GG Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, Peter said: That is the point. He would only care if it were loaned to him. In such case, he would have been stupid to hire someone to pistol whip her, take the jewelry, and then return it. I don't think he is stupid. If the jewelry had been lent to her (as the one report states, perhaps incorrectly), Shady would not have cared at all and why would she insinuate that he was responsible for pistol whipping her and taking the jewelry. Neither scenario makes much sense to me. Don't know what report you're talking about. Even her lawyer says that shady gifted her the jewelry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starr Almighty Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, DC Tom said: So...four game suspension by Goodell, then? Don't be silly it's a hard 6 Edited July 12, 2018 by Starr Almighty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heitz Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 11 minutes ago, Lurker said: Re-posting as a Public Service.... *video* Literally the MOST on point thing I've seen all day at work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoPar_v2 Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 6 minutes ago, Peter said: How long is the tenancy of a tenant at will? For as long as the landlord “wills” it. Get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, Peter said: That is the point. He would only care if it were loaned to him. In such case, he would have been stupid to hire someone to pistol whip her, take the jewelry, and then return it. I don't think he is stupid. If the jewelry had been lent to her (as the one report states, perhaps incorrectly), Shady would not have cared at all and why would she insinuate that he was responsible for pistol whipping her and taking the jewelry. Neither scenario makes much sense to me. Or he'd care because he somehow guaranteed the return of what was loaned to his then-girlfriend. Or the jeweler is just holding him liable because he has deep pockets... 2 minutes ago, Starr Almighty said: Don't be silly it's a hard 6 That's what SHE said! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heitz Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, Peter said: That is the point. He would only care if it were loaned to him. In such case, he would have been stupid to hire someone to pistol whip her, take the jewelry, and then return it. I don't think he is stupid. If the jewelry had been lent to her (as the one report states, perhaps incorrectly), Shady would not have cared at all and why would she insinuate that he was responsible for pistol whipping her and taking the jewelry. Neither scenario makes much sense to me. Sooooooo, obviously the jeweler sent sent someone to repo the jewelry!? Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Until they're evicted. Already discussed and resolved. Read what's already posted. The point is that she is there at the will of the owner. Once the owner says out, she has no right to stay there. He is evicting her and she came up with an excuse to delay the hearing. She is very desperate because even she knows that she has no right to continue living there. I do not need to read 129 pages to make that determination. 4 minutes ago, JoPar_v2 said: For as long as the landlord “wills” it. Get it? It was a rhetorical question. Get it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEraBills Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 18 minutes ago, KD in CA said: When it comes to crazy, follow the advice of my friend O'Neil: hit it and quit it. Don't even hit it because then she got you. You'll never be able to get rid of her. These are the women that mothers an aunt's tell you about growing up. Unfortunately, we get star struck by how she looks and that A$$. Also, unfortunately, many of these women are this way because some dude F'ed them up to begin with and when other guys try to get with them it's game time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 24 minutes ago, teef said: The problem is you have to date crazy one to know you should never date crazy. It’s like a child touching a hot stove. i told a cat years ago not to touch the hot stove, and it did but it doesn't touch cold ones anymore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Did anyone see the “wild” news that Ben Allbright posted yesterday about this? Apparently you had to pay to get it which I refuse because he’s Ben Allbright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Or he'd care because he somehow guaranteed the return of what was loaned to his then-girlfriend. Or the jeweler is just holding him liable because he has deep pockets... In which case, the same analysis regarding scenario 1 applies. Why the hell would anyone pistol whip a woman to return jewelry to someone else to avoid paying for it (whether it was lent to him or he guarantied its return). It would be beyond stupid and easily determined whether he or one of his friends returned the jewelry. I do not see that Shady is stupid enough to hatch such an idiotic plan especially given that he has gone to the lengths to undertake the legal proceeds to evict her. Why would he all of a sudden engage in self help like this . . . not just self help but complete idiocy. Edited July 12, 2018 by Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr8billsfan Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 According to Mike Petchenik, His ex’s lawyer just admitted Ms Cordon never mentioned anything and has no idea what the friend is talking about. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Peter said: The point is that she is there at the will of the owner. Once the owner says out, she has no right to stay there. He is evicting her and she came up with an excuse to delay the hearing. She is very desperate because even she knows that she has no right to continue living there. I do not need to read 129 pages to make that determination. It was a rhetorical question. Get it? Whether you like it or not the laws in place actually require the home owner to follow through with the eviction. One moment Shady is telling the cops they didn’t get physical and he fears her making up allegations then the next he is telling them everything is ok we made up. She either gives stupid sex, it’s so good she makes a man stooopid or Shady is a fool. What the hell was the son doing climbing out of a window when his mom was in London? Was he in London? Who knows. Too bad it came to this from all I have read they seem perfect for each other. Edited July 12, 2018 by Commonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 One thing I keep seeing in all the press reports is that the intruder asked for a specific piece of jewelry--the bracelet--like it was targeted. Could it be just as plausible that he saw it on her wrist (as she was conspicuously wearing it, even after being in bed at 3:00am) and said "give me the bracelet and any other valuables in the house." She may have interpreted it as a set up (since Shady had previously asked for the bracelet's return as well), but could it simply be a theft and/or crime of opportunity unrelated to their relationship? I'm not defending what happened or looking to exonerate Shady if he was involved, but there's a lot of static in her story that needs to get filtered out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Commonsense said: Whether you like it or not the laws in place actually require the home owner to follow through with the eviction. One moment Shady is telling the cops they didn’t get physical and he fears her making up allegations then the next he is telling them everything is ok we made up. She either gives stupid sex, it’s so good she makes a man stooopid or Shady is a fool. What the hell was the son doing climbing out of a window when his mom was in London? Was he in London? Who knows. Too bad it came to this from all I have read they seem perfect for each other. He was in the process of evicting her. Whether you like it or not, the law is that she is there at the will of the owner. She has no entitlement to stay there even though he might have to go through the "process" as McCoach might say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince88 Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, DC Tom said: And ban Colt McCoy, just to be safe. And anyone named Leshane, Lashawn and leshin as they have been mentioned over these 120+ Pages also. Edited July 12, 2018 by fansince88 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgewaycynic2013 Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 27 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Legally, tenant-at-will. We went through this already. Read the whole topic. At my age, I'm likely to die in the process! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 12 minutes ago, Peter said: That is the point. He would only care if it were loaned to him. In such case, he would have been stupid to hire someone to pistol whip her, take the jewelry, and then return it. I don't think he is stupid. If the jewelry had been lent to her (as the one report states, perhaps incorrectly), Shady would not have cared at all and why would she insinuate that he was responsible for pistol whipping her and taking the jewelry. Neither scenario makes much sense to me. Sorry. What I mean is that shady was the one that rented the jewelry and then he lent it to her. Not the jewelry store lent it to her directly. So the jewelry is on loan under his name but she refuses to give it back. That's why I think he would care about it. Not saying he would hire someone to pistol whip and Rob her for it. Just that he has a stake in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Lurker said: One thing I keep seeing in all the press reports is that the intruder asked for a specific piece of jewelry--the bracelet--like it was targeted. Could it be just as plausible that he saw it on her wrist (as she was conspicuously wearing it, even after being in bed at 3:00am) and said "give me the bracelet and any other valuables in the house." She may have interpreted it as a set up (since Shady had previously asked for the bracelet's return as well), but could it simply be a theft and/or crime of opportunity unrelated to their relationship? I'm not defending what happened or looking to exonerate Shady if he was involved, but there's a lot of static in her story that needs to get filtered out... This woman sounds so crazy I wouldn’t be surprised if she just fell down. Edited July 12, 2018 by Royale with Cheese 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fadingpain Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, Royale with Cheese said: This woman sounds so crazy I wouldn’t be surprised if she just fell. Yes, that seems highly plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr8billsfan Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Also, police recovered the jewelry. It was lent to her by jewelry companies. https://twitter.com/mpetchenikwsb/status/1017474089563377664?s=21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Peter said: The point is that she is there at the will of the owner. Once the owner says out, she has no right to stay there. He is evicting her and she came up with an excuse to delay the hearing. She is very desperate because even she knows that she has no right to continue living there. I do not need to read 129 pages to make that determination. That's not what "tenant-at-will" means. Turns out, you do need to read 129 pages to make that determination. Edited July 12, 2018 by DC Tom 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoPar_v2 Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, Peter said: The point is that she is there at the will of the owner. Once the owner says out, she has no right to stay there. He is evicting her and she came up with an excuse to delay the hearing. She is very desperate because even she knows that she has no right to continue living there. I do not need to read 129 pages to make that determination. It was a rhetorical question. Get it? Hard to tell just by reading text Petey. you have no idea why the eviction, which was initiated last year, has taken this long. The most recent delay was due to an emergency with her attorney, but we have zero information about any previous delays. They could have reconciled and McCoy put proceedings off, etc. In other words you’re assuming this woman is a deadbeat and in the wrong, when it’s equally possible McCoy stringed her along and kept her around, for any number of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, Peter said: In which case, the same analysis regarding scenario 1 applies. Why the hell would anyone pistol whip a woman to return jewelry to someone else to avoid paying for it (whether it was lent to him or he guarantied its return). It would be beyond stupid and easily determined whether he or one of his friends returned the jewelry. I do not see that Shady is stupid enough to hatch such an idiotic plan especially given that he has gone to the lengths to undertake the legal proceeds to evict her. Why would he all of a sudden engage in self help like this . . . not just self help but complete idiocy. Because idiots gotta idiot. Look at your posts... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, The Wiz said: Sorry. What I mean is that shady was the one that rented the jewelry and then he lent it to her. Not the jewelry store lent it to her directly. So the jewelry is on loan under his name but she refuses to give it back. That's why I think he would care about it. Not saying he would hire someone to pistol whip and Rob her for it. Just that he has a stake in it. It's possible, but McCoy would be able to file a legal action against her for it's return, which would freeze up anything the jewelry store could do to him. Once it's in the legal system, it's essentially cast in amber like a bug and will remain inert for many years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LikeIGiveADarn Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said: Did anyone see the “wild” news that Ben Allbright posted yesterday about this? Apparently you had to pay to get it which I refuse because he’s Ben Allbright. Shady's best friend was UNOFFICIALLY named a "person of interest". Has not been said anywhere else, and I'm assuming the only reason he may be a "person of interest" at all is because the victims named him as a friend of McCoy. Thank you for not giving money to Ben Allbright... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said: At my age, I'm likely to die in the process! ? At this point in the discussion, it would be a blessing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgewaycynic2013 Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: At this point in the discussion, it would be a blessing. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, LikeIGiveADarn said: Shady's best friend was UNOFFICIALLY named a "person of interest". Has not been said anywhere else, and I'm assuming the only reason he may be a "person of interest" at all is because the victims named him as a friend of McCoy. Thank you for not giving money to Ben Allbright... I bet Albright leaves shopping carts in the parking space. Edited July 12, 2018 by Royale with Cheese 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy10 Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, gr8billsfan said: Also, police recovered the jewelry. It was lent to her by jewelry companies. https://twitter.com/mpetchenikwsb/status/1017474089563377664?s=21 WTF? This story keeps getting weirder and weirder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckfromcanada Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 doesn't make a lot of sense, what would his end game be , rob her or have someone else rob her and then return the jewellery..lol. The sheet out the window is too freaking odd..hope they don't suspend him until this is clearer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: This woman sounds so crazy I wouldn’t be surprised if she just fell down. She is crazy. But let's be clear: crazy women still don't deserve to have the **** beaten out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LikeIGiveADarn Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: I bey Albright leaves shopping carts in the parking space. I bet he throws cigarette butts out of the window driving down the highway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewin Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Peter said: That is the point. He would only care if it were loaned to him. In such case, he would have been stupid to hire someone to pistol whip her, take the jewelry, and then return it. I don't think he is stupid. If the jewelry had been lent to her (as the one report states, perhaps incorrectly), Shady would not have cared at all and why would she insinuate that he was responsible for pistol whipping her and taking the jewelry. Neither scenario makes much sense to me. I imagine it was lent to "them" - one of the reports mentioned Shady saying people loaned them jewelry for events. I'm sure regardless of if it was for her specifically to wear, Shady felt (or was) responsible for getting the jewelry back to whoever loaned it. Edit: I'm referring to why Shady would generally care about the jewelry getting back to the owner - and agree that it would not be a reason for him to hire someone to retrieve it - if anything it supports the theory that someone else knew about it and decided to take it for themselves Edited July 12, 2018 by stevewin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: She is crazy. But let's be clear: crazy women still don't deserve to have the **** beaten out of them. Not clear enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Just trying to get some clarity: what's the general consensus about the shiny items in question -- were they McCoy's, was it a lending by a jeweler that McCoy facilitated, or were they the property of a jeweler who lent them to her without any intercession by McCoy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, dave mcbride said: Just trying to get some clarity: what's the general consensus about the shiny items in question -- were they McCoy's, was it a lending by a jeweler that McCoy facilitated, or were they the property of a jeweler who lent them to her without any intercession by McCoy? I think it’s the 2nd one but not sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, dave mcbride said: Just trying to get some clarity: what's the general consensus about the shiny items in question -- were they McCoy's, was it a lending by a jeweler that McCoy facilitated, or were they the property of a jeweler who lent them to her without any intercession by McCoy? They belong to the family home, but not the shared home. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) Edited July 12, 2018 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, YoloinOhio said: Whens Spike Lee going to direct this movie? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts