I think its rather cute that people take the moral high ground when it comes to the law. However such ought-to-be approaches to the law are irrelevant. Its th

I think its rather cute that people take the moral high ground when it comes to the law. However such ought-to-be approaches to the law are irrelevant. Its the legal system not the justice system. He did his homework and he is within his rights to take advantage of all laws which apply. Americans don't get all up in arms when major corporations use loop wholes in the law to get over on us (when was the last time General Electric paid taxes? The 70's?). Furthermore, the articles author pointed out that original owner was foreclosed on and promptly went mia and company which owned the mortgage went under. Its that either of those 2 parties or even a third party will assert their rights over the property, but until that occurs he is the legal owner as he legally filed as such. His neighbors can moan about it all they please, but they have no standing in the case whatsoever. Example: Someone defrauded Southwest Airlines: me having nothing to do with the case cannot bring fraud charges against whoever did; I have no standing in the case. I could have been standing right next to the guy that did it, as he did it, but I still have no standing in the case. Thirdly, who's misfortune is he taking advantage of? The homeowners? No, they didn't pay their bills and left, the title went to the mortgage company. The Mortgage company? No, they went under. Whoever working there had long since lost their jobs and most likely found new employment before this guy applied to legally own the property. You want to make this guy out to be a bad guy because he doesn't use things the way "normal" people do and he got ahead for it. You are boring and lack any relevant imagination.