Scumbag Wells-Fargo bank stealing homes - Page 3

16.5 · 14th November 2012, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Well, so much for "stealing" her home:

From: http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazin...black_home.php
...Wells Fargo's Media Relations & Corporate Communications staffer Lisa Woolery wrote to the Weekly that, "Ms. Black has filed a total of two bankruptcies within one year. Because the second bankruptcy was filed within a year of the first one, the automatic stay against creditors Ms. Black received in the second case terminated by operation of law on the 30th day after she filed the second case." As for not showing up in court on a prior date to reaffirm that position? "In [Wells Fargo and Carrington Mortgage Services'] case," she says, "it was believed that arguments would not be necessary on a motion that itself was no longer necessary."
...
Judge Albert essentially agreed with the first part, saying he was unaware somehow of the second bankruptcy...
...
From his bench, Judge Albert declared that his decision was that no sanctions, nor damages would be levied against Wells Fargo for the October 10 eviction unless it could be convincingly argued otherwise.

So, it looks like the judge has ruled that the eviction was legal. The judge did say that Wells-Fargo had "egg on their face", but it appears that he's referring to the bank's image rather than the legal tactics.

It looks like the lawyers representing her are going to continue the fight:
Towards the end of the hearing, Attorney Stephen R. Golden emphatically argued, "This loan is one that she did not sign!" while his office has deemed it predatory in nature with high starting interest rates and a large balloon payment built in. "

In my opinion.... Nico Black was a lying scumbag who managed to sucker a law firm into representing her. The lawyers are grasping at straws in an attempt to save face.

I certainly do question their ability to handle this situation, given how certain they were that "the eviction was illegal". Didn't they know about the multiple bankruptcies and how it would have affected her case? Either they're unfamiliar with the law, or they didn't do proper research.

Jesus Christ, that article was utter garbage, it is barely English.

As for whether the "case" was "dismissed," it is a bankruptcy case that she filed in an attempt to stave off the eviction proceeding and failed to do so.

her request for sanctions for violating the stay was denied because the stay was not in place.

Her lawyers might find themselves facing sanctions for arguing that the final State Court judgments are subject to collateral attack in Federal Court.

Segnosaur · 14th November 2012, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by 16.5

Jesus Christ, that article was utter garbage, it is barely English.

Really? What was the problem with it? It seem to cover a lot of the information that was missing from the case, and seemed to do so in a fairly straight forward manner... we know how the judge ruled, why he ruled the way he did, why he originally had concerns, why the eviction was legal, etc.

Unfortunately, it was one of the few references that seemed to be available at this time that covered yesterday's court case. There were a couple of other articles I found, but most of them were... well, even worse (engaging in the typical hysterics you might expect from such a case, linking Wells-Fargo and the police to the Nazis and such.)

If you have a better article I'd like to see it. (Keeping in mind that I'm not an expert in the American legal system.)

Quote:

Her lawyers might find themselves facing sanctions for arguing that the final State Court judgments are subject to collateral attack in Federal Court.

I have to admit, this went right over my head... could you dumb it down a little for me?

16.5 · 14th November 2012, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

What was the problem with it? ....

I have to admit, this went right over my head... could you dumb it down a little for me?

Thw riting was horrific: "Judge Albert essentially agreed with the first part, saying he was unaware somehow of the second bankruptcy--a notion the bank also submitted to him in a manner convincing his judgement." It is like a bad google translator.

Very basically the US Supreme Court has stated that a Federal Court cannot review a state court's final order in a civil case.

Segnosaur · 14th November 2012, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by 16.5

Very basically the US Supreme Court has stated that a Federal Court cannot review a state court's final order in a civil case.

I'm still not following. (Again, my apologies... I'm from Canada, where we have slightly different rules, court jurisdictions, etc.)

I thought Bankruptcy courts were 'federal courts'.

And what exactly did the lawyers say that was suggestive/incorrect?

(I want to stress that I'm not doubting you.... its just my own ignorance over the situation.)

16.5 · 14th November 2012, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I'm still not following. (Again, my apologies... I'm from Canada, where we have slightly different rules, court jurisdictions, etc.)

I thought Bankruptcy courts were 'federal courts'.

And what exactly did the lawyers say that was suggestive/incorrect?

(I want to stress that I'm not doubting you.... its just my own ignorance over the situation.)

The Bankruptcy court IS a Federal Court. What the lawyers were doing that was wrong was arguing in the Federal Court that the State Court judgment was wrong because "she didn't sign the loan."

Here is a good basic article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooker%...ldman_doctrine

Segnosaur · 14th November 2012, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by 16.5

The Bankruptcy court IS a Federal Court. What the lawyers were doing that was wrong was arguing in the Federal Court that the State Court judgment was wrong because "she didn't sign the loan."

Ah ok. I think I understand now.

I think part of the problem is that I wasn't aware that the "state court" had actually made any judgements. (I know her lawyers had made several claims and started proceedings that are probably handled by state court but I didn't think anything had been decided in those cases.)

Have to admit, I don't really have much sympathy for her lawyers. Like I said, it seems they really messed up in not recognizing the problem with her multiple bankruptcies.

They were probably trying to make a name for themselves ("hey! lets latch on to this popular case!") and stepped in a pile of dog poop. I'd probably get a perverse sense of pleasure to see them sanctioned by the courts.

jhunter1163 · 14th November 2012, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

They were probably trying to make a name for themselves ("hey! lets latch on to this popular case!") and stepped in a pile of dog poop.

Yep, pretty much. They were looking to make a name for themselves as advocates for the poor, oppressed and downtrodden, and picked this woman's case as one that looked ripe for some easy PR points. On the face of it, it had all the right ingredients; sympathetic cancer-stricken victim, evil giant monster mega-bank, and fascist Nazi sheriff's office doing the bidding of aforementioned eeeeeevil GMMB. Unfortunately for Golden and Associates, the "victim" proved to be a serial manipulator, liar and freeloader. They're spinning like dervishes, but the damage has been done to their case and the media will now move on to the next poor, oppressed and downtrodden victim.

StankApe · 14th November 2012, 04:47 PM

Now they have to fear the smite of Lesbian Death Squa......

Metullus · 14th November 2012, 06:33 PM

So, scumbag Wells-Fargo is not stealing the home of a critically ill person that the bank does not even own in direct violation of a Federal Court Order?

Do I still need to sign a petition?

Is Wells-Fargo still a scumbag?

So many questions...

Steve · 15th November 2012, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Metullus

So, scumbag Wells-Fargo is not stealing the home of a critically ill person that the bank does not even own in direct violation of a Federal Court Order?

Do I still need to sign a petition?

Is Wells-Fargo still a scumbag?

So many questions...

Muldur should be along shortly to answer these questions for you.

Metullus · 15th November 2012, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

Muldur should be along shortly to answer these questions for you.

Of that I have no doubt...

jhunter1163 · 15th November 2012, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

Now they have to fear the smite of Lesbian Death Squa......

Watch what you say.. they could be anywh

stevea · 21st November 2012, 06:48 PM

Well if the HuffPost and some blog say it's true - then it must be

This story is so full of distortion that it stinks from the first paragraph. I says the woman (named after a flying monkey btw) OWNs the house. I doubt that it passes my definition of "owns" or a court's. You generally can't take a primary residence in a bancrupcy proceeding UNLESS it;s liste collateral that the woman agreed to.

Again we see the ignorance of economics practiced on the Left. Anti-biz, anti-bank, anti-rationality. *IF* WF had did have a mortgage and legitimately foreclosed via the sheriff on the poor woman - HOW does that make WF guilty of anything ? WHy is this partiicular bank responsible for bailing her out ? Would you prefer that WF forgive every sad-sack with an excuse and then tell their depositors that the $10000 they deposited cannot be returned ? That IS the alternative you know. Banks don't have a magic printing press in the back room.

Emotional thinking can't really be part of this. If YOU want to bailout this woman, then YOU investigate and send her a check, or write YOUR representive. Expecting her creditors, that she promised to repay, have magically deep pockets filled with free money is looney.

It's a social decision if this woman needs a public bailout - it has ZERO to do with WellsFargo.

psionl0 · 21st November 2012, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by stevea

Banks don't have a magic printing press in the back room.

I'm tempted to say, "actually they do".

Mind you, I know what you are getting at. The more M1 money the banks create (when making loans), the more liability they get. If the security they got for the loan is not up to the task then that liability becomes a pure loss.

Segnosaur · 22nd November 2012, 06:56 AM

Ok, here's yet more information about the 'innocent' Nico Black getting evicted by the evil fascist thugs of Wells-Fargo and the police:

From: http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/201...sident/163641/
... Black refinanced roughly five times, and was $14,751 behind in her payments when the first default notice was filed in 2009. At the time of the foreclosure, in 2011, Black owed $549,275. Black filed a federal bankruptcy petition in April 2012. That would normally stay any eviction process but the case was dismissed automatically by the court because Black failed to file the required information about her debts and assets within 72 hours... Black’s then-attorney signed a stipulation in Superior Court...agreeing that she would vacate her home by July 15, 2012. But she didn’t leave.

So, despite this woman claiming fraud by the banks, and "I never signed any loan papers", she still agreed to leave in court, but didn't.

So, where is Muldur? He started this thread to highlight the "poor sick woman who had her home stolen". He have any thoughts now that we actually have, you know, facts?

Dan O. · 22nd November 2012, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Ok, here's yet more information about the 'innocent' Nico Black getting evicted by the evil fascist thugs of Wells-Fargo and the police:

From: http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/201...sident/163641/

The article itself was much more balanced than your cherry pickings.

jhunter1163 · 22nd November 2012, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

The article itself was much more balanced than your cherry pickings.

While WF wasn't without shame in this whole affair, Ms. Black clearly was not the innocent victim she was painted to be. That was Segnosaur's point, and it is entirely valid.

Segnosaur · 23rd November 2012, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

The article itself was much more balanced than your cherry pickings.

What information do you think I overlooked from the article that showed Wells-Fargo was the "bad guy", or in any way to blame?

Only real thing that I could see from the article was Wells-Fargo not showing up for the one court case, but that's already been discussed in this thread.

16.5 · 23rd November 2012, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

The article itself was much more balanced than your cherry pickings.

It is traditional to explain how the parts of the article that were omitted were significant.

StankApe · 23rd November 2012, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by 16.5

It is traditional to explain how the parts of the article that were omitted were significant.

will there be dancing and story songs?

14th November 2012, 08:08 AM	#81
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,602	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Well, so much for "stealing" her home: From: http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazin...black_home.php ...Wells Fargo's Media Relations & Corporate Communications staffer Lisa Woolery wrote to the Weekly that, "Ms. Black has filed a total of two bankruptcies within one year. Because the second bankruptcy was filed within a year of the first one, the automatic stay against creditors Ms. Black received in the second case terminated by operation of law on the 30th day after she filed the second case." As for not showing up in court on a prior date to reaffirm that position? "In [Wells Fargo and Carrington Mortgage Services'] case," she says, "it was believed that arguments would not be necessary on a motion that itself was no longer necessary." ... Judge Albert essentially agreed with the first part, saying he was unaware somehow of the second bankruptcy... ... From his bench, Judge Albert declared that his decision was that no sanctions, nor damages would be levied against Wells Fargo for the October 10 eviction unless it could be convincingly argued otherwise. So, it looks like the judge has ruled that the eviction was legal. The judge did say that Wells-Fargo had "egg on their face", but it appears that he's referring to the bank's image rather than the legal tactics. It looks like the lawyers representing her are going to continue the fight: Towards the end of the hearing, Attorney Stephen R. Golden emphatically argued, "This loan is one that she did not sign!" while his office has deemed it predatory in nature with high starting interest rates and a large balloon payment built in. " In my opinion.... Nico Black was a lying scumbag who managed to sucker a law firm into representing her. The lawyers are grasping at straws in an attempt to save face. I certainly do question their ability to handle this situation, given how certain they were that "the eviction was illegal". Didn't they know about the multiple bankruptcies and how it would have affected her case? Either they're unfamiliar with the law, or they didn't do proper research. Jesus Christ, that article was utter garbage, it is barely English. As for whether the "case" was "dismissed," it is a bankruptcy case that she filed in an attempt to stave off the eviction proceeding and failed to do so. her request for sanctions for violating the stay was denied because the stay was not in place. Her lawyers might find themselves facing sanctions for arguing that the final State Court judgments are subject to collateral attack in Federal Court.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,602

14th November 2012, 08:23 AM	#82
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,072	Originally Posted by 16.5 Jesus Christ, that article was utter garbage, it is barely English. Really? What was the problem with it? It seem to cover a lot of the information that was missing from the case, and seemed to do so in a fairly straight forward manner... we know how the judge ruled, why he ruled the way he did, why he originally had concerns, why the eviction was legal, etc. Unfortunately, it was one of the few references that seemed to be available at this time that covered yesterday's court case. There were a couple of other articles I found, but most of them were... well, even worse (engaging in the typical hysterics you might expect from such a case, linking Wells-Fargo and the police to the Nazis and such.) If you have a better article I'd like to see it. (Keeping in mind that I'm not an expert in the American legal system.) Quote: Her lawyers might find themselves facing sanctions for arguing that the final State Court judgments are subject to collateral attack in Federal Court. I have to admit, this went right over my head... could you dumb it down a little for me?
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

14th November 2012, 08:51 AM	#83
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,602	Originally Posted by Segnosaur What was the problem with it? .... I have to admit, this went right over my head... could you dumb it down a little for me? Thw riting was horrific: "Judge Albert essentially agreed with the first part, saying he was unaware somehow of the second bankruptcy--a notion the bank also submitted to him in a manner convincing his judgement." It is like a bad google translator. Very basically the US Supreme Court has stated that a Federal Court cannot review a state court's final order in a civil case.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,602

14th November 2012, 08:57 AM	#84
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,072	Originally Posted by 16.5 Very basically the US Supreme Court has stated that a Federal Court cannot review a state court's final order in a civil case. I'm still not following. (Again, my apologies... I'm from Canada, where we have slightly different rules, court jurisdictions, etc.) I thought Bankruptcy courts were 'federal courts'. And what exactly did the lawyers say that was suggestive/incorrect? (I want to stress that I'm not doubting you.... its just my own ignorance over the situation.)
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

14th November 2012, 09:19 AM	#85
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,602	Originally Posted by Segnosaur I'm still not following. (Again, my apologies... I'm from Canada, where we have slightly different rules, court jurisdictions, etc.) I thought Bankruptcy courts were 'federal courts'. And what exactly did the lawyers say that was suggestive/incorrect? (I want to stress that I'm not doubting you.... its just my own ignorance over the situation.) The Bankruptcy court IS a Federal Court. What the lawyers were doing that was wrong was arguing in the Federal Court that the State Court judgment was wrong because "she didn't sign the loan." Here is a good basic article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooker%...ldman_doctrine
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,602

14th November 2012, 09:55 AM	#86
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,072	Originally Posted by 16.5 The Bankruptcy court IS a Federal Court. What the lawyers were doing that was wrong was arguing in the Federal Court that the State Court judgment was wrong because "she didn't sign the loan." Ah ok. I think I understand now. I think part of the problem is that I wasn't aware that the "state court" had actually made any judgements. (I know her lawyers had made several claims and started proceedings that are probably handled by state court but I didn't think anything had been decided in those cases.) Have to admit, I don't really have much sympathy for her lawyers. Like I said, it seems they really messed up in not recognizing the problem with her multiple bankruptcies. They were probably trying to make a name for themselves ("hey! lets latch on to this popular case!") and stepped in a pile of dog poop. I'd probably get a perverse sense of pleasure to see them sanctioned by the courts.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

14th November 2012, 04:42 PM	#87
jhunter1163 Beer-Swilling Semiliterate Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott Posts: 15,554	Originally Posted by Segnosaur They were probably trying to make a name for themselves ("hey! lets latch on to this popular case!") and stepped in a pile of dog poop. Yep, pretty much. They were looking to make a name for themselves as advocates for the poor, oppressed and downtrodden, and picked this woman's case as one that looked ripe for some easy PR points. On the face of it, it had all the right ingredients; sympathetic cancer-stricken victim, evil giant monster mega-bank, and fascist Nazi sheriff's office doing the bidding of aforementioned eeeeeevil GMMB. Unfortunately for Golden and Associates, the "victim" proved to be a serial manipulator, liar and freeloader. They're spinning like dervishes, but the damage has been done to their case and the media will now move on to the next poor, oppressed and downtrodden victim.

14th November 2012, 04:47 PM	#88
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Now they have to fear the smite of Lesbian Death Squa......
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

14th November 2012, 06:33 PM	#89
Metullus Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Waldo's Pond Posts: 3,959	So, scumbag Wells-Fargo is not stealing the home of a critically ill person that the bank does not even own in direct violation of a Federal Court Order? Do I still need to sign a petition? Is Wells-Fargo still a scumbag? So many questions...
	__________________ I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy Last edited by Metullus; 14th November 2012 at 06:34 PM.

15th November 2012, 02:18 PM	#90
Steve Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2005 Location: Surrey BC Posts: 1,331	Originally Posted by Metullus So, scumbag Wells-Fargo is not stealing the home of a critically ill person that the bank does not even own in direct violation of a Federal Court Order? Do I still need to sign a petition? Is Wells-Fargo still a scumbag? So many questions... Muldur should be along shortly to answer these questions for you.
	__________________ Formerly known as dogguy. Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

15th November 2012, 02:20 PM	#91
Metullus Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Waldo's Pond Posts: 3,959	Originally Posted by Steve Muldur should be along shortly to answer these questions for you. Of that I have no doubt...
	__________________ I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy

15th November 2012, 04:10 PM	#92
jhunter1163 Beer-Swilling Semiliterate Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott Posts: 15,554	Originally Posted by StankApe Now they have to fear the smite of Lesbian Death Squa...... Watch what you say.. they could be anywh

21st November 2012, 06:48 PM	#93
stevea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,117	Well if the HuffPost and some blog say it's true - then it must be This story is so full of distortion that it stinks from the first paragraph. I says the woman (named after a flying monkey btw) OWNs the house. I doubt that it passes my definition of "owns" or a court's. You generally can't take a primary residence in a bancrupcy proceeding UNLESS it;s liste collateral that the woman agreed to. Again we see the ignorance of economics practiced on the Left. Anti-biz, anti-bank, anti-rationality. IF WF had did have a mortgage and legitimately foreclosed via the sheriff on the poor woman - HOW does that make WF guilty of anything ? WHy is this partiicular bank responsible for bailing her out ? Would you prefer that WF forgive every sad-sack with an excuse and then tell their depositors that the $10000 they deposited cannot be returned ? That IS the alternative you know. Banks don't have a magic printing press in the back room. Emotional thinking can't really be part of this. If YOU want to bailout this woman, then YOU investigate and send her a check, or write YOUR representive. Expecting her creditors, that she promised to repay, have magically deep pockets filled with free money is looney. It's a social decision if this woman needs a public bailout - it has ZERO to do with WellsFargo.
stevea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,117	Last edited by stevea; 21st November 2012 at 07:00 PM.

21st November 2012, 09:41 PM	#94
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,753	Originally Posted by stevea Banks don't have a magic printing press in the back room. I'm tempted to say, "actually they do". Mind you, I know what you are getting at. The more M1 money the banks create (when making loans), the more liability they get. If the security they got for the loan is not up to the task then that liability becomes a pure loss.

22nd November 2012, 06:56 AM	#95
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,072	Ok, here's yet more information about the 'innocent' Nico Black getting evicted by the evil fascist thugs of Wells-Fargo and the police: From: http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/201...sident/163641/ ... Black refinanced roughly five times, and was $14,751 behind in her payments when the first default notice was filed in 2009. At the time of the foreclosure, in 2011, Black owed $549,275. Black filed a federal bankruptcy petition in April 2012. That would normally stay any eviction process but the case was dismissed automatically by the court because Black failed to file the required information about her debts and assets within 72 hours... Black’s then-attorney signed a stipulation in Superior Court...agreeing that she would vacate her home by July 15, 2012. But she didn’t leave. So, despite this woman claiming fraud by the banks, and "I never signed any loan papers", she still agreed to leave in court, but didn't. So, where is Muldur? He started this thread to highlight the "poor sick woman who had her home stolen". He have any thoughts now that we actually have, you know, facts?
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

22nd November 2012, 10:14 AM	#96
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,690	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Ok, here's yet more information about the 'innocent' Nico Black getting evicted by the evil fascist thugs of Wells-Fargo and the police: From: http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/201...sident/163641/ The article itself was much more balanced than your cherry pickings.
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,690

22nd November 2012, 11:46 AM	#97
jhunter1163 Beer-Swilling Semiliterate Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott Posts: 15,554	Originally Posted by Dan O. The article itself was much more balanced than your cherry pickings. While WF wasn't without shame in this whole affair, Ms. Black clearly was not the innocent victim she was painted to be. That was Segnosaur's point, and it is entirely valid.

23rd November 2012, 10:51 AM	#98
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,072	Originally Posted by Dan O. The article itself was much more balanced than your cherry pickings. What information do you think I overlooked from the article that showed Wells-Fargo was the "bad guy", or in any way to blame? Only real thing that I could see from the article was Wells-Fargo not showing up for the one court case, but that's already been discussed in this thread.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

23rd November 2012, 11:33 AM	#99
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,602	Originally Posted by Dan O. The article itself was much more balanced than your cherry pickings. It is traditional to explain how the parts of the article that were omitted were significant.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,602

23rd November 2012, 11:42 AM	#100
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Originally Posted by 16.5 It is traditional to explain how the parts of the article that were omitted were significant. will there be dancing and story songs?
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643