03-13-2018, 03:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2018, 03:15 PM by dicappatore.)
(03-13-2018, 10:59 AM)eric Wrote: IMO, Nick probably set up a shell corporation to launder his money and buy the land. This is a fairly easy thing to do, it is used in a lot of business and criminal activity.
Does it really matter if he did or not? Even if he did put the property under her name. The point of the argument was that if she was the owner of the land she could set it on fire without any legal repercussion.
This is the extent some will take their bull crap to try to prove an idiotic opinion. The feeble minded first creates a BS fact, "she owned the land" then the law is defined as such, that if you own it you can burn it. Then it claims that starting an uncontrolled fire in the woods is totally legal, since she owns the land., she did walk away. Did anyone see her standing there with a fire extinguisher in case it spread?
Then the simplistic BS mind of the contributor had the audacity to compare a desert to a forest. Now, I am aware that there are so called deserts with minimal dry vegetation but I am sure the contributor was referring to a dry, plant less desert location. Last time I looked, well at least in the U.S. of A. we had plenty of forest fires. Not too many desert fires in deserts lacking vegetation.
Anyways, I don't live near any deserts. I was told, back in 70's, in High School, by the year 2000, the whole North Easter USA was going to be a desert, due to "Global Warming". Last time I looked, 18 years later, with back to back snow storms, here in the North East. We aren't going to see any deserts soon.
I am guessing some of those wacko professors, back then, (cough) were afraid to be different so they were the same as everyone else.
You know you are OLD, when you see the Slide Ruler you used in college selling in an ANTIQUE SHOP!!