Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

221 Cannon is Not For Sale

fredbenenson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 278 posts

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#101

Post by toast0 »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #45

> He gave me the standard line: 2-3 weeks if I hear from anyone. > I never heard from anyone. What is the FBI doing if they're not working on cases like this or domestic terrorism/mass shootings? We continue to have both classes of crimes in droves.

The FBI does not have a mandate to investigate all reported crimes. AFAIK, no law enforcement agency does. They triage the reports, and most reports don't get investigated.

Most mass shootings don't have a lot of the FBI to investigate. The perpetrator often dies on site, so they can't be charged with anything. FBI will likely investigate if there were any co-conspirators, and may work with ATF to determine how the perpetrator obtained the firearm(s). Many times we hear that the perpetrator was "on the FBI's radar", but most of the time, there was no unlawful conduct before the shooting, so what are they supposed to do?

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#102

Post by kstrauser »

recursive wrote: post #97
kstrauser wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the dark old days before Apple Pay, where it was common in America to hand your credit/debit card to some rando at a restaurant and have them disappear with it for a few minutes, about once a year my bank would call me to ask if I'd been using my card in some far-off locale: "Hi! Are you in Tijuana?" "Not since 1993. Why? What's up?" "So you didn't just try to buy gasoline at a PEMEX there?" "Nope, I'm in San Fran…

You must have been going to some very shady restaurants. I still hand off my credit card to a rando. I did it today. I did it last weekend. I've never had this problem.

Not especially, I don't think. It's incredibly common according to everything I see online.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#103

Post by labcomputer »

rendx wrote: post #79
pdonis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the Torrens system, whatever the government records say are final First, it doesn't seem like that's always the case, based on another post upthread talking about a land ownership case that went to the high court because of an error in the government's records. Second, since there is no single government for the entire world, any government trying to implement a Torrens system is still going to face the problem…

> is still going to face the problem of events happening outside its jurisdiction that its records do not and cannot contain Excuse my German ignorance, but my understanding of how it works here is that unless the transfer is notarized, logged and recorded with the local authority, there has not been a legal transfer. So, by that definition of land ownership, no "events outside of its jurisdiction" can take place. An…

Yes, it does sound like typical German bureaucracy to make events like death outside the jurisdiction impossible unless the deceased has obtained prior approval to kick the bucket. :)

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#104

Post by compiler-guy »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #46
DannyPage wrote: post #14

Owning a vacant lot far from where you live seems to come with some risks. In Hawaii, a woman found out that a house was built on the wrong lot and inspectors missed it until the completed house was being sold. I'm curious if there are other proactive measures folks could take to ensure that doesn't happen to their land. https://www.sfgate.com/hawaii/article/hawaii-home-built-on-w...

What risk? She got a free house out of it! (The house was ordered to be demolished, but the owner and the builder reached a confidential settlement and the house is still standing to this day)

After years of legal wrangling and headaches she came to a settlement that may or may not have been her originally preferred solution.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#105

Post by margalabargala »

bluGill wrote: post #58
1970-01-01 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's paying for it? Are they working for free?

No, but paying someone $300 is cheap when you hope to get a check for several hundred thousand in a few months. (even if the scam is only to get the earnest money that is still a $300 investment for the final thousand or two you make - with very little work)

That's a lot of work plus money transfer paper trail for something like this.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#107

Post by IhateAI »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #91
IhateAI wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I guess you technically just need to convince a notary that you're the seller and with virtual closings/ mobile notaries I guess that's probably pretty easy. But still the scammer would never see the earnest money, unless the buyer backed out outside of an option period for whatever reason. Presumably they wouldn't if the land is cheap, and they've agreed to pay cash and put earnest money down.

The scammer isn't trying to get the earnest money, they are trying to get the full sale price.

Well yes, I assume that too. But the article says they'll pocket the earnest money which makes zero sense. Probably another example of someone incapable of writing an article by themselves and used an LLM.

>"7. If they get farther they’ll pocket the earnest money deposit which would have been significant in my case."

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#108

Post by recursive »

kstrauser wrote: post #102
recursive wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must have been going to some very shady restaurants. I still hand off my credit card to a rando. I did it today. I did it last weekend. I've never had this problem.

Not especially, I don't think. It's incredibly common according to everything I see online.

I guess I'm just lucky.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#109

Post by bigstrat2003 »

recursive wrote: post #97
kstrauser wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the dark old days before Apple Pay, where it was common in America to hand your credit/debit card to some rando at a restaurant and have them disappear with it for a few minutes, about once a year my bank would call me to ask if I'd been using my card in some far-off locale: "Hi! Are you in Tijuana?" "Not since 1993. Why? What's up?" "So you didn't just try to buy gasoline at a PEMEX there?" "Nope, I'm in San Fran…

You must have been going to some very shady restaurants. I still hand off my credit card to a rando. I did it today. I did it last weekend. I've never had this problem.

Yeah I agree. Not only do I hand off my card, literally everyone I know does so. None have ever had problems. I'm not saying that such fraud never happens, because it obviously does happen. But I don't think it's so overwhelmingly common as is being claimed here.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#110

Post by milesvp »

ivraatiems wrote: post #89

I have had people show up at my house to ask if it was for rent, based on a fake post on Facebook using photos from Zillow from before my home was sold. My realtor helped me get the photos taken down, but the Facebook ads for it are up to this day. Facebook completely ignores any and all attempts by me to report this malfeasance -- even though these ads literally have my personal home address on them! It's a huge saf…

I would contact Facebook legal directly with documents showing the problem. Legal’s job is always to minimize liability for the company, and they have levers they can pull in any organization, no matter how “hyper scale” they claim to be.

Bonus points for figuring out the correct language to use to imply repercussions for failure to act without any actual threats. Patio11 has written about similarly worded letters with regards to debt collections and banking, and I know that there are all kinds of magic incantations in law for all kinds of transgretions.

Post reply on HN