Posts by Dennis Jackson6

cosmicmoose2 said:I'm not entirely sure I follow what you're asking... I mean, if there's absolutely no legal agreement and this resident is just staying in the owner's place without any official lease filed with the city or the IRS, how on earth did the water company even find out about them to issue a garnishment order in the first place?

With a standard lease, you can totally agree that the tenant covers extra utilities on top of the rent. But if the responsibility stays with the landlord, then you need to file a formal appeal against that decision. You have to point out that the creditor has zero authority to pursue a garnishment against someone who shouldn't be on the hook...

I guess I'm just as confused as everyone else here. If that's really the situation, how did they even link those debts to that person? That feels like the missing link in the whole thing.

I just hope it doesn't end up like this:

Getting ready for the US premiere—it's been pushed back to April 22nd:

Check out the latest interview with Ferdia Walsh-Peel and Mark McKenna on "you and me this Morning":


The hype surrounding the film just keeps building. I guess the buzz is pretty much everywhere now.

They performed "Beautiful Sea" during the show:


And here’s how that song looks in the actual film—Ferdia is rocking a total David Bowie vibe:


The poster:

I see nobody’s started a thread on this yet, so I guess I’ll take the initiative.

I’m giving Sing Street an absolute recommendation; it’s a total hidden gem. It was directed by John Carney, who we already know from Once and Begin Again, so you could say he’s basically completed his musical trilogy here. It’s just this small, unpretentious, deeply personal piece of filmmaking from him, and honestly, it’s brilliant.

The film premiered at Sundance back in January 2016, and now the US theatrical release is finally rolling out. I actually managed to catch it a few days ago, and I’m completely blown away.

So, let's get this discussion moving. I'll start things off with the trailer, and I'll be dropping more stuff into the thread as I go. 🙂

trailer:


Here is the first clip - The Riddle of the Model:


IMDb:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3544112/

I am definitely planning on seeing this again. 🙂
The film has a great nod to Back to the Future, and there's even a mention of Star Wars in one of the song lyrics.

Unfortunately, just your typical American bureaucratic maneuver designed specifically to dodge the statute of limitations. 😢 It looks like the unnamed person has cooked up another batch of nonsense for us to deal with.

Jamie Morales2 said:Thanks for clearing that up.

The reality is that none of this—not my current two income streams, nor even a potential third one—counts as a formal salary; it's all just freelance fees. But I guess that doesn't matter, because, as usual, the laws are drafted by people living in some ivory tower who couldn't care less about how life actually works on the ground...

If I recall correctly, freelance income isn't part of those protected account exemptions, so they just strip you down to the bone just to make sure Hanza has enough left over for their little snacks. There were some horror stories in the news back in the day when people tried to get that changed. So, basically, they still take everything if it's classified as freelance?

Latest inheritance drama out of the Monty Python state:
http://www.newyorktimes.com/News/US-tax-issues-pay-up

Good highlights:

They actually had the nerve to ask the reporter for the debtor's Social Security number
Regarding this whole mess, we reached out to John Bubba, the branch director for the local bank in San Diego, but he just told us to contact their PR department in Washington, D.C. Instead of getting a straight answer, though, we got hit with a directive from some high-level tech specialist at the bank, Stephen Begun. He basically told us that based on the info we provided, they couldn't verify the actions taken by the Financial Agency. To make matters worse, he actually asked the reporter to provide the debtor's SSN and the specific payment authorization code the Financial Agency used. I guess I haven't seen a federal agency demand private citizen data from journalists while they're busy seizing assets themselves, but we sent over the guy's info from San Diego anyway. Still, as of right now, we haven't heard back from the bank.

Absolutely insane. On top of all that, they’re throwing in a bonus knife set. Honestly, this deal is killer.

Sent from my Android using Reddit

😢 That’s exactly why you should just get out of the country while you still can and let them all just bleed themselves dry. Everything is going to fall apart soon anyway. I guess we’ve finally hit the point of no return.

Sure. It’s an old trick. They just wait for the debt to pile up before they finally take some inevitable action. I guess you could call that a long-term investment.

John Clark6 said:Honestly, this feels more like a "bell of stupidity" than anything resembling the truth.

I guess it just depends on how you look at it. To them, what they're doing isn't stupid.
https://app.box.com/s/udvwvkl0s4fr2ma7ra2b

Sent from my Android using Reddit

It looks like we're dealing with debt buyers here. Maybe this could actually be useful:

http://zvono-istine.org/pismo-utjeri...vodnih-dugova/

http://zvono-istine.org/kako-se-rije...rivaca-dugova/

Sent from my Android using Reddit

Samuel Bishop2 said:There isn't any legal restriction preventing an author who has waived protection from performing their work wherever or whenever they want. Once you opt out of collective protection, you can do whatever you like with your work—let anyone use it, or ban them just as easily. You can't actually give up the copyright itself, but you can certainly walk away from all the royalties and exploitation that come with it...

I honestly thought the ZAMP mods would have flagged this thread way sooner. I'm pretty disappointed by how slow 🙂
is being.

Here’s another one for you guys:

This is where it all kicked off. One of those legendary Usenet threads regarding Sony Music:
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!...vo/OmajuTIoQ-0

And here’s another classic case for the books:
http://www.latimes.com/crime/police-raid-wedding-celebration-tax-investigation-57823

Sent from my iPhone using Twitter

Laura Grant82 said:The one she composed, performed, sang, and recorded all by herself.

I think I know the answer. No. Unless, I guess, you’ve explicitly contacted Sony Music and told them you’re waiving your representation rights.

The only thing I'm not sure about is whether—even if you do waive those rights—they have some obscure rule that clashes with the definition of "public performance" when someone plays their own original music to entertain people in a public business space. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

By the way, check out this messy case where someone got shaken down for basically nothing:
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/us.fido.law/2yQH3z8nP8k/eVCpGMzCq5oJ

They lost the lawsuit.

Sent from my iPhone using Twitter

Laura Grant82 said:If, say, a cafe owner happens to be a songwriter and plays nothing but their own music, do they still have to pay royalties to Universal Music Group? 🤔

What exactly do you mean by "their own"?

Sent from my iPhone using Twitter

Samuel Bishop2 said:Look,

As long as you're paying Universal Music Group, you can use an original CD. That fee is exactly what it sounds like... you're paying for the license to perform/broadcast music publicly.

Once that's settled, you can use any device or medium—as long as it isn't a bootleg, obviously. Without sorting out the Universal Music Group situation, nothing should be playing in a public space like a cafe. Paying the fee gives you the blanket permission for public performance, regardless of the format... so yeah, original CDs are fine.

Are Universal Music Group employees seriously hunting for new clients on this forum now? Has it really come to this, where they're sending out pitches through forum posts? 🙂

ROFL

Jacob Martin2 said:People have started reaching out, and there’s even an article over at the California Times:

I am asking any members who find themselves in similar situations to please speak up here, or perhaps just send me a private message.
It might be worth us organizing something to demand a clear, explicit explanation regarding their actual intentions here... specifically concerning what rights they believe they hold over recipients of German pensions, given that the international treaty doesn't actually grant them such authority...

We really ought to take some kind of action, because our local authorities are far too accustomed to dealing with a passive public; they tend to simply do whatever they feel like in the moment and then quietly try to fix the mess later on...

The link isn't working 😢 is it behind a paywall?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jack Edwards5 said:What’s the move when the creditor—specifically the attorney representing a private individual—
refuses to lift the levy even after they’ve been paid in full? They just flat-out ignore my verbal requests to clear the freeze.

So, the account stays locked, interest keeps piling up, and while I get a tiny sliver of my paycheck through a protected account, the rest goes straight to them.
It isn't debt collection anymore—since the debt is settled—it's more like a monthly tribute to a broken legal system that's driving me toward financial ruin.

Get the media involved. Reach out to newspapers, news sites, or better yet, investigative TV shows (like those consumer watchdog programs on major networks). Just make sure you have all your paperwork and a clear timeline ready to go.