General Discussion

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

177. Hence, let's connect dots here very slowly, LEGALLY this guy

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:35 PM

Jan 2012

has no claim to it. See how that works and why the Post pulled that story out of it's ass?

Good.

We are done...

If you cannot understand this, I really cannot help you, I suspect you do not want to understand, but that is another story. You are, as it's been noted, on an Anti OWS warpath. Look on the bright side, I am disgusted with this place (not about OWS) right at the moment. And quite frankly have a story that is tragic, but at least not in rabbit holes, to pursue. So quite frankly, at this point I really do not particularly care how many ways from here to Sunday you try to prove to the world that OWS is an ugly anti obama conspiracy, probably funded by the Koch brothers.... I am sure you'd believe that. I forgot they are also collectivist, socialists and communists too.

Have a good day.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

260 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Single dad trying to take back home occupied by OWS [View all] hack89 Jan 2012 OP

I agree Broderick Jan 2012 #1

Agree! "This is pretty fucked up." RKP5637 Jan 2012 #2

Who To Believe? cantbeserious Jan 2012 #3

Is there another side to the story you can present? nt hack89 Jan 2012 #4

Good question Broderick Jan 2012 #5

Sure Aerows Jan 2012 #30

If you need time to find some actual facts, just say so. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #32

YOU posted it Aerows Jan 2012 #41

I just ran the article on the google nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #59

So you are categorically saying the story is false? hack89 Jan 2012 #62

No actually what I did is dig deep nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #65

And I will have to simply take your word for it? Don't think so. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #137

Why not? jberryhill Jan 2012 #145

Nadine is arguing secret knowledge she appears to be reluctant to share hack89 Jan 2012 #148

You are asking me about someone else's behavior? jberryhill Jan 2012 #157

Cerridwen has document that BoA bought his mortgage the year before he started foreclosure. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #179

Cerridwen has a document that alliance mortgage bought Cerridwen Jan 2012 #183

Don't take mine nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #161

Cerridwen confirmed what BoA said - they hold his mortgage. hack89 Jan 2012 #176

Hence, let's connect dots here very slowly, LEGALLY this guy nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #177

But we are talking about a small 2nd mortgage. Lets talk about the large first mortgage. hack89 Jan 2012 #194

As I said, bye nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #196

So now the mortgage is not important? Got it. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #198

What part of he does not own title or have claim nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #201

Not according to the official records hack89 Jan 2012 #202

and public records say otherwise nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #203

I linked to the 2 public records that Cerridwen conveniently overlooked. hack89 Jan 2012 #204

alliance purchased it in October of 2008. Cerridwen Jan 2012 #185

I notice you are not talking about the 1st mortgage for $339,000. Why is that? nt hack89 Jan 2012 #190

He purchased the property for $440,000.. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #238

OWS is right - once someone is fucked by the big banks they simply need to accept their fate. hack89 Jan 2012 #239

How was he fucked by the big banks? girl gone mad Jan 2012 #241

So OWS made a hard-nosed, pragmatic decision that the guy did not deserve his house back? hack89 Jan 2012 #244

They will be damned if they do and damned if they don't, in your eyes. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #246

He appears to be the legal owner of the house - that counts for nothing in OWS eyes? nt hack89 Jan 2012 #248

If Ahadzi is the legal owner of the house, he will not be for long. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #250

OWS is lousy with tactics. randome Jan 2012 #251

So OWS only fights for certain types of people? How do you get on their list? hack89 Jan 2012 #252

LMFO... but you'll take the word of the NY Post... SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #174

"But word of advise" - you meant "But word of advice" (You got good editors right?) snooper2 Jan 2012 #243

This is why movements need leaders. Joe the Revelator Jan 2012 #6

I knew who posted this before I even opened it Aerows Jan 2012 #7

So you support what OWS did to this man? hack89 Jan 2012 #8

It's not a smear Aerows Jan 2012 #22

I think OWS is pissing away the opportunity of a lifetime hack89 Jan 2012 #29

So you post stuff from a right wing site to convince democrats? Aerows Jan 2012 #33

Feel free to post some actual facts anytime now. You are starting to flail a little. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #40

LOL Aerows Jan 2012 #42

Seriously, do you have any facts to back up your view that this isn't fucked up by OWS? Joe the Revelator Jan 2012 #63

Yes, there are facts within the story itself jberryhill Jan 2012 #70

It doesn't tell the whole story Aerows Jan 2012 #74

The key tip-off is in the story itself jberryhill Jan 2012 #78

Yep Aerows Jan 2012 #93

The key tip-off for me is the venue (NY Post), a Murdoch coalition_unwilling Jan 2012 #113

Hmm....thanks for the heads-up. AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #120

fact have been posted by several people here nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #75

I don't think anyone has facts based upon Aerows Jan 2012 #77

If you think that's what OWS should be doing, you don't understand OWS. Zhade Jan 2012 #58

So should OWS actively oppose the reelection of President Obama? hack89 Jan 2012 #60

Show me evidence they are doing that. nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #79

Look at the post I am replying to. Obama is part of that corrupt system is he not? nt hack89 Jan 2012 #101

It's FAR bigger than Obama Aerows Jan 2012 #109

I know you really are having a problem with this non partisan shit nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #114

We have a problem because that "non partisan shit" is just shit. TheWraith Jan 2012 #116

It's not "shit" Aerows Jan 2012 #118

I can certainly understand why partisans (on both sides) may feel this way nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #129

So you support the idea of OWS as "a direct challenge" to the Obama presidency? hack89 Jan 2012 #154

They are challenging the system... it is much bigger than Obama nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #159

So when push comes to shove in a close election, we can count on OWS to help? nt hack89 Jan 2012 #163

You can count on INDIVIDUALS nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #169

Kind of ironic that you would make such a statement on MLK day. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #215

You would have to admit that that your argument heavily relies on sharing TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #253

So they are useless to those of us working to get President Obama reelected. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #132

Actually they are not useless nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #160

But they will never actively oppose us? nt hack89 Jan 2012 #164

They will oppose you in the same extend they will oppose Romney nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #170

So they will never Mic Check Obama. Good - so they are sort of partisan. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #175

You are late to that party nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #178

It's not a relevant question Aerows Jan 2012 #81

So those of those who are partisan Democrats - what does OWS mean to us? hack89 Jan 2012 #104

Not as members of OWS Aerows Jan 2012 #107

OWS will help simply by spreading a pro-99% message. joshcryer Jan 2012 #110

exactly Aerows Jan 2012 #122

Well... Thanks For Being Blunt... But If The Democratic Candidates/Party Want The Support Of OWS... WillyT Jan 2012 #123

This was done by an off-shoot group BumRushDaShow Jan 2012 #25

And it's the NY Post Aerows Jan 2012 #27

Well yeah, the New Yawk Boast BumRushDaShow Jan 2012 #34

I'm not anti-OWS at all. I think it's important we know stuff like the OP riderinthestorm Jan 2012 #10

It's a Murdoch publication Aerows Jan 2012 #26

Reading the rest of the thread has certainly provided a lot more to mull over. You're right. riderinthestorm Jan 2012 #52

Agreed Aerows Jan 2012 #84

OWS made a mistake. Own it, stop it, prevent future such incidents, but don't piss on all of OWS!!! Zalatix Jan 2012 #9

+1 (nt) rbnyc Jan 2012 #49

New York Post is a Murdoch rag... Spazito Jan 2012 #11

So the owner is lying about OWS? OWS can do no wrong? hack89 Jan 2012 #13

I did a search to see if this story could be found on any other news website... Spazito Jan 2012 #17

I am willing to wait until you have some actual facts. Take all the time you need. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #20

So, in other words... Spazito Jan 2012 #36

Um, no Aerows Jan 2012 #37

You cannot prove a negative obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #106

You will simply find another reason to not accept it - it is a clear pattern on OWS threads. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #131

Why don't you wait until you have a non scandal rag source? RedCloud Jan 2012 #130

I also ran a search for "Wise Ahadzi" - every single link ultimately goes back to right-wing sources Hugabear Jan 2012 #188

Yes, I am not at all surprised... Spazito Jan 2012 #205

Actually, people have provided information that make the story very murky. Moreover, you don't tpsbmam Jan 2012 #68

I agree. Don't trust what they print. LiberalFighter Jan 2012 #15

Why did he move out? laundry_queen Jan 2012 #12

What do you think about the OWS theater involving the "homeless family" ? hack89 Jan 2012 #16

There's one aspect of this story that troubles me salvorhardin Jan 2012 #14

I am not sure OWS is actually using that "homeless" family. hack89 Jan 2012 #19

Wise Ahadzi in a bit of a mystery csziggy Jan 2012 #125

Apparently people are trespassing in a house the neither own or claim they own legally... Historic NY Jan 2012 #18

the only links I can find to this story are the post, freep, and another reichwing site niyad Jan 2012 #21

Which is why I question the motivations Aerows Jan 2012 #23

See this link - this is an off-shoot group BumRushDaShow Jan 2012 #28

And DU pintobean Jan 2012 #24

yes, quoting a reichwing site as its sole authority niyad Jan 2012 #54

"the only links I can find" pintobean Jan 2012 #57

But you still recced the post Aerows Jan 2012 #117

That's there for everyone to see. pintobean Jan 2012 #126

I like bringing it to people's attention Aerows Jan 2012 #171

And it's interesting to me pintobean Jan 2012 #208

Oh, I agree Aerows Jan 2012 #210

It doesn't matter to me pintobean Jan 2012 #212

LOL Aerows Jan 2012 #213

My self-righteous indignation? pintobean Jan 2012 #218

Okay Aerows Jan 2012 #226

It's the New York Post; What did you expect? Scootaloo Jan 2012 #31

fyi... from one month ago handmade34 Jan 2012 #35

Nice political theater hack89 Jan 2012 #38

Whatever makes you think that the homeless can't be activists? countryjake Jan 2012 #90

He was hand pick to say the right things hack89 Jan 2012 #105

Because the owner Aerows Jan 2012 #112

Reading comphrension is important hack89 Jan 2012 #133

And reading a reliable source is even more important Aerows Jan 2012 #168

Occupy is fighting financial institutions like Bank of America... countryjake Jan 2012 #119

Why is the "homeless family" not living in the house? nt hack89 Jan 2012 #138

Interesting. Three years after he abandoned Cerridwen Jan 2012 #39

"The spin also stinks. " Aerows Jan 2012 #44

Why do you think OWS didn't support him though? hack89 Jan 2012 #45

The whole NY Post article Aerows Jan 2012 #46

First, the idea that a political activist Cerridwen Jan 2012 #47

He may have. Perhaps he was desperate and felt he had no other options hack89 Jan 2012 #48

I agree. That could very well be a reason; Cerridwen Jan 2012 #50

I thing he is simply angry that OWS is refusing to fight for him and his rights. hack89 Jan 2012 #51

Hell, I can think of tons of answers for Cerridwen Jan 2012 #53

"refusing to fight for him" jberryhill Jan 2012 #72

"Bank of America ... confirmed to the Post that he is still the rightful owner." hack89 Jan 2012 #135

This message was self-deleted by its author jberryhill Jan 2012 #141

You missed a clear bullshit line in the story jberryhill Jan 2012 #76

Bank of America says he is the legal owner. hack89 Jan 2012 #136

Bank of America is not the county title office jberryhill Jan 2012 #139

Not sure, but is a bank always the title owner Broderick Jan 2012 #140

No jberryhill Jan 2012 #142

ok Broderick Jan 2012 #143

That simply shows the mortgage was sold to another mortgage company - happens all the time hack89 Jan 2012 #151

Again, I'll ask, was your name removed each time the mortgage Cerridwen Jan 2012 #187

Since no "ASSUMPTION OF MORTGAGE" document was generated, I suspect you are wrong about this. hack89 Jan 2012 #197

Where is the evidence that he sought support from OWS? girl gone mad Jan 2012 #216

Why do you think the "homeless family" is not living in the house? hack89 Jan 2012 #220

Let me guess: girl gone mad Jan 2012 #225

So you have nothing - that's ok, you are not the only one. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #230

I found this which i_sometimes Jan 2012 #43

The NY Post is Fucked Up otohara Jan 2012 #55

Trust but verify. Mistrust but also verify. pnorman Jan 2012 #56

Save you some... first page of search nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #61

This pretty well confirms it. Thanks! pnorman Jan 2012 #80

No it does not nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #82

I checked the public records. Cerridwen Jan 2012 #64

Good work nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #69

Fairly straight forward. Cerridwen Jan 2012 #71

thanks it will come handy in San Diego nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #73

You're welcome. Cerridwen Jan 2012 #86

Oh look! Facts! graywarrior Jan 2012 #83

. Cerridwen Jan 2012 #85

Agreed Aerows Jan 2012 #88

Thank you vedy much graywarrior Jan 2012 #95

Cool. Please remind people to tip Cerridwen Jan 2012 #96

Great idea! graywarrior Jan 2012 #99

Ewwww, ick. Cerridwen Jan 2012 #100

I just did graywarrior Jan 2012 #103

Er, no get. HughBeaumont Jan 2012 #186

Lucky you. Cerridwen Jan 2012 #191

Hack89 will studiously avoid your observation from an authoritative source jberryhill Jan 2012 #146

The one that documents a routine mortgage sale between mortgage companies? hack89 Jan 2012 #152

A source that shows that BoA owns his mortgage? hack89 Jan 2012 #166

Naw. He's just going to serve out so many one-liners I don't have time to keep up. Cerridwen Jan 2012 #193

You are the one who completely missed the 1st mortgage on the property or the deed. hack89 Jan 2012 #200

Two different documents - the second simply shows that the mortage was sold hack89 Jan 2012 #149

Was your name removed from the Cerridwen Jan 2012 #155

So you have documented a routine mortgage transfer hack89 Jan 2012 #153

I'm not sure why you replied to Cerridwen Jan 2012 #156

They are two seperate types of document hack89 Jan 2012 #158

Actually, the bank does buy the mortgage Cerridwen Jan 2012 #165

But you showed that BoA purchased the mortgage before they started forclosure. hack89 Jan 2012 #172

So which is it? The bank doesn't buy mortgages Cerridwen Jan 2012 #181

Technically, BoA purchased the rights to service the mortgage. hack89 Jan 2012 #192

BTW - guess who owns COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #162

Countrywide was taken over by BofA. Cerridwen Jan 2012 #167

So you just confirmed that he has a active mortgage held by BoA. Thanks. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #173

Nope...unless alliance banking corp is BofA. Cerridwen Jan 2012 #180

Shall we review the legal responsibilities of 2nd party mortgage servicers? hack89 Jan 2012 #189

So you're saying BofA owns the home and not Mr. Ahadzi? Cerridwen Jan 2012 #195

No - there was no transfer of title or deed. At least none that you can find. hack89 Jan 2012 #199

I found your mistake - you missed the 1st mortgage for $339,600.00 hack89 Jan 2012 #184

That looks like a run-of-the-mill assignment to me. Hosnon Jan 2012 #231

Lol! But, I think I'll give the benefit of doubt to Occupy, thank you. (nt) (nr) T S Justly Jan 2012 #66

There seem to be some apparent facts you are missing in the story jberryhill Jan 2012 #67

I'm waiting to see if you get an answer Aerows Jan 2012 #87

I have a lot of respect for hack89 jberryhill Jan 2012 #92

Understood Aerows Jan 2012 #94

My enemies I fight. My friends I criticize. jberryhill Jan 2012 #97

Well stated Aerows Jan 2012 #102

" I believe hack89 is an insightful critical thinker" greiner3 Jan 2012 #128

"enemy"? jberryhill Jan 2012 #144

You didn't ask me but... he wants a free house? joshcryer Jan 2012 #108

Many here think that people should simply accept it when the bank screws you out of your house. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #209

There's a group protesting this called "Occupy Occupy" Bucky Jan 2012 #89

LOL! randome Jan 2012 #121

There should have been additional info.. Wind Dancer Jan 2012 #91

Why are you using a Murdoch shit-rag as a source? Odin2005 Jan 2012 #98

Sorry but anything out of the Murdoch empire is suspect and Cleita Jan 2012 #111

Your irresponsibility in posting this yellow journalism smear of OWS is coalition_unwilling Jan 2012 #115

Before you start crying about this, find a non-biased source. baldguy Jan 2012 #124

You're probably right. ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #127

NY Post bullshit, of course...BRING BACK THE UNREC OPTION! nt joeybee12 Jan 2012 #134

Agreed. Murdoch lies don't belong on the greatest page of Democratic Underground. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #217

But he's a Single Dad! A SINGLE DAD!!!! That makes the lies OK. Gold Metal Flake Jan 2012 #147

Look at all the BOGers hopping on this made-up, Murdoch anti-OWS thread. Marr Jan 2012 #150

Right? SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #182

OK, one red flag Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #206

Or perhaps they wanted a compliant person that would not stray from the OWS message? hack89 Jan 2012 #207

Wow, the anti-OWS brigade has been putting in overtime lately. MNBrewer Jan 2012 #211

Not really - don't forget OWS is taking their winter hiatus. hack89 Jan 2012 #214

It has been anything BUT quiet. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #228

So lots of small scale community activity? hack89 Jan 2012 #232

Lol, just wait. I guess you don't know what they are doing right now, speaking of largescale sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #235

it it's in the New York Post and Fox News it must be true!! Douglas Carpenter Jan 2012 #219

Well, no one seems to have any actual facts to the contrary. hack89 Jan 2012 #221

"emotional responses"? Douglas Carpenter Jan 2012 #222

Your OP was nothing but one long emotional diatribe against OWS.. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #229

Is that why OWS promptly provided a factual rebuttal? Oh wait... hack89 Jan 2012 #234

What's to rebut? girl gone mad Jan 2012 #237

So those direct quotes are lies? That BoA statement can't be rebutted? OK. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #240

The direct quotes are half-truths, at best. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #242

Because you say so. Got it. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #245

Or you can just believe whatever crap Murdoch tells you to believe. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #247

So I should believe the crap you make up instead? Don't think so. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #249

Idiots all around chrisa Jan 2012 #223

You are right - people should just give up when fucked by the banks. He needs to learn his place. hack89 Jan 2012 #233

We're pretty fucked up. We found out the problem. mmonk Jan 2012 #224

Yep, Rupert Murdoch owned media n/t Aerows Jan 2012 #236

Lol, Rupert Murdoch's NY Post strikes again. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #227

Taking the story at face value, what is your concern? That OWS isn't a credit counciling/refi outfit TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #254

Because victims of the largest financial scam in American history deserve a second chance hack89 Jan 2012 #255

Okay, but what do you want them to do for him? Why has he no occupied the dwelling for years? TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #256

Your question is very pertinent - perhaps they are truly powerless to affect real change. hack89 Jan 2012 #257

Move them back in? They were supposed to force these people to occupy their homes, I see. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #258

The guy asked for their help and they blew him off for their handpicked "homeless family" hack89 Jan 2012 #260

Oy Vey ellisonz Jan 2012 #259