bare with me, I can't be cleared, much of this is still in process and confidential.
But I kind of need to vent before my gourd explodes.
K, long story, grab that Java:
Person (single, with limited funds, chronicle health issues) has run in with the authorities (or rather trouble caused by neighbors).
The issues are clearly defined by letter of law (but there are 2 versions, the indepth definition varies a little) But something that can be interpreted. Person works with authorities within the means available. Court is involved.
About a year later the authorities step in. There is really nothing different, but the timing seems off: The person had left town to part take in a trade show type deal on the invitation and ticket of a benefactor, in hope to advance the side business. Neighbors know person is out of state and claim 'abandonment' (no, not for themselves)
Authorities step up, remove property from the premises. (it's something alive, but I don't want to get into any details, the net is big and I don't want to muck things up)
To make the long story short, court rules in favor of the authorities. (the story is very long and somewhat puzzling)
Now, there are 3 other people with a vested interest in the 'property'
At first the authorities seemed interested to work with them, but it turns out not so much. One was told since they had no ownership rights they were out of luck claiming said property, contrary to previous information. One of the other 2 was told that the property could be returned after alteration that impacts the use. Now the ones with ownership interest are being told they are basically accomplices in the incident and won't get the property back.
Never mind that (I was not aware of the 3rd person) 2 of them live many states over.
There had been some more rumors and suspicion that 'there is more to those actions', the original person being made an example (while cases with a similar problem, but much worse base scenario are basically ignored) or that somebody wanted to get their hands on the property, which is even in the crashed economy somewhat valuable)
Sooo
Now I am sitting here wishing I had a well stuffed mattress and some buried mason jars to hire a Cochrin type lawyer to mix things up.
(If you made it through to here, thank you. And no, I can't tell much more about it, I might have said too much already.)
But I kind of need to vent before my gourd explodes.
K, long story, grab that Java:
Person (single, with limited funds, chronicle health issues) has run in with the authorities (or rather trouble caused by neighbors).
The issues are clearly defined by letter of law (but there are 2 versions, the indepth definition varies a little) But something that can be interpreted. Person works with authorities within the means available. Court is involved.
About a year later the authorities step in. There is really nothing different, but the timing seems off: The person had left town to part take in a trade show type deal on the invitation and ticket of a benefactor, in hope to advance the side business. Neighbors know person is out of state and claim 'abandonment' (no, not for themselves)
Authorities step up, remove property from the premises. (it's something alive, but I don't want to get into any details, the net is big and I don't want to muck things up)
To make the long story short, court rules in favor of the authorities. (the story is very long and somewhat puzzling)
Now, there are 3 other people with a vested interest in the 'property'
At first the authorities seemed interested to work with them, but it turns out not so much. One was told since they had no ownership rights they were out of luck claiming said property, contrary to previous information. One of the other 2 was told that the property could be returned after alteration that impacts the use. Now the ones with ownership interest are being told they are basically accomplices in the incident and won't get the property back.
Never mind that (I was not aware of the 3rd person) 2 of them live many states over.
There had been some more rumors and suspicion that 'there is more to those actions', the original person being made an example (while cases with a similar problem, but much worse base scenario are basically ignored) or that somebody wanted to get their hands on the property, which is even in the crashed economy somewhat valuable)
Sooo
Now I am sitting here wishing I had a well stuffed mattress and some buried mason jars to hire a Cochrin type lawyer to mix things up.
(If you made it through to here, thank you. And no, I can't tell much more about it, I might have said too much already.)
