Unjust enrichment

That would not be a case of unjust enrichment (again, that is a quasi-contractual remedy, and you weren't even a party to the transaction). If you wanted to handle it in civil court, you would sue for replevin. More than likely, however, that wouldn't be necessary if the police were involved. Generally speaking, stolen property must be returned to the victim pursuant to criminal laws without the need for a civil suit.

Ahhh...the non-substantive "point out the other guy's typo" defense. Gotta love red herrings, particularly when the pot calls the kettle black. Trust me that your fourth grade grammar isn't all you think it is...

Hey, guys.

I was trying to change the subject. Fact is that some people will go on all day and make crescendos of uberalles kinds of one upmanship. You've each found your critique niche. Let it go.

But... jdmba... I was thinking of criminal court. Putting the sharks out of business would come closer to solving the problem.

As for typos, I realized at about 60 that sometimes when I type, other words come out. Seems there is a restructuring of synapses going on. I usually catch it when I reread it, but sometimes I do emphatic things and hit save. I hope you understand that I'm not suggesting that is happening to you, but that it happens to everyone at one time or another. To complain about it as has been done to initial posters from the same responder is less than gracious and not appropriate but often happens here out of anger.

If the pawn shop employee/owner knew (or had reason to know) that the jewelry was stolen, then he could possibly be convicted of receiving stolen property.

When they accepted $20 for solid gold items weighing significantly, he knew.
Thanks for your wordsmithing. Most people here don't give them out... perhaps they don't know either.

Thanks, but that wasn't my point. Spelling and grammatical errors are totally irrelevant--I make them, too. My point was if someone is going to attack someone else for "imprecision" in ANY area, and assert their superiority in the same, they should do so without making careless errors of their own. In other words, when people make blanket personal statements finding fault in complex areas ( such as the law where it is possible to have more than one interpretation ), and find fault in someone PERSONALLY for disagreeing with INFORMATION posted, while littering their own posting with careless elementary errors of ANY kind in ANY area, it has to be disingenuousness at its best.

I have a friend that has a Masters degree in nursing and she teaches nursing in college. At times I sit at her house and read some of the papers she is grading and I have to cringe when I read her 'corrections'. While she is correcting students in their nursing errors, she is doing so with incredibly blatant spelling errors---words a sixth grader would know--she spells wrong. She shrugs, "Eh, this isn't English class, its NURSING. It doesn't matter." My feeling is, it DOES matter. And her credibility is laughable when she tells a student they are wrong in a medical error when she cannot help interchanging "our" and "are". My point is if you put yourself in a position of visible self imposed superiority, do it well. It matters.

How you spell or write, or how anyone does, for that matter wasn't the point of my posting. I am sure my postings are not without errors. Everyone makes grammatical errors. But everyone doesn't attack other people personally in offering correction or suggesting an alternative point of view. And if you are going to belittle someone personally for any error, it seems fair to make sure that you are without the same.

That was my point.

Grace, I have been on here long enough to know that correcting you in any manner whatsoever generally brings on multiple return attacks and reiterations of every possible error one has made... including having needed to be on here in the first place for information. When you "chuckle", it is obscene taunting. When you write in red and blue, it is generally off target where you have chosen to complain about something, oddly, NOT SAID, but inferred by you. When you complain about grammar or spelling it is because you are angry or that you just find first posters to be a grade beneath you and therefore not worth your care... and will continue with anything else you can find in history here to bring up, but obviously in this case you couldn't find anything.

So **** it up, GentleGrace. Your example was atrocious and as far off base as you could have gone... and appropriately unimportant to anyone else but you and "him". I too pride myself in my grammar and spelling and I get angry when an ignorant person complains that I didn't say it with enough gentleness for their taste, but in the long run, nothing on here is real while it is only on here and I ask you, "SO WHAT?"

I appreciate your corrections of fact and law... not your corrections of reinterpreted and modified quotes containing your words. I don't appreciate your negative attitude toward others in that you complain about spelling and grammar when your bigger problem is with accuracy in interpretation and the occasional arrogance you use to get the problem detailed by complaining that you can't answer until they write a book about how it happened. People don't generally need to write that much to get basic answers and frankly it is much more effective to return something and show why a deeper answer is impossible without certain answers. Reading is a much more important skill than typing with accuracy, but your misinterpretations will forever go unmodified. At least when I make a mistake I generally correct it.

But in the meantime, why don't you realize that we are not on here to do anything more than learn about the law and help where we can. You have my permission to correct fact and law by adding information wherever possible. But you don't get by with putting your interpretation on what I said by inserting your words in purported quotes of what I said... because I will respond. Now, I'm not the word police on here, nor am I willing to be the rudeness police, but you can always expect me to return answer your incomprehensible misdirections.

And next time you think you've been attacked personally, think twice. You are just a typist on here who has one year of lawschool and a masters in how to deal with convicts. You aren't a lawyer and you don't bother to read cases to understand how the law is applied (or if it indeed is applied) or visit court. You have a long way to go before you can claim to be the arbiter of which response is more accurate (especially considering your demonstrated difficulty in reading and interpreting). So get off your soapbox and play nice. Quit attacking everyone who doesn't agree with your response. It is just not important. Yes, "he" was accurate but rude to you - but how else is he going to get said what is important about your contrasting ideas about that subject? At least he does not carry on for eight paragraphs calling people stupid and ignorant when they clearly aren't. Read your signature. Now THAT is who you think you are. Unfortunately, that is how you act on here. It is YOUR QUOTE, GentleGrace.

This is a legal forum where people seek information about the law, and therefore, complex or not, the law should be stated correctly. You do a disservice by handing out misinformation, and, given the context, it's ridiculous to compare a typo with that.

Grace, that is humorous considering that you handed out misinformation all of your own making, not even in response, but self aggrandizing... and it was wrong. Then you ridiculed a person who pointed out that you were so far off base that your point was totally wrong.

So who is stating the law correctly? Certainly not someone who doesn't know that perjury is seldom prosecuted in civil court or from family court. Certainly not someone who suggests that a preliminary injunction against a person means that person has done something wrong... certainly not someone who doesn't know that injunctions have the least credible applicability of all the court actions... especially when the witnesses commit perjury in every sentence. So when I state there is usually no penalty for perjury in civil court, you come back to decry my response because there is a LAW against perjury... you just do NOT understand that the law is not a penalty. It may provide for one, but the courts and prosecutors of this land apply that law unevenly. You just have no experience to make your book knowledge applicable to this forum. So quote the law, but do not make light of the real world experience of those of us who, like you, are not lawyers. Anybody can quote Wiki... but you pretend not to know it is written by Brits. Yes, we have laws based on English common law. But we have a body of laws that have been modified by courts that use their own experience to apply it sometimes wrongly.

I just want you to lighten up and stop parading like you thought your motto signature meant YOU had that onus. Keep up your struggle, Grace, but do not think that the rest of us accept your allusion to "the Gods". You just aren't smart enough... but then neither were the Gods you speak of... Greek or Roman... they too were all about very human emotion that brought about horrendous examples of very negative inappropriate behavior.

In your haste and anger, you QUOTED him and addressed your posting to ME. Did you even READ what he said? LOL too funny. YOU AGREE with him, but you thought I said it, so you snarled at me. Reread.

The balance of your posting is delightful, regardless of to whom it was directed and rest assured, it shall live in infamy as one of my all time personal favorites. Thank you.

"There is no penalty for lying in a civil trial" is NOT the same as "Penalties are not often levied in civil cases where people perjury themselves". One says the law stipulates no penalty, the other says the law does not properly APPLY the penalty. One is correct, one is not.

Who ever said the law is a penalty? The law provides a penalty. I clearly stated it was admittedly not applied as it should be, but that doesn't negate the fact that it exists--which is what this statement means: "There is no penalty.." THERE IS a penalty. If it is handed down or not is a different matter. And, despite your efforts to the contrary, I have not read, addressed or participated in any discussion that deals with your son and I certainly haven't "made light" of it. Even when you specifically asked me for my opinion, I did not respond. In fact, I haven't remotely referenced it, and if you post about it, as soon as it is apparent that is (again) the subject, I stop reading.

A preliminary injunction means someone has done something wrong? Huh? I never said that, dear. Everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

And, this forum does NOT make me angry---I'm puzzled why anyone would stick around to answer over 1400 questions if it made them 'angry'. Simply isn't the case, and I certainly have never called anyone 'stupid' or 'ignorant'. I invite you to find where I did. Again, not the case.

I will take your application for my fan club under advisement, as well as your advice about the RED and BLUE. In your honor I have changed to green for the holidays. Festive, isn't it?

You're welcome.