posted on February 15, 2006 11:20:59 PM new
I just wanted to pass on a couple of stories that was on our news this evening. I got to say if I owed just 10$ I would be in jail.
http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/local_story_046222205.html
And this news story Woman found dead in home and dead over a year most likely.. Her friends and family just suck too. I can't find the link on the news site maybe it will be there tomorrow. It is about a 53 year old woman found dead in her home who apparently has been dead for about a year. Family and friends have not talked with her in 14 months new tv story said, and she was in her home so guess they didn't come to see her either.. Looks like someone would have checked on her in that time.
This was in Dallas News they said people been seen taking things out of home last few months. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/021606dnmetleftdead.17d610f9.html
Strange story..
**************
Can't touch this! uh huh, uh huh.
"Por favor, no exprima el Charmin."
[ edited by irked on Feb 15, 2006 11:45 PM ]
posted on February 16, 2006 01:18:29 AM new
The second story is strange only in the reports of people coming in and out iof the home recently with boxes. If it is indeed the daughter, sounds as though she had no remaining family since her mother is believed to have died earlier in the hospital.
Some people do not have a close circle of friends that would check in. I am well known for "disappearing" in my group of friends. I just get in moods where I decide to go on extended road trips, get heavily involved in ongoing projects or just decide to be antisocial and am not heard from for months. No one thinks anything of it anymore (possibly because most of them have the same trait). My mother is the only person that demands I regularly check in to confirm that I am still breathing so if anything ever happens to me after she passes it's not inconcievable that it could take months for anyone to discover it.
If you have an extended family it is probably hard to understand how something like this could happen but as someone that could hold a family reunion in a single restaraunt booth, I see it as sad but not exactly horrific. I certainly wouldn't hold anyone to blame...except the people who broke in and decided to start clearing her out recently if those reports are indeed true.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on February 16, 2006 07:54:56 AM new
The county where the judge has the house can sell it for back taxes if he doesnt pay up. Happens all the time.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on February 16, 2006 09:25:45 AM new
Yep Bear, but problem is that judge bought the property 20 years ago within a few months of buying it he then SOLD it for profit BUT not once paid for the property he sold. So the property does not belong to him anymore ( in more than one way). My thought is that if he didn't pay for it in first place (law suit stated in article)does not seem like he would have been able to sell it outright to another person ( clear title?) who paid judge.. Judge didn't pay person he got property from. Just sounds crooked for sure. Plus he is judge, what a crook. LOL am I suprised? nada
Fenix, that dead woman was reported on TV as family and friends said they had not talked with her in 14 months so I just presummed she had family still left but you know how news reports are, plus she was just discovered yesterday so I am sure a lot is not known yet. I have large family yes, but do understand not wanting to talk to a lot of them LOL.
**************
Can't touch this! uh huh, uh huh.
posted on February 16, 2006 12:09:11 PM new
must be missing something...cant this scumbag get arrested for selling something that didnt belong to him in the first place???
posted on February 16, 2006 03:18:13 PM new
IF the new owner bought the property without having a title search done on it to reveal any outstanding leins on the propeerty, they responsible for any outstanding taxes.
I know an attorney in my area it happened to.
The new owners only chance of revocering the past taxes is to sue the judge. If he is succesful and wins the case he can place leins on any property (other than property covered by homestead exemptions.
This includes rental property, bank accounts, IRA's, boats, rv's & etc.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on February 16, 2006 03:33:47 PM new
Classic, the judge owned the property but did not pay the property taxes for the years he owned it.
Under Texas law, if a new owner buys a propery with outstanding taxes due on it, they also assume the responsibility for the debit. A title search would have revealed the depit.
I would also suspect the statute of limitations for the county to collect the depit from the judge has passed.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on February 16, 2006 03:47:56 PM new
Read the article again. It has nothing to do with taxes owed to city but he did not pay the city for the property in the first place. (Not taxes) It says taxpayers are waiting for the money which is misleading I think it is the city that is waiting for payment of the property he bought and did not pay for and sold and pocketed the money . That word taxpayers I think was used to make it look like the taxpayers in Dallas are the one being hurt cause this Judge has not paid and it makes city coffers bad so hurting taxpayer. He bought it for 350 thousand $ from city did not pay city and sold same property (not paid for) property within a few months for 450 thousand $ pocketing the entire sum never paid city for the property got sued and 21 years later still has not paid a dime on the city's won suit over that property he never paid for in first place...
Exerpt:
The Dallas City Attorney's office went to court and sued a justice of the peace and won, but the city has never collected a dime.
The legal battle was over a piece of land that the justice of the peace purchased from the city 21 years ago.
Justice of the Peace Thomas Jones has represented Oak Cliff for 14 years, but he's had an ongoing legal battle with the City of Dallas for two decades.
The city prevailed in a $1.2 million lawsuit against the judge, but taxpayers are still waiting to see their money.
Court documents show the City of Dallas sold Jones property at the corner of Colorado and Marsalis for $480,000. That was in 1984.
While Jones never paid for the property, he sold it to someone else.
It took the city 10 years to sue Jones for the money, and in 1996 a court ordered Judge Jones to pay, with interest.
Another 10 years have now passed, still no payment from Judge Jones, and he wasn't eager to give answers to CBS 11.
**************
Can't touch this! uh huh, uh huh.
posted on February 16, 2006 06:58:22 PM new
Dang if I know how he got property and not pay from a city as big as Dallas. I think he has been in judgeship off and on from what I understand and I guess Dallas thought they could trust ? him. Boy did they goof.
I hope they do hang him at least out to dry.
**************
Can't touch this! uh huh, uh huh.
