Posts by Mark Sullivan62

Man, just get to the point already...

First off, did you actually sign that citation? Because if you didn't, then don't go whining about it now.

If you’re going to file an appeal, start by pointing out that the stop itself was totally improper. He doesn't have any right to be leaning into your window throwing comments at you; there are very specific protocols for how a vehicle is supposed to be pulled over.

Secondly, once he pulled you over like that, he basically created a traffic hazard, which put you in danger too.
Police officers actually have standing orders not to pull vehicles over during heavy rain because slippery roads make crashes way more likely, blah blah blah—so you certainly shouldn't be getting pulled over right on a railroad crossing with some guy shouting through your window.

And honestly, just skip all that nonsense about him forgiving the fine for the headlights being off...

In your appeal, state clearly that there were absolutely no warning lights flashing—don't say "maybe they were" or "maybe they weren't"... they were NOT flashing!

Complain about the rude attitude and whatever else.

Look, you'll probably just get a response saying everything was done strictly by the book and your appeal is baseless, but then the whole thing moves to municipal court. That's when you play the game: act a little clueless, stall for time, and come up with some story about how their reckless stopping right on those tracks put everyone at risk and blah blah blah...

quietbadger352 said:Not quite! It actually looked a bit rough during that last year before joining...

Anyway, averages are averages, and that 15-year average isn't exactly small!

And honestly, what’s happening post-EU entry is tripping me up a little too. I was totally expecting yields to tank way more drastically—maybe an 8 to 12% drop annually...

- but instead, it's just kind of... off:
Why do you think Victoria can't just follow that same path?
Or take unnamed in New York City, for example—what year are we looking at for them?😁 👍

Look, I don't know, I don't think I ever actually said I believed it was impossible,

if you’ve been following my rants in the chat, I’m mostly staying far away from those funds that hit you with upfront fees, and especially the ones where the returns are pegged to the Euro.

The reality is, I’ve got five different funds in my portfolio right now, and honestly, the pool of future funds I'd actually consider putting money into is getting smaller by the day; so if I want to keep diversifying down the road, I’ll eventually be forced to pick one with an entry fee or one tied to the Euro...

If you look at it through a rough lens, it seems like things really started picking up right after Canada joined the European Union.

So, basically, there’s zero reason to sweat the returns once we're officially in the European Union.

Sandra Parker3 said:So you're driving the wrong way down a one-way street and you still haven't signed the paperwork??????? 😲

expert 😎

well, okay, fine, I did drive the wrong way, but I wouldn't exactly say I'm at fault here

see, they went ahead and switched the one-way signs from a four to a five overnight

it was five in the afternoon in a small suburb outside of Chicago, and people just didn't catch it right away; I hit it pretty hard, but ended up stuck in this tiny little side street

I couldn't go forward and I couldn't go backward—then the guys behind me started reversing and heading the wrong way too, because when you're stuck, you're stuck, and everyone just follows the pack, and honestly, I didn't have a choice, I had to move or else I'd be the one single guy blocking the entire street

of course, the cops were just following orders and pulled us all over, taking down our info and writing up some kind of block report, but they didn't even bother asking me to sign anything

fast forward a year later and I get a summons from the court; I remembered then that I hadn't signed a damn thing, so I played dumb, acting like I had absolutely no clue which street they were even talking about, and they tried to explain it to me, but I was just like, "Look, I drive this route every single day for work and it never once crossed my mind that I was going the wrong way, where on earth would you get that from, ma'am? Do you actually have something useful to say?"

nothing? well, tough luck, sorry, I'm in a hurry...

I honestly don't see why everyone is getting so worked up about this, because if you actually sit down and look at the data—really look at it, not just the headlines—it becomes pretty obvious that we’ve been looking at this from the wrong angle entirely. It’s like when people argue about whether a specific tech giant like Microsoft is going to pivot their entire OS architecture overnight; sure, they might, but the underlying infrastructure doesn't just shift because of one bad quarter or a few loud voices on a forum. I was reading what Mark Sullivan62 was saying earlier, and while I get where he's coming from, I think he's missing the forest for the trees. He's focusing on these tiny, granular details that won't matter in six months, whereas we should be talking about the macro trends. And don't even get me started on the stuff Nick mentioned; it's just noise. Pure, unadulterated noise. We need to stop reacting to every single little hiccup like it's a national crisis and start thinking about the long game. It’s frustrating, really, watching everyone jump to conclusions without a shred of context. We aren't dealing with some local precinct issue handled by the Los Angeles Police Department where things are transparent and immediate; we are dealing with massive, sweeping shifts that take time to manifest. You can't rush the process, and you certainly can't force a conclusion just because you're impatient. kaže:
Oh, sure, it’s easy to sit there and say that, but just the mere thought of having to step foot in a courtroom gives me straight-up panic attacks. 😲

Look, it’s really not that big of a deal—you’ll get used to it before you know it.

I’m already heading off to get lost in some debates, honestly—it feels just like heading down to the local Starbucks to grab a coffee and settle in.

Of course, he usually ends up being the one getting blamed for every single fender bender or pile-up on the highway.

I've mostly figured out that the more you play the fool in court, the better off you actually end up.

I mean, look...

Who am I? Look, I was speeding, alright? But honestly, give me a break, people... I've never once...

Me? Going the wrong way? Now look here, Your Honor, I am telling you right now, there is absolutely no way in hell I would ever do such a thing! You’ve got nothing on me—what, do you have some kind of document? A photo? My signature? No, you don't... you haven't got a single shred of evidence! Seriously, listen to me, I'm telling you, I would never, ever do that.

Where exactly are we talking about? What street? I’ve seriously never heard of it, let alone set foot in that neighborhood...

Look, I’ll just lay it out for you plain and simple: the dumber you pretend to be, the better off you'll actually be. It’s a survival tactic, really.

James Cox6 said:It all comes down to the judge!!!

A judge is basically just a chef in their own kitchen.

Will they drop the charges, nix the misdemeanor proceedings, or is this just going to drag on forever?

Clerks have their own stats too—tracked by the chief judge—and those backlog numbers hit their performance reviews just as hard as anyone else's.

So, it all comes down to the judge.

But what exactly is "unresolved" here?

The case didn't expire due to a statute of limitations; the proceedings were stayed because there simply wasn't enough evidence.

If there’s zero evidence, you can't pin that on the judge—that's on the prosecutor. They need to actually do their homework and build a real case before they ever step foot in a courtroom to file charges.

I honestly don't see how this reflects poorly on the judge at all.

feralhawk10 said:Regarding those cops failing to show up for confrontations, the landscape is shifting. Judges have actually started leaning in their favor lately. At least, that's the case in my neck of the woods. My judge is completely incompetent; I honestly can't believe it. It’s a small town just outside of New York City. Now, I’m expected to show up three different times just waiting for some officer to finally roll up for the hearing. As if!🤣

I don't get it, what do you mean by "winging it"?

The takeaway from my last legal battle (which was about a year ago) was that they were supposed to call the officer in for a face-to-face confrontation.

Then, after a few months passed, I got hit with a decision stating the whole case was being dropped due to lack of evidence. They claimed the officer didn't show up, but then they somehow characterized my defense as being "potentially viable" or used some similar legal jargon, and because there wasn't enough proof left, they just shut the whole thing down.

simple as that

Oh, come on, people in the US

They’ll actually call the cops in for a face-to-face confrontation, and let me tell you, those officers are never showing up.

Honestly, they didn't show up for me either when I was caught driving the wrong way.

I ended up getting a notice saying the whole citation was tossed because there just wasn't enough evidence.

Just keep dragging out the hearings—if nothing else, you can always count on the statute of limitations running out...

Keep your chin up and just keep pushing forward.

Susan Walker said:Can I actually open a bank account in Germany if I’m living and working in America?

Well, who's stopping you?

I mean, look at how non-residents just pop in and set up accounts all the time everywhere else.

Technically speaking, according to our local laws, it might be a bit of a gray area... but if you follow their rules, it works perfectly fine..........

Austin Martinez2 said:Maybe you missed the fact that those controversial terms were in quotation marks? Please, interpret them that way instead of taking everything so literally.
I still maintain my stance: citizens are the ones who hold the responsibility. After all, who else builds and sustains a nation if not its people?
Honestly, I'm surprised phrases like "...it's a joke" even fly in a discussion like this.😕
crimsonsailor7.....The fairness of the statute of limitations itself isn't the issue. The problem is how it's applied and interpreted.
...What the person was really asking was how to best dodge a penalty. While I totally get the fear and discomfort involved, the law has a specific stance on that—and maybe even a moral one. Some people could really use a refresher course on Civil law...🙄 (..or just ask someone who actually understands it.)

Oh, sure, why don't you go ahead and explain to me exactly how I'm supposed to interpret your own personal definition of a term just because it's in quotation marks?

a) when they're in quotes
b) in a literal sense

I honestly didn't follow what you were getting at there, I really didn't.

If I started spinning some long-winded tale about how I managed to dodge certain penalties—penalties that would have stripped my license until retirement if I hadn't been careful—you’d probably just roll your eyes and think I was making the whole thing up out of thin air.

But they aren't made up; they are the absolute truth.

Look, I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't sat down with one to discuss any of these fines or citations.

The American justice system is rotten to the core, period.

Austin Martinez2 said:Don’t take this personally, but seriously... it’s no mystery why our country ends up in this state when everyone is constantly hunting for "loopholes" and "statutes of limitations." As long as those gaps exist, people are going to act exactly like you—completely irresponsible. And then, they have the nerve to complain about the consequences.😎

The truth is, our government is built on nothing but loopholes.

And let’s get one thing straight: a statute of limitations isn't some "loophole," it's a fundamental part of every legal system in existence.

If our judicial system is a complete disaster, don't go blaming the citizens; blame the state itself for failing us.

p.s.

The whole idea of "working for the common good" is just a fairy tale printed on paper; if the government doesn't actually authorize it, you won't find a single place to actually go out and do it, period.

If you can swing it, I’d honestly tell you to go for both,

Like, put $50 toward a mortgage fund and maybe another $20 or $25 into something like Vanguard every month; if that's even doable for you.

I honestly think Hypo has some kind of low-stakes savings plan tucked away on their website somewhere, so you might want to go dig through their pages and see what’s up.

And hey, there's really no harm in the idea of tossing some extra cash into an investment fund, right?

If you aren't looking to overthink the whole "where and how" aspect of it all, just head down to the bank and set up an automatic transfer into one of their equity funds; they’ll almost certainly let you set up a recurring deposit for $200$100 without making a huge deal out of it, and besides, you can always throw in more whenever you feel like it.

Brenda Gray5 said:If you're looking at sleek shoes with thin soles, go with a 1.8mm Vibram. For high heels, plastic is always the way to go—it just comes down to how much quality you want to pay for. Also, where is this guy hanging out? Maybe I'll run into him, Brenda Gray5.

😂 😂 😂

really great 👍

props to you

Brenda Gray5 said:But honestly, if you’re looking at a $100,000 loan, you’d need to be pulling in maybe $70,000 or $80,000 a year. If you actually had that kind of income, you wouldn't even need to worry about a mortgage

Chase might offer you a $100,000 mortgage, sure, but there's a catch—that property better be worth at least $250,000

they aren't going to scrutinize your creditworthiness IF YOU HAVE A STEADY PAYCHECK

James Cox6 said:A mortgage is strictly for real estate. As a concept, you don't "mortgage" anything else.

Lending policies vary from bank to bank—it all comes down to their own internal business decisions.

Generally speaking, banks make sure they aren't just relying on collateral (like the house tied to the mortgage), but also on promissory notes and their own accepted notes.

The promissory note is what you actually need to fear. If it’s issued with a note of protest, it can be drawn against your entire net worth.

Basically, if you fall short on payments to those wonderful, lovely Europeans, and you have property in Matthews while dealing with Citibank, the bank decides whether to seize your Ford via that note or simply call the debt due and put everything you own in Matthews up for auction.

A note isn't inherently bad—that's actually its positive side—but our mentality is such that the average insolvent American would rather put a summer vacation or a ski trip on six installments at Diners Club than actually pay off a debt... and that's why everyone hates banks.!!!!

That's exactly why people in this country live beyond their means.

Look, you're spot on with all five points, but let's be real here: nobody in this country is going to cut you a loan based solely on the collateral without demanding extra guarantees (just like you pointed out yourself) and running a full-blown credit check first.

wanderingseal37 said:So, I must have misheard at least five or six people saying the bank is going to seize everything!🙂 👋

But hold on, it's not like I can just choose not to pay my installments. They usually tell you that whenever you actually have the cash, you can hand it over.
I guess that's exactly why they bother with insurance in the first place.🤔

Back when a woman was helping me run some numbers for an attic renovation—it was quite a large space
she asked where I was getting the funds from. I told her straight up that I was putting the house up as collateral,
and she just goes, "Oh, very smart," as if she's some kind of financial expert! And honestly, I wasn't being smart at all.

Look, you might be hearing them, but you clearly aren't listening properly.

Of course banks take a mortgage on a property, but that isn't the only security they hold; you also have... (I'm not going to sit here and transcribe the fine print from some JPMorgan Chase website) ...plus, most importantly, they run a full credit check on you first.

But that’s not what a mortgage-only loan is. A true mortgage loan is one granted based exclusively on the property as collateral. What you're talking about are residential loans where a mortgage is used as security alongside other things. And yeah, sure, the bank will eventually seize the house, but before they get to that, they’ll try to exhaust every other liquid asset you've pledged. If they still can't make up the difference after hitting those, then—and only then—does the house go up for auction.

wanderingseal37 said:So, I must have misheard at least five or six people saying the bank is going to seize everything!🙂 👋

But hold on, it's not like I can just choose not to pay my installments. They usually tell you that whenever you actually have the cash, you can hand it over.
I guess that's exactly why they bother with insurance in the first place.🤔

Back when a woman was helping me run some numbers for an attic renovation—it was quite a large space
she asked where I was getting the funds from. I told her straight up that I was putting the house up as collateral,
and she just goes, "Oh, very smart," as if she's some kind of financial expert! And honestly, I wasn't being smart at all.

And who exactly told you that you can just pay whenever you feel like it? If you miss three payments in a row, they send a warning, move to collection negotiations, drain every single one of those easier-to-grab assets first, and only then do they come for the mortgage... and by then, you are truly, deeply screwed.

wanderingseal37 said:So, I must have misheard at least five or six people saying the bank is going to seize everything!🙂 👋

But hold on, it's not like I can just choose not to pay my installments. They usually tell you that whenever you actually have the cash, you can hand it over.
I guess that's exactly why they bother with insurance in the first place.🤔

Back when a woman was helping me run some numbers for an attic renovation—it was quite a large space
she asked where I was getting the funds from. I told her straight up that I was putting the house up as collateral,
and she just goes, "Oh, very smart," as if she's some kind of financial expert! And honestly, I wasn't being smart at all.

So, did she actually think you were being smart? You're taking something you already own and putting it at risk just to end up on the street.

The people taking out home loans today are usually doing it for the very apartment they are buying; most of them were renters before this. So, in a way, they don't care—they didn't have anything before the loan, and if they fail to pay, they probably won't have anything afterward either... but if they manage to grind through the mortgage until the end, they actually walk away with a home.

wanderingseal37 said:At any bank, really—they absolutely love people like you, so they'll just take your house
and then flip it at least three more times after that
once you run out of cash to cover the monthly payments 🙂

I mean, don't ever go putting your property up as collateral 🙂 🧐 not even if you're dealing with a medical emergency

What you’re saying isn't really how things work in reality, if we're being honest.

Pure mortgage loans like the ones you're describing don't really exist here—at least not from what I know, so please correct me if I'm totally off base.

What does exist are loans where you provide a mortgage plus some other collateral, but they still run a full credit check; basically, they look at your minimum pay versus the annuity to make sure the math works.

Then there are Lombard loans where they don't bother checking your credit score because you're pledging something else—like a CD, a house, stocks, or fund holdings... but definitely not real estate.

And by the way, regarding this idea about banks flipping properties—that is absolutely not true.

When a bank sells a property, it's strictly to recover what the client owes them; the bank isn't trying to turn a profit on the sale, their main goal is just to get their principal back, which means you can actually pick up a property from a bank quite cheaply.

If banks were actually making money by reselling foreclosed properties, the newspapers would be flooded with bank ads promoting "super deals" on mortgages, but you see for yourself that those aren't happening.

Real estate is illiquid stuff, and banks over here don't actually like holding onto it. Think about how much time it takes to sell a house, deal with all the paperwork, etc... it's all just a massive expense for the bank. They aren't making money while their capital is tied up, and they have to deal with the headache of the sale... they just don't have the resources to play real estate mogul.

wanderingseal37 said:At any bank, really—they absolutely love people like you, so they'll just take your house
and then flip it at least three more times after that
once you run out of cash to cover the monthly payments 🙂

I mean, don't ever go putting your property up as collateral 🙂 🧐 not even if you're dealing with a medical emergency

Oh, really? Why don't you go ask the people who took out home loans for a few hundred thousand dollars over thirty years what they used as collateral for the bank?

wanderingseal37 said:So, I must have misheard at least five or six people saying the bank is going to seize everything!🙂 👋

But hold on, it's not like I can just choose not to pay my installments. They usually tell you that whenever you actually have the cash, you can hand it over.
I guess that's exactly why they bother with insurance in the first place.🤔

Back when a woman was helping me run some numbers for an attic renovation—it was quite a large space
she asked where I was getting the funds from. I told her straight up that I was putting the house up as collateral,
and she just goes, "Oh, very smart," as if she's some kind of financial expert! And honestly, I wasn't being smart at all.

Look, you hear fine, but your reading comprehension is lacking.

Of course banks take a mortgage on property, but that’s hardly the only collateral they grab; they also have... (I'm not going to go copy-pasting terms from some JPMorgan Chase website) ...plus, most importantly, they run a full credit check first.

But what you're talking about isn't a pure mortgage loan. A true mortgage loan is one granted solely based on the property itself as security. What you're describing are residential loans where a mortgage is just one part of the package used as collateral. And yeah, the bank will eventually come for the house, but before they do that, they'll try to drain every other liquid asset you've pledged—you know, the stuff that's easier to grab—and if they still can't get their money, then the house goes on the auction block.

wanderingseal37 said:So, I must have misheard at least five or six people saying the bank is going to seize everything!🙂 👋

But hold on, it's not like I can just choose not to pay my installments. They usually tell you that whenever you actually have the cash, you can hand it over.
I guess that's exactly why they bother with insurance in the first place.🤔

Back when a woman was helping me run some numbers for an attic renovation—it was quite a large space
she asked where I was getting the funds from. I told her straight up that I was putting the house up as collateral,
and she just goes, "Oh, very smart," as if she's some kind of financial expert! And honestly, I wasn't being smart at all.

And who said you can just pay whenever you feel like it? If you miss three payments in a row, they send a warning, then they try to negotiate a payment plan, then they exhaust all those more liquid assets I mentioned, and only *after* all that does the mortgage kick in... and by then, you are truly screwed.

wanderingseal37 said:So, I must have misheard at least five or six people saying the bank is going to seize everything!🙂 👋

But hold on, it's not like I can just choose not to pay my installments. They usually tell you that whenever you actually have the cash, you can hand it over.
I guess that's exactly why they bother with insurance in the first place.🤔

Back when a woman was helping me run some numbers for an attic renovation—it was quite a large space
she asked where I was getting the funds from. I told her straight up that I was putting the house up as collateral,
and she just goes, "Oh, very smart," as if she's some kind of financial expert! And honestly, I wasn't being smart at all.

So, did she actually think you were being smart? You're taking something you already own and putting it at risk just to end up out on the street.

The people taking out residential loans today are usually mortgaging the exact same apartment they are buying, and most of them were renters right before this. So, for them, it's kind of a "nothing to lose" situation; they didn't have anything before the loan, and they might not have anything after (if they don't stay current on payments)... but if they manage to grind through the loan until the end, they actually walk away with an apartment.

wanderingseal37 said:At any bank, really—they absolutely love people like you, so they'll just take your house
and then flip it at least three more times after that
once you run out of cash to cover the monthly payments 🙂

I mean, don't ever go putting your property up as collateral 🙂 🧐 not even if you're dealing with a medical emergency

What you're saying isn't really how things work in principle

Pure mortgage loans like that don't really exist here—at least from what I know, though feel free to set me straight if I'm off base

You've got loans where you provide a mortgage plus something else as collateral, but they still vet your creditworthiness; basically, they check if your minimum pay minus the annuity stays above a certain threshold.

Then there are Lombard loans where they don't bother checking your credit score, but you have to pledge something—like a CD, real estate, stocks, or fund holdings... but not actual property

And by the way, regarding banks reselling real estate—that is absolutely not true.

When a bank sells a property, it's strictly to recover what the client owes them; the bank isn't looking to turn a profit on the sale, their primary goal is just to recoup the principal debt, so you can actually pick up properties from a bank quite cheaply.

If banks were making bank by flipping mortgaged properties, the newspapers would be plastered with ads from big banks offering "super deals" on mortgages, but you see they don't actually exist.

Real estate is illiquid stuff, and banks in America don't particularly enjoy holding onto it. Think about how much time it takes to sell a house, handle all the paperwork, etc... it's all just a massive expense for the bank; nobody is earning interest on that money while they're stuck dealing with the headache of reselling property... they simply don't have the resources for that.

wanderingseal37 said:At any bank, really—they absolutely love people like you, so they'll just take your house
and then flip it at least three more times after that
once you run out of cash to cover the monthly payments 🙂

I mean, don't ever go putting your property up as collateral 🙂 🧐 not even if you're dealing with a medical emergency

Oh, really? Why don't you go ask the crew who took out home loans for a few hundred thousand dollars over thirty years what they gave the bank as security?