TLHLIM
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
You read the story? It's buckwild. So the gated area was a common area that they claimed via squaters rights. Here's more
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.html
"The McCloskeys have filed at least two “quiet title” suits asserting squatter’s rights on land they’ve occupied openly and hostilely — their terms — and claimed as their own. In an ongoing suit against Portland Place trustees in 2017, the McCloskeys say they are entitled to a 1,143-square-foot triangle of lawn in front of property that is set aside as common ground in the neighborhood’s indenture."
"Mark McCloskey has run off trustees trying to make repairs to the wall surrounding his property, insisting that he and his wife own it. In 2013, he destroyed bee hives placed just outside of the mansion’s northern wall by the neighboring Jewish Central Reform Congregation and left a note saying he did it, and if the mess wasn’t cleaned up quickly he would seek a restraining order and attorneys fees. The congregation had planned to harvest the honey and pick apples from trees on its property for Rosh Hashanah"
A bunch of litigious looneys. If you needed a portrait of what's wrong with the American Legal System they'd be near the top of it.
Runnin
Well-known member
The air has cleared and revealed the McCloskeys to be the nuts they clearly were from the beginning. They have pointed their guns at neighbors, as well as brought ridiculous law suits against them. Just nut cases. And they lied to authorities about the little handgun.
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Nuts with guns. The protesters were on private property. But I believe the street is the private property of the homeowners association not the McCloskey's. I wonder how the courts would rule if I pointed a gun at someone on my neighbor's yard because I felt threatened by them. I suppose it would depend upon the particulars of the case. If I had a past history of such behavior it would not be helpful to my case.
Last edited:
sturg33
I
These two people - who harmed nobody and simply aimed to defend themselves on their own property against and angry mob when local police were stood down - have faced far more condemnation from the left, as well as more criminal charges from the government, than actual rioters and looters who have destroyed property and killed people.
As mentioned, TLHLIM
As mentioned, TLHLIM
sturg33
I
I don't know why you keep bending over backwards to defend this stuff.
Aren't you going on and on about silence and complicity in another thread(s)?
People trespassed on private property. There were dozens of them. There were recent events of property destruction and murder. The police were standing down.
What the **** do you want them to do? Hide under their desk and hope for the best?
Nasacpi HLHM
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
what have I posted that could be construed as defending the trespassers... I think trespassing is wrong
Runnin
Well-known member
The guy claimed he was "assaulted" because he felt threatened. I guess the protesters on their way to the mayor's house could make a similar claim.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
That's what a judge is for. To sort out the particulars.
sturg33
I
The fact that you think this should be litigated is insane.
I ask again... what did you want them to do? Hide under their desk?
sturg33
I
You are welcome to make your own thread.
The difference is majority of my examples are institutions, media, companies, and elected officials.
Your examples are random crazies
Runnin
Well-known member
I'm guessing normal folks just watched from their windows. Or they could've joined the protests and passed out business cards.