Peter Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, JoPar_v2 said: Smart move I really hope that you are not an attorney. You are bound to have Rule 11 (or the state equivalent) sanctions awarded against you because you think that delay tactics are somehow the same as an underlying right. Oh brother. Just now, 3rdand12 said: is there a chance you are British ? No. And it is not coming home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 8 minutes ago, 3rdand12 said: Jewelry was on loan. hard to sift through it all ! Yes it was on loan but it has not been recovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Just now, Peter said: I really hope that you are not an attorney. You are bound to have Rule 11 (or the state equivalent) sanctions awarded against you because you think that delay tactics are somehow the same as an underlying right. Oh brother. No. And it is not coming home. : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-BillzeBubba Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Peter said: How much would you like to bet that the judge finds that she has to move out or that she moves out before the hearing once she figures out that she cannot delay it any longer? Do you really think that the judge is going to find that she has the right to stay there? All she is doing is delaying the inevitable ruling against her. I read she already moved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Just now, Doc said: Yes it was on loan but it has not been recovered. correct. I see that has been clarified. So why would Shady need to be the one to return it ? He could claim it stolen or make the Jewelers aware and allow them to pursue their property ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 18 minutes ago, DC Tom said: If Person A sues Person B for a million dollars, then Person B absolutely has the right to that million until a jury says otherwise. So yes, it is exactly like saying that. We're "arguing semantics" because the semantics in this case are important. You're arguing "rights" from a legal context that is semantically very specific, but you don't seem to understand that. Actually they only have the right to the million if the jury says so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoPar_v2 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Peter said: I quoted the Georgia statutes. You can read (I hope). She was a tenant at will - at the will of Shady. Georgia law gives her 60 days to move out. The tenancy at will ended. She has overstayed the 60 days. How much would you like to bet that the judge finds that she has to move out or that she moves out before the hearing once she figures out that she cannot delay it any longer? Do you really think that the judge is going to find that she has the right to stay there? All she is doing is delaying the inevitable ruling against her. Just because the future outcome is obvious does not mean she prematurely loses her tenant’s rights. She had 60 day notice to vacate...or eviction proceedings will be brought against her. You left out that second part. The notice does not state “you have 60 days to vacate...or the clock will strike and the bells will ring and poof you are no longer a tenant” as you seem to believe. due process and all that counselor. Maybe look that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, x-BillzeBubba said: I read she already moved any links would be helpful with updates. It's offseason at it's finest ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, x-BillzeBubba said: I read she already moved She's fighting eviction. So that seems unlikely with the next hearing on August 14th. Edited July 13, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoPar_v2 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, Peter said: I really hope that you are not an attorney. You are bound to have Rule 11 (or the state equivalent) sanctions awarded against you because you think that delay tactics are somehow the same as an underlying right. Weird because I specifically said the procedural delay was a tactic, NOT a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Actually they only have the right to the million if the jury says so. Exactly. 1 minute ago, JoPar_v2 said: Weird because I specifically said the procedural delay was a tactic, NOT a right. Then why are you picking a fight with me? Just to be disagreeable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Just now, Peter said: Exactly. Unless the defendant doesn't respond, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 7 minutes ago, x-BillzeBubba said: I read she already moved Wait a minute! There are some here who have spent hours arguing that she had the right to live there. I guess she even realized that she had to move out. 1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said: Unless the defendant doesn't respond, correct? Correct. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said: Unless the defendant doesn't respond, correct? Is this a rental owned by him or a place described as his residence ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoPar_v2 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Peter said: Exactly. Then why are you picking a fight with me? Just to be disagreeable? One more time with gusto - her rights as a tenant remain until the eviction is ordered by a judge. Delaying that hearing is a tactic (she doesn’t have a “right” to infinite delays) or at best, a matter of circumstance. You’re conflating the two, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 7 minutes ago, JoPar_v2 said: Just because the future outcome is obvious does not mean she prematurely loses her tenant’s rights. She had 60 day notice to vacate...or eviction proceedings will be brought against her. You left out that second part. The notice does not state “you have 60 days to vacate...or the clock will strike and the bells will ring and poof you are no longer a tenant” as you seem to believe. due process and all that counselor. Maybe look that up. Are you trying to argue that she has 60 days to live there after the judge rules against her (if she has not already moved out)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, 3rdand12 said: correct. I see that has been clarified. So why would Shady need to be the one to return it ? He could claim it stolen or make the Jewelers aware and allow them to pursue their property ? It would look just as suspicious if they're trying to get it back and suddenly it gets stolen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoPar_v2 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Just now, 3rdand12 said: Is this a rental owned by him or a place described as his residence ? The place was jointly occupied by the two; McCoy is the sole owner (specifically a trust owns it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 minute ago, JoPar_v2 said: One more time with gusto - her rights as a tenant remain until the eviction is ordered by a judge. Delaying that hearing is a tactic (she doesn’t have a “right” to infinite delays) or at best, a matter of circumstance. You’re conflating the two, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 minute ago, 3rdand12 said: Is this a rental owned by him or a place described as his residence ? Don't know. Always wondered why wealthy people would live in a place like that. He could essentially keep a place anywhere in the country he wished---and chooses that craptacular cut-de-sac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts