, and the fact that it virtually never grants you title.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm curious to how you think that adverse possession applies here.

There is someone still legally holding the mortgage on those houses, and these people aren't living in abandoned properties, they're talking abot not paying mortgages on their own homes.

I'm confused by the connection.

I will give credit to the guy in Texas, he found the perfect storm and matched the perfect law to it.

Adverse possession doesn't apply, even for the guy in Texas, unless the period of required occupation is met.

I'm not sure where this story gets the idea that removing the claim would be costly for the original owner or the mortgage holder, an adverse possession claim can be quashed by simply removing the adverse element. Just say "you know what, you can stay there until i say otherwise" and the claim ceases to be adverse, thereby removing a required element. At the time you wish to remove them revoke that right of occupancy and have them declared trespassers.

You have to be truly stupid to think that you can just waltz into an empty house that is rightfully titled to someone else and call it your own.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

Really? What courts have upheld that argument?

That's my question, and I can't find it anywhere out there.

I also looked at the Adverse Possession thing and don't know how it relates.

To me it sounds like the people encouraging this are either believers in the whole Freeman on the land type philosophy.

Or home buyers looking to cash in on cheap properties when thousands of homes go into default because the protesters thought it would be ok not be pay their mortgage.

Next thing you know a bunch of occupyers will try to pay their bills with rocks because one of the protesters told them it was legal under admirality law.

[c.t.ner]

Well it looks like it just got real in #occupyoakland.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/am...201951908.html

Anyways, It's hard to find a balanced synopsis of what actually happened in Oakland. On the one hand you have many eye witness reports of people not knowing what was going on and waking up to a smoke grenades and 200 riot gear cops. But on the other hand you have the mayors office claiming that there was fair warning about the eviction. Hard to find some decent information as there is a lot of clutter out there from both first hand accounts and press releases. Most of the eye witness video seams to be a bit excessive use of force on the Oakland PD. Not much context to make a fair assessment.

Either way it's interesting, because it was inevitable that this would escalate in some location. Especially with the reports of an explosive attack at the portland version of occupy on monday evening.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I 'm not familiar with bank lending in the UK, but was this a regulatory policy where banks couldn't lend on terms easier than that or was that a formal regulation by a governing body?

If regulatory then I think demanding your pound of flesh from bankers is misguided and your anger should actually be squared right on politicians.

It wasn't regulatory, but it was pretty much an accepted industry standard and it was widely communicated by the banks. It helped you plan for what you could afford/needed to save. It was pretty much the case when I got my mortgage back in 98 (or was it 97) the memory is getting a bit fuzzy.

I think I should make myself clear here in that while I have a lot against how the bankers operated, that does not mean I feel that people can abrogate themselves from their own actions and lay the blame elsewhere regardless of the action they took, nor the government that presided over such a lax regulatory framework.

Many people took on excessive mortgages - not for entry level housing, but to keep up with the Joneses, a lot of these people have paid for this by losing their houses or are trapped in negative equity.

The Government paid for the collapse in the economy by being voted out of office.

The taxpayers paid for the collapse of the banking system by bailing out the banks.

The bankers? They're mostly laughing all the way to the bank.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Well, I guess we may hear about it in 3 years... or never. lol

It stuck with me as it was odd. But I was talking about the actual mortgage not his "process"... The mortgage no longer exists and unless the guy who originally bought the house (and abandoned it) says "no you can't stay there" who else can tell him to leave? The mortgage company sold the debt, and then went bankrupt and the fund it was traded into no longer exists... This is the important part. Most mortgages were placed in a CDO "Collateralize debt obligation" and these are what matter as they no longer exist. Trading went from 481.6 Billion in 2007 to 8 billion in 2010. So many people who have these mortgages may be paying the company that sold the rights to the debt. Quit trying to drag conspiracy BS into it. This info is well documented.

Anyway this is why so many people are occupying, because this was allowed to happen. It's not because they want "free" homes. This was not why I remembered that guy in Texas. It was because the system is so broken that nobody knows what's is who's and it can't be proven. The occupiers did what they were told they had to do and wall street ****ed it up. Bankers and politicians need to pay up.

Nice to ignore Bill Maher's voice when it doesn't help your argument now.

Florida’s Attorney General sues illegal mortgage modification company

http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/...ation-company/

How can this happen? The company didn't follow the rules and these people get to keep there houses. Free and clear. This would be the transfer of the debt obligation earlier Captain and it's great that the little guy's getting to keep his house.

[CaptainCrunch]

Money dosen't vanish and for the most part neither do obligations, I get what your saying, but even if a fund doesn't exist the contents of that fund had to go somewhere. So those mortgages have to be somewhere.

I don't know, I'm not a mortgage guy, but protest or no, i'm not going to put my house at risk by not making a mortgage payment on the advice of a internet person or celebraty. Like I said I can't find anything about this on a the web from a legal interpretation standpoint so it hasn't been put in front of the courts, and I'm not sure thats a fight that I want to pick.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Money dosen't vanish and for the most part neither do obligations, I get what your saying, but even if a fund doesn't exist the contents of that fund had to go somewhere. So those mortgages have to be somewhere.

I don't know, I'm not a mortgage guy, but protest or no, i'm not going to put my house at risk by not making a mortgage payment on the advice of a internet person or celebraty. Like I said I can't find anything about this on a the web from a legal interpretation standpoint so it hasn't been put in front of the courts, and I'm not sure thats a fight that I want to pick.

Yep, someone assumed that mortgage. There's certainly mortgages out there held in massive polls that the owners have very little familiarity with in terms of specific mortgages, but that doesn't mean the obligation simply disappears. Just because CDO's aren't trading doesn't mean the assets underlying them cease to exist.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Money dosen't vanish and for the most part neither do obligations, I get what your saying, but even if a fund doesn't exist the contents of that fund had to go somewhere. So those mortgages have to be somewhere.

I don't know, I'm not a mortgage guy, but protest or no, i'm not going to put my house at risk by not making a mortgage payment on the advice of a internet person or celebraty. Like I said I can't find anything about this on a the web from a legal interpretation standpoint so it hasn't been put in front of the courts, and I'm not sure thats a fight that I want to pick.

ha ha - fair enough. Nor would I.

[THE SCUD]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

ha ha - fair enough. Nor would I. Because I don't own a home

fyp to illustrate the fact that I am pretty sure 90%+ of these #occupiers are not even contributing members of society who own a home.

[Stumptown]

Iraq war veteran shot in the face with tear gas grenade at Occupy Oakland last night. Condition is critical - in surgery now according to the Twitter. What's worse is when the police intentionally gas the people who went to help him. The video is damning. Oakland Police spent all day trying to tell the media and everyone else that they didn't do any of the things that were clearly captured on video. The cameras are everywhere, how can they not know that they're going to end up all over YouTube in like 20 minutes?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1033159.html

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Stumptown

Iraq war veteran shot in the face with tear gas grenade at Occupy Oakland last night. Condition is critical - in surgery now according to the Twitter. What's worse is when the police intentionally gas the people who went to help him. The video is damning. Oakland Police spent all day trying to tell the media and everyone else that they didn't do any of the things that were clearly captured on video. The cameras are everywhere, how can they not know that they're going to end up all over YouTube in like 20 minutes?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1033159.html

The cop who casually lobs the canister into the people trying to render first aid is absolute scum.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Stumptown

Iraq war veteran shot in the face with tear gas grenade at Occupy Oakland last night. Condition is critical - in surgery now according to the Twitter. What's worse is when the police intentionally gas the people who went to help him. The video is damning. Oakland Police spent all day trying to tell the media and everyone else that they didn't do any of the things that were clearly captured on video. The cameras are everywhere, how can they not know that they're going to end up all over YouTube in like 20 minutes?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1033159.html

Disgraceful. Its the same story with cases of police brutality, defend and deny. When its caught on video like this I dont know how they can deny it. Wheres the honesty? Always trying to cover their asses. The fact that a war veteran gets treated like absolute garbage is just sad. Hope he makes a full recovery.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

fyp to illustrate the fact that I am pretty sure 90%+ of these #occupiers are not even contributing members of society who own a home.

Do you?

[To Be Quite Honest]

It's beginning to get quite pathetic that the Conservative or Republican side of the argument use: "Damn loser hippies", as their only line of defense. I'm glad intelligent people, like Bill Maher, changed his tune after visiting occupy DC. It shows hope.

The police video's are going to anger the population in Oakland and the world, but it is important that this stays peaceful, or it will be over.

The video's should be enough to sue the Dept. and maybe those violent officers will lose their jobs, and homes. So they can see what it's like. Well there will always be work in home security...