NY TIMES ALERT Congresswoman Giffords shot in the head in Tucson!

[Selene]

Adam, why are you wasting your time rooting around in the bottom of the barrel for minutiae? You've taken it from beyond interesting ever for me, and I'm a local who sent Giffords emails announcing her political annihilation if she voted for Obamacare. (I suspect the FBI will knock on my door in about two months, working off a list of several hundred.)

--Brant

Brant:

Actually, it is an experiment to track one narrow piece of information. It is not meant to annoy folks. It takes no time at all actually. While I am speaking to a company about a client, I can run a search without disrupting my train of thought. I have a very compartmentalized mind. I might have spent ten (10) minutes today on the searches.

My apologies.

Adam

I didn't know you're a lawyer.

--Brant

Lol

I am not an attorney, I just know the law and as a mediator and advocate I have clients where that helps the negotiations. I actually settled an account while I was doing that search for about .49% of the $5, 200 that was owed. Chase's counsel is over nighting the stipulation tomorrow.

My clients are wonderful folks. Elderly Jehovah's Witnesses who got over extended helping their grandchildren.

I am now proceeding on saving the house.

By the way, important decision in Massachusetts last week on Wells Fargo and foreclosures:

12:00am EST By Jonathan Stempel and Dena Aubin

NEW YORK | Fri Jan 7, 2011 4:58pm EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - In a decision that may slow foreclosures nationwide, Massachusetts' highest court voided the seizure of two homes by Wells Fargo & Co and US Bancorp after the banks failed to show they held the mortgages at the time they foreclosed.

Bank shares fell, weighing on broader stock indexes, on fears the decision could threaten lenders' ability to work through hundreds of thousands of pending foreclosures.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts' unanimous decision on Friday upheld a lower court ruling. It is among the earliest cases to address the validity of foreclosures done without proper documentation.

That issue, including the use of "robo-signers" who approved foreclosure documents without reviewing them, last year prompted an uproar that led lenders such as Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Ally Financial Inc to temporarily stop seizing homes.

"A ruling like this will slow down the foreclosure process" for lenders, said Marty Mosby, an analyst at Guggenheim Securities in Memphis, Tennessee. "They're going to have to be really precise and get everything in order. It doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room."

Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp lacked authority to foreclose after having "failed to make the required showing that they were the holders of the mortgages at the time of foreclosure," Justice Ralph Gants wrote for the Massachusetts court.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Robert Cordy lambasted "the utter carelessness" that the banks demonstrated in documenting their right to own the properties.

Courts in other U.S. states are considering similar cases, and all 50 state attorneys general are examining whether lenders are forcing people out of their homes improperly.

Friday's decision applies in Massachusetts, and need not be followed by federal judges or by courts in other states.

Nonetheless, "it will be certainly cited as persuasive authority by anybody in a similar scenario who's trying to hold onto his home," said Robert Nislick, a real estate lawyer at Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks PC in Braintree, Massachusetts.

LEAVING PAPERWORK BEHIND

Analysts said the decision may also raise the specter that loans transferred improperly will need to be bought back.

"What they were doing was peddling these mortgages and leaving the paperwork behind," said Michael Pill, a real estate partner at Green, Miles, Lipton & Fitz-Gibbon LLP in Northampton, Massachusetts who is not involved in the case.

The Massachusetts court rejected a request by the banks to apply the decision only in future cases, leaving homeowners already foreclosed upon without a remedy. Gants chided the banks for ignoring settled rules in their "rush" to sell mortgage-backed securities.

A spokeswoman for San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, Teri Schrettenbrunner, had no immediate comment on the decision.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7063M620110107?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

I finally saw some footage of Randy Loughner this afternoon. Fox News showed him from the back rushing into his house.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

I finally saw some footage of Randy Loughner this afternoon. Fox News showed him from the back rushing into his house.

Robert Campbell

Thanks Robert:

I cannot even imagine, as a father, how devastated, ashamed and guilty he must feel.

I hope he and his wife have the courage to face what is headed towards them.

Adam

Edited January 10, 2011 by Selene

[Brant Gaede]

Adam: Chase settled on 1/2 of a percent? Doesn't seem to make any sense.

--Brant

[Selene]

Adam: Chase settled on 1/2 of a percent? Doesn't seem to make any sense.

--Brant

49 % of amount owed - please keep all decimal points away from my mathematically challenged fingers!

[Brant Gaede]

I cannot even imagine, as a father, how devastated, ashamed and guilty he must feel.

I hope he and his wife have the courage to face what is headed towards them.

Adam

He might be as looney as his son appears to be and thinking of a book deal. And if you've been thrown off the top of a skyscraper, courage would by then be irrelevant.

--Brant

[caroljane]

I finally saw some footage of Randy Loughner this afternoon. Fox News showed him from the back rushing into his house.

Robert Campbell

Thanks Robert:

I cannot even imagine, as a father, how devastated, ashamed and guilty he must feel.

I hope he and his wife have the courage to face what is headed towards them.

Adam

This story is haunting me too, thanks all for the updates.

I have two sons in their 20's. Life is so hard for young men today. My sons have been lucky in life except for one sorrow, and that was and is shared. Whatever the Loughner parents are like, my heart breaks for them. They have amongst everything else, lost the baby and little boy they had, and the adult son they will never have.

[Brant Gaede]

Adam: Chase settled on 1/2 of a percent? Doesn't seem to make any sense.

--Brant

49 % of amount owed - please keep all decimal points away from my mathematically challenged fingers!

Avoiding detail, the bank didn't lose too much money overall

--Brant

[Selene]

Adam: Chase settled on 1/2 of a percent? Doesn't seem to make any sense.

--Brant

49 % of amount owed - please keep all decimal points away from my mathematically challenged fingers!

Avoiding detail, the bank didn't lose too much money overall

--Brant

It was a fair settlement. It was not worth pursuing the matter in the Court with the suit that they filed.

[Brant Gaede]

I finally saw some footage of Randy Loughner this afternoon. Fox News showed him from the back rushing into his house.

Robert Campbell

Thanks Robert:

I cannot even imagine, as a father, how devastated, ashamed and guilty he must feel.

I hope he and his wife have the courage to face what is headed towards them.

Adam

This story is haunting me too, thanks all for the updates.

I have two sons in their 20's. Life is so hard for young men today. My sons have been lucky in life except for one sorrow, and that was and is shared. Whatever the Loughner parents are like, my heart breaks for them. They have amongst everything else, lost the baby and little boy they had, and the adult son they will never have.

I'm waiting to learn they aren't monsters. They probably aren't.

I knew a man, who has died, his parents and siblings tortured him in horrible ways when he was a boy.

--Brant

[Selene]

In Memorium to the American Citizens Who Died in Tucson

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . .

the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, they aren't monsters and are suffering greatly. The household seems to be a rather strange one, however. I don't feel much for the parents, though. I just don't. I only have so much capacity for that and the primary victims and their families have pretty much exhausted that.

--Brant

[caroljane]

I have not seen one article that said exactly what this piece of human garbage was actually doing to disrupt his classes at his community college. But it sure seems he should have been removed from school asap and never allowed back-why was he? My guess is someone or some 'board' was afraid of getting sued for singling him out. And their fear would be grounded.

I am already tired of seeing this pasty faced piece of shit everywhere-I dont care about his motivation, he should never have been allowed to function among normal people.

Until proven otherwise, this piece of human garbage has the inalienable right to bear a semiautomatic weapon. This crucial symbol of your liberty will last forever while Christina Green age 9, born on 9/11, crumbles into dust.

Possessing a weapon does not require the right to possess it. The ability to kill someone does not give one the right to be a murderer. If this guy had brandished his weapon a hundred feet away from Giffords and advanced to her screaming he was going to kill her, someone else would have the right to shoot him down in self-defense with his "inalienable right to bear [his own] semiautomatic weapon."

--Brant

We will always see this issue from opposite ends of the gun barrel. Responsible hypothetical use of WMDs makes the existence and accepted private ownership of WMDs no less dangerous. I consider 30 people a "mass" of people: 30 individuals.

As the armaments industry with its notable business success record, continues to eye Canada as a nice little market whose tiresome government restrictions frustrate honest profit, from my side of the barrel I can only see dead people. And one of them could be me.

[sjw]

We will always see this issue from opposite ends of the gun barrel. Responsible hypothetical use of WMDs makes the existence and accepted private ownership of WMDs no less dangerous. I consider 30 people a "mass" of people: 30 individuals.

As the armaments industry with its notable business success record, continues to eye Canada as a nice little market whose tiresome government restrictions frustrate honest profit, from my side of the barrel I can only see dead people. And one of them could be me.

You're a teacher? You need to learn to think. A "WMD" is a WMD because of its indiscriminate destruction potential. A gun is very discriminate.

This all boils down to rights. As in: by what right do you strip my right of self defense from me?

Shayne

[caroljane]

We will always see this issue from opposite ends of the gun barrel. Responsible hypothetical use of WMDs makes the existence and accepted private ownership of WMDs no less dangerous. I consider 30 people a "mass" of people: 30 individuals.

As the armaments industry with its notable business success record, continues to eye Canada as a nice little market whose tiresome government restrictions frustrate honest profit, from my side of the barrel I can only see dead people. And one of them could be me.

You're a teacher? You need to learn to think. A "WMD" is a WMD because of its indiscriminate destruction potential. A gun is very discriminate.

This all boils down to rights. As in: by what right do you strip my right of self defense from me?

Shayne

No, Shayne, we are cooking on different stoves.

To me it boils down to human bones. Real ones, bones instead of people, because of the dearest-held principles of others who are still alive.

I strip no right from you. I deplore the carnage that happens because such destructive potential exists as a right, instead of a privilege.

Guns are not discriminate. People are discriminate.

Guns are not discriminate, people are discriminate

[sjw]

I strip no right from you. I deplore the carnage that happens because such destructive potential exists as a right, instead of a privilege.

Who are you who presumes to grant me a "privilege"? God? How do you propose to exercise your authority if not without guns? Where did you get the "privilege" to wave your guns at me?

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I have not seen one article that said exactly what this piece of human garbage was actually doing to disrupt his classes at his community college. But it sure seems he should have been removed from school asap and never allowed back-why was he? My guess is someone or some 'board' was afraid of getting sued for singling him out. And their fear would be grounded.

I am already tired of seeing this pasty faced piece of shit everywhere-I dont care about his motivation, he should never have been allowed to function among normal people.

Until proven otherwise, this piece of human garbage has the inalienable right to bear a semiautomatic weapon. This crucial symbol of your liberty will last forever while Christina Green age 9, born on 9/11, crumbles into dust.

Possessing a weapon does not require the right to possess it. The ability to kill someone does not give one the right to be a murderer. If this guy had brandished his weapon a hundred feet away from Giffords and advanced to her screaming he was going to kill her, someone else would have the right to shoot him down in self-defense with his "inalienable right to bear [his own] semiautomatic weapon."

--Brant

We will always see this issue from opposite ends of the gun barrel. Responsible hypothetical use of WMDs makes the existence and accepted private ownership of WMDs no less dangerous. I consider 30 people a "mass" of people: 30 individuals.

As the armaments industry with its notable business success record, continues to eye Canada as a nice little market whose tiresome government restrictions frustrate honest profit, from my side of the barrel I can only see dead people. And one of them could be me.

Your side of the gun barrel means taking my guns away from me, my evil guns and the evil people and corporations that make, market and sell them. Why, because you are a coward? This will make me a good person. And when the shit really hits the fan and good people like yourself wonder what happened to people like me who used to be there for you in such circumstances, I'll be someplace safe with me and mine and my illegal guns. Comfortable people feel that their comfort is the natural way of the world and little realize the curse of the naivete of unthinking, ignorant, scaredy-pants inertia that can sweep them right off the cliff of life along with their friends, relatives, neighbors, cats and dogs. If the water stops running, what will you drink? If your store has no food, what will you eat? If you can't get your meds, what will you do? If your car doesn't run, how will you go? If the sewer backs up and sewage flows into your basement, how will you sleep while the house stinks? If the electricity goes off do you have even one candle? It's so much easier, isn't it, to deal with "evil" guns, as if they made who own them do bad things. But evil is a people thing, not a gun thing and not a WMD thing. And the cars and trucks on our nation's roads that "kill" 40,000 human beings each year--why aren't those vehicles called "evil"? And the guys and gals and corporations who make, sell and market them--even with eyeballs on Canada which hardly has any cars at all (most people walk)--why ain't they evil too?

--Brant

[caroljane]

We will always see this issue from opposite ends of the gun barrel. Responsible hypothetical use of WMDs makes the existence and accepted private ownership of WMDs no less dangerous. I consider 30 people a "mass" of people: 30 individuals.

As the armaments industry with its notable business success record, continues to eye Canada as a nice little market whose tiresome government restrictions frustrate honest profit, from my side of the barrel I can only see dead people. And one of them could be me.

You're a teacher? You need to learn to think. A "WMD" is a WMD because of its indiscriminate destruction potential. A gun is very discriminate.

This all boils down to rights. As in: by what right do you strip my right of self defense from me?

Shayne

No, Shayne, we are cooking on different stoves.

To me it boils down to human bones. Real ones, bones instead of people, because of the dearest-held principles of others who are still alive.

I strip no right from you. I deplore the carnage that happens because such destructive potential exists as a right, instead of a privilege.

Guns are not discriminate. People are discriminate.

Guns are not discriminate, people are discriminate

[caroljane]

I strip no right from you. I deplore the carnage that happens because such destructive potential exists as a right, instead of a privilege.

Who are you who presumes to grant me a "privilege"? God? How do you propose to exercise your authority if not without guns? Where did you get the "privilege" to wave your guns at me?

Shayne

Sorry, I wrote too hastily. I should have said, " I can grant you no privilege and have no power to". I thought my point that you are holding the gun and pointing it at me should have made that clear.

[sjw]

Sorry, I wrote too hastily. I should have said, " I can grant you no privilege and have no power to". I thought my point that you are holding the gun and pointing it at me should have made that clear.

You either do or do not advocate for the State to strip guns away from perfectly innocent people, by force if necessary. Which one is it? Pick a side.

Shayne

[GALTGULCH8]

Adam, et al,

It is curious that in a State with such open access to ownership of guns, no one in the crowd had a gun to use to shorten the killing spree.

Regarding the issue of type of weapon to which the Second Amendment applies and the justifiable purpose for ownership of a gun, I am reminded of a story.

I don't remember the name of the fellow who shot up children in a schoolyard in Stockton or the year in which it happened. That incident led to calls for more gun laws to restrict ownership and for a ban on assault weapons. While I watched the news report of the incident I did channel surf and came across a simultaneous documentary of the Warsaw Ghetto. It showed the kinds of weapons in the hands of those in the Ghetto which were ancient crude rifles or handguns from the WWI era, while the Nazi forces had more modern weapons with which to destroy those who resisted Hitler's troops.

The thought that came to mind was how different the outcome might have been if the inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto had modern assault weapons such as our legislators want to ban.

I understand it the first act of Hitler when he came to power was to confiscate weapons owned by the people of Germany which were registered no doubt.

The day will come because of the efforts of so many today to enlighten the populace and in particular the young when a new breed will be elected who will set us free once again.

gulch

Edited January 12, 2011 by gulch8

[Brant Gaede]

Adam, et al,

It is curious that in a State with such open access to ownership of guns, no one in the crowd had a gun to use to shorten the killing spree.

Most people are Eloi. They've been culturally castrated. Even in Arizona. So, they don't pack. What was needed was a couple of unarmed security people in civies right by Giffords. They might have stopped all the killing. So many women and womanized men have run around so long demonizing guns and people who carry them as whackos, they feel uncomfortable even thinking about them, much less carrying.

--Brant

[sjw]

Adam, et al,

It is curious that in a State with such open access to ownership of guns, no one in the crowd had a gun to use to shorten the killing spree.

Most people are Eloi. They've been culturally castrated. Even in Arizona. So, they don't pack. What was needed was a couple of unarmed security people in civies right by Giffords. They might have stopped all the killing. So many women and womanized men have run around so long demonizing guns and people who carry them as whackos, they feel uncomfortable even thinking about them, much less carrying.

--Brant

Exactly. People are psychologically-morally-intellectually disarmed. They have to be to put up with the level of government interference that they do. The side-effect of this was that a Congresswoman was a sitting duck with no one around her to protect her and others from a madman.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Adam, et al,

It is curious that in a State with such open access to ownership of guns, no one in the crowd had a gun to use to shorten the killing spree.

Most people are Eloi. They've been culturally castrated. Even in Arizona. So, they don't pack. What was needed was a couple of unarmed security people in civies right by Giffords. They might have stopped all the killing. So many women and womanized men have run around so long demonizing guns and people who carry them as whackos, they feel uncomfortable even thinking about them, much less carrying.

--Brant

Exactly. People are psychologically-morally-intellectually disarmed. They have to be to put up with the level of government interference that they do. The side-effect of this was that a Congresswoman was a sitting duck with no one around her to protect her and others from a madman.

Shayne

There's another problem. It is since last summer legal here to pack concealed without a permit. In Arizona, however, it is not easy to do this because of weather that is mild to hot, seldom very cold even in winter. You dress light. Some civilian sees you with a gun, freaks out and calls the cops, you can't tell what might happen. That's what some COSTCO clerk did in Vegas. The guy had a permit. The cops shot him down. It was murder with no indictments, but one promotion.

--Brant

[Selene]

Carol:

Armed homeowner shoots intruder in self defense

• June 27th, 2010 4:39 pm ET

A home invader was reportedly shot in self defense by his would-be elderly victim.

Police say that an intruder attempted to break in through a window of a Colton, Ontario home. The 79 year old homeowner is said to have noticed the home invasion attempt, grabbed his handgun, and fired in self defense, striking the intruder in the shoulder and ending the attack. A dead suspect, reportedly identified as 37 year old Fidel Escanuelas was found at the scene, and two suspected accomplices were taken into custody. No injures to the elderly resident were reported.

It is a sad fact that criminals prey on senior citizens, seeing them as easy targets. Unarmed senior citizens can often be overpowered by even a single young criminal who is stronger and faster, and as a result may suffer greatly in their own home.

However, when senior citizens are armed for self defense, they are in the best position possible to defend themselves. A few examples: This armed 85 year old woman held a home invader at gunpoint, and made him call the police on himself. This armed 93 year old man shot a home invader in self defense after the home invader began to attack him. This armed 70 year old woman held an intruder at gunpoint until the police arrived to arrest him. This armed 91 year old man used his handgun to fend off two home invader who had broken in and threatened his wheelchair-bound wife with their guns. This armed 84 year old man used his handgun to stop a criminal who repeatedly tried to enter his home through the front door, back door, and a window. I could go on with more examples, but the point should be clear: armed self defense is a senior citizen’s best chance at stopping a younger and stronger criminal.

For more info: See more cases of armed self defense.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Armed homeowner shoots intruder in self defense - National self-defense | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/self-defense-in-national/armed-homeowner-shoots-intruder-self-defense#ixzz1AnHGv8EG