+- Grimm Forum (https://grimmforum.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Grimm Universe (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Universe)
+--- Forum: Grimm Discussions (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Discussions)
+--- Thread: Hexenbiestdom (/Thread-Hexenbiestdom)
RE: Hexenbiestdom - dicappatore - 03-13-2018
(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.
RE: Hexenbiestdom - syscrash - 03-13-2018
Re read the contribution. I posted the statement where Nick stated the land was not in his name. that led to making a logical assumption that if most likely would be in Juliette's name. Being an assumption I stated that point was not definitive. But I also questioned who else name could it have been in. Knowing that anyone who name was on the dead would legally own the land and could do what they wanted with it.
I never said by owning the land makes it legal to destroy property on the land. What I said was the land being in her name, supports the argument that the trailer was hers. Since Nick could not dispute that for two reasons. One title was never transferred because of the secrecy behind the existence of the trailer. As a point of law destroying your own property is not against the law unless you are going to claim the lost. An yes as I stated starting a fire in the forest is not a good idea plus it is not legal. I was using my experiences on my desert property to point out actions people where pointing out as illegal are not. In no way was I comparing what you can do in the desert compares to what you can do in the forest.
The whole point of my comment was to show how the assertions being made actually had a loop hole created by the writers as to provide a reason for why they do not apply. comment on my statement in the context they where stated. Instead of trying to draw an inference to make a point.
RE: Hexenbiestdom - eric - 03-13-2018
(03-13-2018, 01:54 PM)syscrash Wrote: Setting up hidden shell companies is not easy because of racketeering laws. Setting up a shell company known as a LLC that is easy but it is public and anyone can find out who owns it. Remember you move more then nine thousand dollars. The IRS is notified about who and why it was moved. Also you can not just walk into some where with a briefcase full of case and buy something. You will be asked to go get a cashiers check. Companies need to maintain an audit trail. Yes companies do make these kind of transactions under the table, but they are illegal. Since they are illegal you are charged a lot for a company to take the risk. What they show in TV and movies makes for an interesting story line but are not based on how it really works.True, it may be illegal, but that doesn't mean its not done all the time. It all depends on how much trouble you are willing to go through. Most DA and LEO's have a lot of issues to deal with, if it only involves the purchase of some land in the woods it would not be a high priority.
RE: Hexenbiestdom - rpmaluki - 03-13-2018
(03-13-2018, 03:38 PM)syscrash Wrote: Re read the contribution. I posted the statement where Nick stated the land was not in his name. that led to making a logical assumption that if most likely would be in Juliette's name. Being an assumption I stated that point was not definitive. But I also questioned who else name could it have been in. Knowing that anyone who name was on the dead would legally own the land and could do what they wanted with it.It could be under his aunt's name, or Kelly's. You can't automatically assume it's Juliette's without the show stating it explicitly.
In the case of the trailer, it wasn't Juliette's property so she had no right and it's in the middle of a forest, considering how destructive forest fires can be, Juliette didn't set a controlled fire. She lit the fire, burnt Nick's trailer filled his family history and irreplaceable heirlooms and left. I imagine what she did was illegal and potentially deadly had Nick and his friends never showed up to try and salvage what was left and make certain to extinguish the last of the fire.
RE: Hexenbiestdom - dicappatore - 03-13-2018
This is your quote;
(03-13-2018, 03:38 PM)syscrash Wrote: There is a problem with your assumptions. for one the show stated the property that the trailer was on was in Juliette name. For Nick to charge her with arson he would have to prove the trailer was his and he was renting the land from her. The problem with filling an arson claim is someone would have to investigate the trailer which would expose wesen secrets. The wesen catch twenty two.
then your own reply:
Quote:Re read the contribution. I posted the statement where Nick stated the land was not in his name. that led to making a logical assumption that if most likely would be in Juliette's name. Being an assumption I stated that point was not definitive. But I also questioned who else name could it have been in. Knowing that anyone who name was on the dead would legally own the land and could do what they wanted with it.
Well which is is it? Did the show stated she owned the land or was it your assumption of most likely?
In this post you contradict yourself in the same post. You start out saying it is not illegal. In the same paragraph you claim there could be a crime. Well just because the forest did not catch fire, arson is arson. Which is it? Not illegal, meaning it is legal or is it a crime? Man, make up your mind!
Quote:It is not illegal to destroy your own property. Take a house. as long as the bank does not own it you can bull doze it or do what ever you want. To burn it, the crime is not arson unless you are trying to claim the insurance. The crime would be endangering the properties next to the house. Because the trailer fire was in the forest. There could be a crime of endangering the forest because of the uncontrolled fire.
Another one of your contradiction;
Quote:I never said by owning the land makes it legal to destroy property on the land.
Yea you did say it in this quote;
Quote:It is not illegal to destroy your own property.
then more bla,bla,bal;
Quote:What I said was the land being in her name, supports the argument that the trailer was hers. Since Nick could not dispute that for two reasons. One title was never transferred because of the secrecy behind the existence of the trailer. As a point of law destroying your own property is not against the law unless you are going to claim the lost.
Here you go again, contradicting yourself; but now you added 'is not a good idea'
Quote:An yes as I stated starting a fire in the forest is not a good idea plus it is not legal.
OMG, more of your own contradiction by stating;
Quote:But being unlawful is not true. For a fact I have vacant land in the Mohave desert. I let a guy put his trailer out there. He paid rent for about two years then all of a sudden stopped paying. after being unable to contact him. the trailer was mine. For fun I blow it up. The only problem the city had was they made me clean up the mess. Using that real life experience. the difference with Juliette is she did not declare the property abandoned. But the writers solved that problem by defining the trailer as something that could not be known
Then you reply with the quote below claiming you did NOT compare a desert to woods, after you just did on the quote above.
Quote:I was using my experiences on my desert property to point out actions people where pointing out as illegal are not. In no way was I comparing what you can do in the desert compares to what you can do in the forest.
Quote:The whole point of my comment was to show how the assertions being made actually had a loop hole created by the writers as to provide a reason for why they do not apply. comment on my statement in the context they where stated. Instead of trying to draw an inference to make a point.
You are just so full of it or just self confusing. You just make it too easy using your own words. Best you try using some other contributors strategy by replying with one liners. Makes it harder to contradict yourself. All those quoted replies are from your post, clipped and pasted. The only thing I added were the HTML commands of {quote & /quote and the lines separations (hr) command}. I did no editing and not taken them out of context. Excluding the BC & WC references, they are basically word for word.
Makes one wonder, whom should be re-reading their posts!
Chuck up another poser finding it hard to swallow with their self-inserted foot in their mouth!
RE: Hexenbiestdom - New Guy - 03-14-2018
(03-13-2018, 10:24 AM)dicappatore Wrote:Hi Dicap,(03-13-2018, 09:24 AM)New Guy Wrote:(03-13-2018, 04:30 AM)irukandji Wrote: Her death was covered up.Iruk,
That may qualify for the Understatement of the Day Award! LOL
N G
Gees NG, I guess, back in 2015, you missed the New York Times headline. "Kelly Burkhardt, a Grimm, Killed by the evil Witch/Bitch, Juliette, in her own house after she burned down the trailer she owned on the land she owned. In addition to the five thousand acres of Oregon's woods that burned, She also owned. ". Ahh! Probably nobody reads that fake news paper these days.
Wow. I misses that NYT article. They most have scooped all the other daily rags. Who was the ace reporter? Did he interview Trubel about how she killed the evil witch? Did they get Chavez to explain why she destroyed all the evidence and stole the head of one of the victims?
That would qualify for Fake News of the Day! LOL
N G
RE: Hexenbiestdom - irukandji - 03-14-2018
(03-11-2018, 12:22 PM)Hell Rell Wrote: Juliette most likely wouldn't be subject to the Wesen Council because nothing she did risked exposing wesen. She would be subject to normal human laws if "street justice" didn't catch up to her first.
What about when she tried to topple the statue over on Adalind?
(03-11-2018, 12:22 PM)Hell Rell Wrote: I'm not certain how Hexenbiests would view Juliette. She wasn't born one so they could look at her as an abomination of sorts or they could accept her as one of them and look at it as persecution. It really could go either way although I didn't get the impression that Hexenbiests really care all that much about each other.
In fairness to hexenbiests, the only ones we really came to know were Adalind, Catherine, and Juliette. Aadalind and Catherine were dysfunctional and Juliette/Eve changed so much no one really knew after a while what she was like. Elizabeth and Henrietta weren't around long enough to give us any idea.
I don't fault them for not caring much about each other. They're really no different than any of the wesen species that we saw on Grimm. However, I do believe their culture is important to them and they don't want to see members of their group persecuted for using the tools of that culture.
I think Juliette's more acceptable to the hexenbiests than she ever would be as a human.
(03-13-2018, 09:38 PM)rpmaluki Wrote: In the case of the trailer, it wasn't Juliette's property so she had no right and it's in the middle of a forest, considering how destructive forest fires can be, Juliette didn't set a controlled fire.
I have been reading all of these posts about how great Nick was to Juliette, how much he wanted to be with her, how often he was about to propose to her. Then I read about Juliette and what a bitch she was to him. Would it really make sense that, if he was this great guy who was desperate to keep Juliette, he would really tell her that the house was his, the money was his, his car was his, the trailer was his, the land was his, and nothing was theirs? Now we're talking about the great and noble Nick here. Yet when it comes to what are his things (as stated by others here), he's really not going to share them with someone who he supposedly is placing above all others in his life?
RE: Hexenbiestdom - New Guy - 03-14-2018
(03-14-2018, 04:24 AM)irukandji Wrote:Hi Iruk,(03-11-2018, 12:22 PM)Hell Rell Wrote: Juliette most likely wouldn't be subject to the Wesen Council because nothing she did risked exposing wesen. She would be subject to normal human laws if "street justice" didn't catch up to her first.
What about when she tried to topple the statue over on Adalind?
(03-11-2018, 12:22 PM)Hell Rell Wrote: I'm not certain how Hexenbiests would view Juliette. She wasn't born one so they could look at her as an abomination of sorts or they could accept her as one of them and look at it as persecution. It really could go either way although I didn't get the impression that Hexenbiests really care all that much about each other.
In fairness to hexenbiests, the only ones we really came to know were Adalind, Catherine, and Juliette. Aadalind and Catherine were dysfunctional and Juliette/Eve changed so much no one really knew after a while what she was like. Elizabeth and Henrietta weren't around long enough to give us any idea.
I don't fault them for not caring much about each other. They're really no different than any of the wesen species that we saw on Grimm. However, I do believe their culture is important to them and they don't want to see members of their group persecuted for using the tools of that culture.
I think Juliette's more acceptable to the hexenbiests than she ever would be as a human.
(03-13-2018, 09:38 PM)rpmaluki Wrote: In the case of the trailer, it wasn't Juliette's property so she had no right and it's in the middle of a forest, considering how destructive forest fires can be, Juliette didn't set a controlled fire.
I have been reading all of these posts about how great Nick was to Juliette, how much he wanted to be with her, how often he was about to propose to her. Then I read about Juliette and what a bitch she was to him. Would it really make sense that, if he was this great guy who was desperate to keep Juliette, he would really tell her that the house was his, the money was his, his car was his, the trailer was his, the land was his, and nothing was theirs? Now we're talking about the great and noble Nick here. Yet when it comes to what are his things (as stated by others here), he's really not going to share them with someone who he supposedly is placing above all others in his life?
Yes, Nick did demonstrate intelligence by not giving Juliette any joint ownership.
If she had any true interest in him and his property she should have said yes. Fortunately for Nick, she said no.
N G
RE: Hexenbiestdom - irukandji - 03-14-2018
(03-14-2018, 08:51 AM)New Guy Wrote: Hi Iruk,
Yes, Nick did demonstrate intelligence by not giving Juliette any joint ownership.
If she had any true interest in him and his property she should have said yes. Fortunately for Nick, she said no.
N G
Hi New Guy-
I'm not so sure it was intelligence that Nick displayed. In view of what Juliette gave back to him (his grimness), being a selfish jerk in return seems to make Nick more of a heel than anything else.
RE: Hexenbiestdom - Hell Rell - 03-14-2018
Juliette was welcome to use the trailer anytime she wanted. I don't see why Nick should've given her anything more than that regarding the trailer. It was a Grimm legacy full of Grimm weapons, potions, artifacts, and wesen goodies. It makes much more sense to pass it down to the kids.