Woman Destroys Her New Car After Repo Man Wouldn't Let Her Car Go

[CexMashean]

lies, lies, lies

[svauto-erotic855]

lies, lies, lies

Are you inferring that it is legal to sell heroin to children?

[svauto-erotic855]

Loans are a service. There's a whole industry called financial services.

Financial services is only called that by the people who are trying to make that industry palatable to who they are trying to sell the "service" to. They are in fact parasites that are engaged in an immoral practice and are closely related to an actual old school pimp.

There is a reason that every monotheistic religion had prohibitions against money lending outside of charity.

Edit: The only recorded time Jesus lost his shit and went off was against the money changers in the temple and according to the legend that man was without sin so we must conclude that his actions were just and moral if you are a Christian.

[jetboat]

All of that could have been avoided if the lazy bitch would make her car payment instead of blowing her money on nails and weave

[Gasser64]

Financial services is only called that by the people who are trying to make that industry palatable to who they are trying to sell the "service" to.

Unfortunately yeah that is generally the case. Not always though. And, it doesn't have to be that way. We could have it much better but yeah they're allowed to be parasites. But none of that means you shouldn't have to give back property that you agreed to pay for, and didn't. Even if they did have to "go through the courts" as you would like them to, it wouldn't matter. They'd just do that, and then it would be the police that would show up with the wrecker driver to repo the car.

What would you think about a guy who sold another guy a car on payments, and when the buyer didn't pay, the seller used his key and went over there one night and picked up the car? It sounds like you support people not honoring their word and breaking agreements and contracts.

[svauto-erotic855]

All of that could have been avoided if the lazy bitch would make her car payment instead of blowing her money on nails and weave

This, all day long.

Unfortunately yeah that is generally the case. Not always though. And, it doesn't have to be that way. We could have it much better but yeah they're allowed to be parasites. But none of that means you shouldn't have to give back property that you agreed to pay for, and didn't. Even if they did have to "go through the courts" as you would like them to, it wouldn't matter. They'd just do that, and then it would be the police that would show up with the wrecker driver to repo the car.

What would you think about a guy who sold another guy a car on payments, and when the buyer didn't pay, the seller used his key and went over there one night and picked up the car? It sounds like you support people not honoring their word and breaking agreements and contracts.

It depends. Did the seller allow the title to be transferred with him just being listed as a lien holder? If there was a transfer I would prefer that a constable with a court order directing a wrecker driver pick up the car. If there was no legal transfer the documented individual owner can do as they please but they need to be careful because TX gives a lot of leeway for using deadly force in the dark.

I have ZERO issue with an officer of the court enforcing a repo order.

[JC316]

and I serve on juries.

You shouldn't, you can't be objective. You've got your mind made up right now and no one will change it, regardless of facts or laws. That makes for the worst kind of juror.


Current facts are:

• Lending establishments are legal and no one forces people to use these establishments.
• A finance contract is a legal document that clearly establishes the rights of the secured creditor, including the option to repossess the collateral in the even of a default.
• It's illegal to hinder a secured creditor attempting to retrieve the collateral.
• Repo companies are 100% legal.

[svauto-erotic855]

You shouldn't, you can't be objective. You've got your mind made up right now and no one will change it, regardless of facts or laws. That makes for the worst kind of juror.


Current facts are:

• Lending establishments are legal and no one forces people to use these establishments.
• A finance contract is a legal document that clearly establishes the rights of the secured creditor, including the option to repossess the collateral in the even of a default.
• It's illegal to hinder a secured creditor attempting to retrieve the collateral.
• Repo companies are 100% legal.

I answer questions honestly and always get picked so the people who actually do the shit for a living like what they hear from me.

I have no problems with contract law except for the fact that the Feds have fucked up our rights concerning it.

Article I, section 10, clause 1.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

This section gets completely ignored just like the 10th Amendment.


Once again; I have no problem with repossessions, I have a problem with private contractors doing it and I have a problem with the core business model that leads to repossession. Make usury completely illegal again and all of my complaints go away.

[CexMashean]

Lies.

[svauto-erotic855]

Lies.

Are you asserting that the 10th Amendment is rigidly adhered to?

[AnthonyS]

Are you asserting that the 10th Amendment is rigidly adhered to?

The 10th amendment is totally ignored now, but it’s hardly the only one to get neutered. We should elect a governor that will enforce it.

[svauto-erotic855]

The 10th amendment is totally ignored now, but it’s hardly the only one to get neutered. We should elect a governor that will enforce it.

You are not kidding. It would eliminate 2/3rds of federal spending and then we could spend all of that on neat shit for the military and for exploring the stars.

[JC316]

I answer questions honestly and always get picked so the people who actually do the shit for a living like what they hear from me.

Once again; I have no problem with repossessions, I have a problem with private contractors doing it and I have a problem with the core business model that leads to repossession. Make usury completely illegal again and all of my complaints go away.

Of course they pick you, if I just shot a repo man, I'd want you on my jury. Doesn't mean that you're not a horribly biased juror and unfit to serve. As a juror, they give you the law, and you determine how the facts of the case fall into that law. Your opinion of what the law should be is irrelevant, it's what the law is.


You have a problem with a legal practice that leads to a legal business, and want the government to step in and regulate it because people are too stupid and materialistic to recognize a bad decision. I can take a pretty good guess as to your political leanings.


As for the part of the constitution, it doesn't help your argument. That says that the state can't make a law that interferes with the obligations of a contract.

The obligation of a finance contract is that you will make monthly payments until the vehicle is paid off.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Impairing+the+obligation+of+contracts

[svauto-erotic855]

Of course they pick you, if I just shot a repo man, I'd want you on my jury. Doesn't mean that you're not a horribly biased juror and unfit to serve. As a juror, they give you the law, and you determine how the facts of the case fall into that law. Your opinion of what the law should be is irrelevant, it's what the law is.


You have a problem with a legal practice that leads to a legal business, and want the government to step in and regulate it because people are too stupid and materialistic to recognize a bad decision. I can take a pretty good guess as to your political leanings.


As for the part of the constitution, it doesn't help your argument. That says that the state can't make a law that interferes with the obligations of a contract.

The obligation of a finance contract is that you will make monthly payments until the vehicle is paid off.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...n+of+contracts

The states can not but the Feds can. How do you think we got the Fair Housing Act even though it is a direct assault on the 1st Amendment? The Feds need to make usury completely illegal again and all of my complaints will end. Until that happens feel free to kill debt collectors and I will have your back at trial.

[JC316]

The states can not but the Feds can. How do you think we got the Fair Housing Act even though it is a direct assault on the 1st Amendment? The Feds need to make usury completely illegal again and all of my complaints will end. Until that happens feel free to kill debt collectors and I will have your back at trial.

Some people think the 2nd should be abolished, some think the 1st needs to be gone, some think alcohol should be illegal, some think all drugs should be legal. It doesn't matter what they think since the majority and federal law rules. You as a citizen have to abide by those laws.

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with the law, I think you're stupid, but that is your right. Just like it's the right of every other moron to enter an insane contract that sets them up to fail.

You putting your own opinion above every else as a juror though, that I have a serious problem with. You have an obligation to be unbiased as a juror.