|
|
I have a policy with me listed as the insured. The covered amount is
the original purchase price with a notion of the mortgage amount.
Will the policy still be valid after I pay off my mortgage but still
own the same house?
Somehow I got an impre
|
|
|
On Apr 10, 8:09 am, Dave Rawson <The...@DRawson.Com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry to bother you, but my ISP has no NNTP by which I can post to
> newsgroups. I've sent this to you after reading the
> Misc.Legal.Moderated Posting Instructions and Charter
|
|
|
Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:09:24 -0400 from Dave Rawson
<TheGuy@DRawson.Com>:
Dave,
You sold a California house and moved to Oregon. The buyer is suing
you in California small claims court.
> Can we be sued in California Small Claims Court for a R
|
|
|
On Apr 10, 8:09 am, Dave Rawson <The...@DRawson.Com> wrote:
> Hi, we live Oregon and sold our house in California after we moved here.
>
> The buyer claims we are guilty of a Material Defect and has told us he
> has filed suit in California Small Cl
|
|
|
Dave Rawson <TheGuy@DRawson.Com> wrote:
> Sorry to bother you, but my ISP has no NNTP by which I can post to
> newsgroups.
If you are not aware, there are several subscription news-only services
that are not expensive, such as individual.net.
|
|
|
Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:09:17 -0400 from William Brenner
<wbrenner@nospamplease.net>:
> Yes, Stu, there is such a law. Intent does not appear to be a factor.
>
> According to this law -- 18 USC Sec. 871 -- which reads, in part:
>
> "...Whoever knowin
|
|
|
In article <fm0sv3tiscg2mjtcinp19maalobf5b1694@4ax.com>,
dwzimm@telus.net says...
> On 2008-03-29 05:47:21 -0700, Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> said:
>
> > The real crime is the intent and the conspiracy. Conspiracies are not
> > just w
|
|
|
In article <cm0sv3dn5jolhhk4vifr5gckh6bqmou2t8@4ax.com>,
Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
>Take a paralell example. Your hapless spouse for some reason thinks
>there's a magic genie in the toaster. So intending her spouse to die
|
|
|
In article <pt1kv350g4f2lv3uf7gan24mm6ggn6r3bn@4ax.com>,
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
>sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote in
>news:5iihv3t48bnq2md1sghj3ltgbd2b950rvs@4ax.com:
>> My point is that a contract does _not_ "boil down to words". A
>> contract is
|
|
|
In article <b6mmv3t8jn6l8ijroioqem9equ24i81hgk@4ax.com>,
Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
>Could it be made illegal for someone with intent to say that? I
>don't know. Most of these situations deal with conspiracies. When
>more
|
|
|
In article <jm0sv3tn0ptv25fq3ernlpm67f97e6tpvu@4ax.com>,
William Brenner <wbrenner@nospamplease.net> wrote:
>According to this law -- 18 USC Sec. 871 -- which reads, in part:
>
>"...Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mai
|
|
|
On Apr 10, 8:09 am, Don <dwz...@telus.net> wrote:
> > The real crime is the intent and the conspiracy. Conspiracies are not
> > just words. They are partnerships to commit a crime. And when more
> > than one person is involved, it is much more lik
|
|
|
On Apr 10, 8:09 am, William Brenner <wbren...@nospamplease.net> wrote:
> > I do believe, however, that it has
> > been made illegal to say, "I plan to Kill The President of the United
> > States." I don't know whether intent is necessary for convict
|
|
|
n 10 Apr 2008, mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> said/asked:
> I may have gotten myself into a mess. I'm in Maryland.
>
> If someone might have the basis for a successful claim for
> adverse possession, for the required number of years, but
> hasn't pursued
|
|
|
mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> If someone might have the basis for a successful claim for adverse
> possession, for the required number of years, but hasn't pursued
> it in court, if I do something now that would have interrupted the
> requi
|
|
|
tim wrote:
[unhappy with management decisions made by corporate partner]
>
> These actions seem to be covered under our arbitration agreement even
> though they were technically enacted by the parent company (by the
> manager). Is there any possi
|
|
|
tim <fincadenada@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am a 30% minority shareholder in an LLC. The majority
> shareholder is another (parent) company that is wholly owned by a
> family and entirely controlled and micromanaged by the family
> patriarch and manager
|
|
|
On Apr 10, 8:08 am, Eric66 <eric.6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm happy that you posted this disclaimer. My original question was
> posted in the same vein. In fact, I specifically posted it in the
> manner that I though would bring about the most respon
|
|
|
Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:08:46 -0400 from Eric66 <eric.6605@gmail.com>:
> On Apr 4, 4:39 am, Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Let me get this straight. You're reaching your hands over the wall
> > between yours and your neighbor's properties,
|
|
|
On Apr 1, 12:45 pm, Eric66 <eric.6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've been spraying [dog repellent] over the wall, coating the pavement closest to
> my home, in an effort to keep the dog from jumping up on the wall,
> which is highly annoying.
Having
|
|
|
On Apr 5, 4:41=A0am, Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 7:39 am, "Robert M. Gary" <N70...@gmail.com> wrot
>
> > the neighbor would have to have damages. If the dog isn't hurt by the
> > stuff it would be unlikely that your neighbor
|
|
|
In article <rl0sv3pp79vmc9gqc3ihdbtqctpu754v55@4ax.com>,
A Michigan Attorney <miattorney@gmail.com> wrote:
>I don't think Mr. Reitman is trying to define "practice of law". He's
>only saying that the legislature may not exempt the drafting of wills
|
|
|
mm wrote:
> Malcomn X in his teens or 20's used to sell "stolen watches". They
> were actually cheap watches that he bought at the cheap watch
> wholesale outlet, and he had a peddlar's license, but he would skulk
> and take prospective customers into
|
|
|
In article <il0sv39eoon2pofi2tm290h4k2i5h50tq3@4ax.com>,
bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com says...
> A release from the photographer, ALONE, is not sufficient, when the photograph
> is a 'derivative work'.
If a photograph is taken of a person directly,
|
|
|
In article <ml0sv3tgvhi9o870n94or130t5siobff1u@4ax.com>, prabbit1
@shamrocksgf.com says...
> So that makes such a false 'take-down' statement illegal as well as
> being a misstatement of the law but it's still not perjury.
According to the te
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:08:12 -0400, Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com>
wrote:
>henri <henri@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>>Regardless of =your= opinion on the above, the _courts_ have held,
>>>r
|
|
|
In article <kl0sv3l2cb87to8ev1grtgo5lo7bs6pf1h@4ax.com>,
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>In article <qs1kv3tt2ovgnmg6e69foleodhuvm6q27a@4ax.com>,
>Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
>>Seth wrote:
>>> In article <f8pev3hroje
|
|
|
In article <nl0sv3h0lcoi5hehgfuf729h7eoooa58ua@4ax.com>,
Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
>Seth wrote:
>> In article <qs1kv3tt2ovgnmg6e69foleodhuvm6q27a@4ax.com>,
>> Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
>>> Seth wrote:
>>>> Terms of use of
|
|
|
In article <il0sv39eoon2pofi2tm290h4k2i5h50tq3@4ax.com>,
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>In article <t5mmv3dal9q9ma3rrc1i2jrg2m701osb9c@4ax.com>,
>Seth <sethb@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <ss1kv3plckfvuq9dsa14a75c18mf18mu6n@4ax.c
|
|
|
Is there an automatic granting of a 90 day extension to an initial TRO
- with a hearing but NO arguments allowed in CA?
A mediator claimed that this was the law.
Where is the justice in this?
|
|
|
In article <0l0sv35skcuuqprcnb1j551a7k3dvpsrbk@4ax.com>,
Mike Jacobs <mjacobslaw@gmail.com> wrote:
>Now, sure, the defense could argue that the real perp had pulled into
>a garage somewhere between cop A and cop B, and that his little ol'
>innocent
|
|
