Crap Throwing Monkey

I don't know that it matters. Regardless of what they agree to, what the note says itself should supercede it. Ergo, they can say "Yeah, sure, whatever you want...", even in writing, and if the note you sign or the Deed of Trust on file with the county say something else, you're screwed. Just because they agree to it, it doesn't mean they're legally bound by it. Unfair? Sure. Slimy? You bet. Welcome to mortgage banking. If you're going to do something like that, get yourself a good real estate attorney to go over the loan and the side agreement carefully. And even then, don't count on your lawyer's knowledge; another thing I've learned from watching my wife is that there's FAR more bad real estate attorneys out there than good ones. Ultimately, what it'll likely come down to is whether or not you think the risk of their welching on the agreement is less than the potential reward you get out of it - but if you do accept it, be prepared for your lender to screw you over at some point down the line.

What state you living in these days? I've got my sister's Westlaw login; I want to research that charge...

I see a lot of schist heads around here all the time, too...

I missed this post before I replied above about parole. How he's not back in jail but out on bail, I have no idea. What's he paroled on (what were the original charges)? Maybe the current charge is a misdemeanor, and doesn't send him back in or something like that. Best idea I can think of...and it would explain the bail; $30k for a misdemeanor is a lot, and about as high as the judge could set without being punitive. But regardless, there's something going on with this beyond simple judicial stupidity. You haven't tried contacting anyone connected with the parole board, have you? I wouldn't take it for granted that this yahoo's parole officer knows he's been charged with a new crime...

That's another thing...sounds like an interest-only loan. Those are bad news for most people...you start out paying interest only, but after a few years you suddenly have to pay the principal, and your payments go WAY up. I know a few people who lost their houses on that, too, after the lenders told them "This is the only way you can afford the loan...but don't worry, you'll be able to afford it when the principal comes due." I'm actually waiting a few years to buy a house, because everyone in this overheated DC market is buying with interest-only loans. In about three years, they'll all suddenly find they can't afford their payments. In about four years, there's going to be a glut of foreclosures...

I'd be highly skeptical of that. My wife does real estate closings and works with a lot of lenders, and I've heard plenty of horror stories about "ironclad" agreements like that being anything but. I know of one buyer who purchased a luxury condo with a $600k bridge loan (i.e. due in full in six months) from a lender that promised her in writing that she'd qualify for a 30-yr mortgage before the six months was up. Six months later, the lender took her condo. Now that I give it more thought, I can actually think of a lot of ways that promise of no refi charges is bull sh--, in writing or no. For example: technically, even if a written agreement is binding the first time you refinance, it's probably not the second time, since it would likely originally bind to your first loan, not your second (first refi). Ergo, you'd need a new agreement every time you refinance...and there's no promise of THAT, is there?

Sorry, fresh out of marble ones. I've got a nice one carved out of schist, but I'm afraid if I gave it to you you'd just take it for granite.

Anything specific? Was this guy out on parole? In general, if you break parole, you go back and finish the rest of your sentence...plus, I imagine, serve anything they might tack on if you're convicted of a crime (e.g. someone paroled on a vehicular manslaughter charge who was caught DWI would go back to serve the rest of the manslaughter charge, plus whatever the sentence was for the parole violating DWI.) But a parole violation is not necessarily a criminal act otherwise (e.g. even though approaching a school is not a criminal act in itself, a good many paroled sex offenders will have that as a condition of their parole regardless). But the simple fact that the guy's bail was set tells me that he's NOT being held on a parole violation, but a new set of charges. I would imagine that criminal charges would usually be a parole violation...but without knowing what he was charged with, I couldn't tell you.

Seriously? I still think it's one of the best Bond movies...certainly Roger Moore's best. I've always wanted the anti-theft system he has on that Lotus, too...

Hell, I go outside now, look at it, and say "Holy sh--! There's people posting on TSW right now that are a lot farther out there than that!"

JSP said in the original post the defendant "tried to pick the girl up". I assumed that meant some physical contact. I would also assume that would constitute attempted kidnapping. However, JSP also says the girl ran away, and $30k bail seems a little light for attempted kidnapping, which makes me think he wasn't charged with that. At any rate, you're right...we don't know the details. If he testifies at the trial. I'm talking about the bail hearing. I know in the Law & Order universe the ADA's allowed to say "The defendant is a great big JERK with a history of dumping beer on people's heads, and thus should be remanded to custody." I also know the Law & Order universe ain't the real world. And as my sister's a public defender who probably averages ten arraignments a week...she'd probably know.

I'm sure he tries to avoid them...but the noise of a skill saw really carries...

Well...if I were in Illinois, where grabbing an 8-year old by the arm is criminal restraint and results in you being listed as a sex offender for the rest of your life, I'd certainly think twice... Seriously, though...I decided a long time ago to stop helping people in situations where I could get sued for it. A 4-year old kid's one thing, but I see a guy in a car accident with a bloody head wound...I walk right by him and let him bleed to death. I even touch him, and suddenly I find myself sued over his spinal injury. The most courageous thing Rosenhaus did in this situation is assume the civil liability for the kid's well-being.

Nice setup...

Timothy Dalton. I'd forgotten about him. Topol also played Milos Colombo (Columbo?) in For Your Eyes Only.

Guidelines don't necessarily apply. A two-time loser with a history of rape who tries to grab a child should be remanded to the custory of the court as a threat to the community. No bail. That that didn't happen makes me wonder if either 1) the prosecutor at the bail hearing was an idiot, or 2) the priors couldn't be introduced at the bail hearing for some reason. I'm trying to verify that last one with my sister...but if that's the case, then $30k is actually a hefty amount for what amounts to illegal restraint of a minor... Which brings up another point...Joe, what exactly WERE the charges he was arraigned on? It could very well be that the prosecutor, for whatever reason, arraigned him on lesser charges than he deserved that precluded a hefty bail amount...in which case you're probably still right to be pissed about it, but the target of your anger is misplaced.

In honor of the anniversary, Google's put up http://moon.google.com/, that let's you see and zoom in on all the moon landing sites...the close-up shots are amazing...

With the Queen soundtrack, with Topol as the scientist and Max von Sydow as Ming? So God-awful, it was actually entertaining.

Actually, sadly, most people ask just the opposite. Kind of surprising that Monkey Boy nominated someone like that though, isn't it?

I though oxycontin abuse caused weight loss...

Of course he does. What general idiot wouldn't? Cincy, I'm the elitist here. KTFABD's just an elitist wanna-be.

Yeah. Very poor choice. Much better to advocate killing them after they're born, if they happen to be born into Islam. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...indpost&p=19806 Rich, you are such a !@#$ing idiot, it's pathetic.

Personally, I think the right to self-determination is a good reason just on it's own; I don't believe that any people should be forced to live by the whim of another. Of course, therein lies the paradox: if, in enforcing any Iraqi right to self-determination, we dicatate that they may not follow the laws they choose to make (e.g. Islam-based laws that limit individual rights to self-determination), we are in fact NOT allowing that right to self-determination ourselves. In effect, we'd be saying "You have only that freedom which we allow you to have"...which is frankly bull sh--. So ultimately, being somewhat of an idealist...I say if they want to choose laws limiting individual freedom, we have little choice but to let them. Reasons being not only the conundrum I mention above and my desire NOT to see us limiting other nations' definition of rights, but also the belief that such societal change that we'd WANT to see in Iraq and the Islamic world has to develop from within, and would ultimately be futile if forced on them from without. In other words, even trying to enforce some US vision of what "freedom" in Iraq should be is doomed to fail at best. We've provided them an opportunity to figure things out for themselves...frequently, that's the most you can do. (And yes, I know a bunch of people are going to chime in saying I've ignored the GWOT issues concerning Iraq, and that we can't risk Iraqi self-determination ultimately booting us out of that strategically important location. Yes, I did ignore that. Pointedly. Because if the case is that we have to dictate to the Iraqis what there laws must be in order to maintain a strategic presence, the Iraqi Constitution won't be worth even a roll of toilet paper anyway, and Iraqi self-determination will be subjugated to the whim of the American military effort...and the argument in this thread is then moot anyway.)

You have pointy ears? Hey, everybody's got to go sometime, and Nimoy's getting up there in years. And frankly, the last few times I've seen him in public, he hasn't looked all that great.

I figured he'd be the next to go after Deforest Kelley. Nimoy's next, I'll wager. Jimmy Doohan was one of my favorites, though. Very underrated talent. Aside from playing Montgomery Scott, he did a lot of voice-overs in the original series as well...which nobody really ever caught on to as he was so good at using his voice and dialects.