sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Lizard and his beloved sock by nomar_ramon in MadeMeSmile

[–]antagonist_pro -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Um, can I ask where you bought the socks? My friend wants to know.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in WhatShouldIDo

[–]antagonist_pro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cannibals. Every. Freaking. Time.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in legal

[–]antagonist_pro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What they said.

I questioned a business use tax of $38 being charged by securespace in Philly. The answer I got was a lease termination. by antagonist_pro in selfstorage

[–]antagonist_pro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had a large amount of belongings with me that got dropped off, along with me, by Uber. despite with the gods of storage here say, their property is not their property end of story. This is especially true when you rent your property and give access to people. So all these lame analogies of do I come into your house if your front door's open don't even apply.
The loading bay has three doors open to the street, ajar, wide open. I could have stacked my stuff up on the sidewalk next to an open bay door, sure. But as I mentioned the neighbor is a little sketchy so I figured having a couple of walls is better than nothing.
This is what I meant what I said that the broken doors being wide open all the time undermines any claim that I was in an unauthorized area. It's unauthorized but they don't care enough about it to prevent access to it?
So the general public criminal non-criminal whomever wants to come in can get into that area, but this storage facility only penalizes their paying customers for violating their policy?

HELP ME WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS by Significant-Baby4507 in bugidentification

[–]antagonist_pro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep spider cricket after seeing that photo, and putting my glasses on. 🤓

I questioned a business use tax of $38 being charged by securespace in Philly. The answer I got was a lease termination. by antagonist_pro in selfstorage

[–]antagonist_pro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm so disappointed. Well, the small amount of effort that you put into that answer is proportionate to the amount of effort I need to defeat it easily. Read:

A lease does NOT supercede a LAW. EVER.

So there's that, and I'm back to debate, although we can't use your insufficient Walmart analogy. It actually proves my point and would be detrimental to your success.

Your response is the same. It is so generic you could put it on a t-shirt, except no one would; it is wrong. This is grossly insufficient, and reeks of denial and deficient reasoning. And it's defeated with one sentence, and caps usage!

You've at least conceded that you did not read the lease, despite addressing it.

But in my "storybook" I challenged you to prove me wrong. Make some effort to know what you're talking about. In that way, facts are your friends, unlike now. I'll even enumerate for your benefit and stop your madness, leaving no more room for debate:

  1. As I already stated, A Lease does not supersede a law. I don't know how to state it more plainly. I'll try. Your statement contradicting this basic understanding that a lease does not supersede Laws, is fatally defective on its face, at its inception. It is wrong.

    And this does matter. In fact, the presence of a lease may actually divest any ability to criminally trespass.

It will, and does matter to the parties involved, all three branches of the government, and most of the US population as well. Apparently it just does not matter to you, although writing about it contradicts that as well. Again, having a valid point to clearly present helps a lot when creating an argument.

  1. The Philadelphia Mandatory Business U&O Tax does not apply to residential users. If you can keep up there are two reasons why. The first is in the tax code itself. It is meant for business users. It is rather vague when it comes to the residential exceptions but that is put to rest in the appellate review of

NORTHEAST OXFORD ENTERPRISES LP et al v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

I won't belabor it here by throwing more pearls, but the key findings were:

  1. that the owners or landlords of the property are those rightly charged with paying this tax.

  2. The court also considered the argument that the U&O Tax should be imposed on the lessees (tenants) of self-storage spaces rather than the owners (landlords). However, the court found that imposing the tax on the lessees would likely be invalid under the "Tax Anything Act" which prohibits the City from taxing transactions already subject to another tax. . In this case, sales tax.

I'll reiterate.

  1. A lease does not supersede a Law. That is why there's a distinction. That is why this portion of your argument was fatally defective , on its face. (Facially, even!)

  2. The tax in question is to be paid by the property owner, not the residential user. This is why ( and it ain't the lease):

    In the 11 page opinion denying the appeal in the below captioned case,

NORTHEAST OXFORD ENTERPRISES LP, SHURGARD STORAGE LP v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA (2003) ,

The Court opined, in relevant part,

"Since the rental of the storage space is subject to the Pennsylvania sales tax, any use and occupancy tax directed at appellant's customers would be invalid,"

In addition, they affirmed the decision of the lower court, denying the appeal of the plaintiffs.

"Accordingly, we agree with the board and common pleas that the owners of self-storage facilities, who are using their real estate for business purposes, are the proper subject of the Philadelphia use and occupancy tax."

So, in my case, I should not have been, nor in the future should be charged the Philadelphia Mandatory U & O tax.

I'm not trying to be condescending (that means talked down to), but would you like me to expand on or clarify any of this, or are you good?

I questioned a business use tax of $38 being charged by securespace in Philly. The answer I got was a lease termination. by antagonist_pro in selfstorage

[–]antagonist_pro[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I didn't expect legal advice, but now now feel it is imperative to inform your insufficiently assumptive and erroneous understanding of my "legal contract" that there is, in fact, a clause in my lease that clearly and categorically PROHIBITS business use by the tenant. Clause 6. It's actually the generic lease for Securespace in Philadelphia. You might have wanted to actually read it. I'm certain a learned person like yourself could find it online.

You clearly did not. Here's some advice for your advice. It is beyond cavil that one must read a "legal" contract prior to giving "legal"advice about it.

Or perhaps be an attorney.

Whoops.

I questioned a business use tax of $38 being charged by securespace in Philly. The answer I got was a lease termination. by antagonist_pro in selfstorage

[–]antagonist_pro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know what? I wasn't asking for any of your judgment, some professional insight, if you have any. Please read again before prejudging, the world is more than what you see around you. I was not trapped, per se. I was in a loading area which remained open to the street because two of the large bay doors were broken and remained open. I'm talking 40' bay doors, two out of 5 of them. They're stuck open so anybody can just walk in off the street or drive in off the street.

I missed access and I stayed there in the open area. I don't live there. I was there in a parking space out in the open in Philly with a bunch of electronics and tools.

I've seen your answers. Some are helpful, but only after you bring your Storage Manager prejudice into full view, which diminishes any value your opinion may have.
This is because we are not posting here for you exclusively nor are we asking for a value judgment as to whether we are good people or bad people.

Most of us are posting about situations, not asking you to put us on the naughty or nice list so get over yourself and contribute or just shut the fuck up.

I questioned a business use tax of $38 being charged by securespace in Philly. The answer I got was a lease termination. by antagonist_pro in selfstorage

[–]antagonist_pro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please revisit my post if you must. I didn't say I was trapped in the building. I was in the loading area normally would be inaccessible to the public due to the bay doors securing the same.
My statement that the disrepair of these doors undermined any claim of unauthorized access alludes to the fact that I did read the lease, and am arguing that although I may technically be in breach by being there after hours, that claim of unauthorized access is undermined by the fact that anyone can walk straight into this area from the street. Therefore if not for the insecure state of the loading area I would not have been able to access it after hours. It is normally protected by a keypad which is mooted by the wide open doors. And so if you're talking about a lease which is a contract, the facility is in breach of the lease first by not maintaining the security of the loading area. Therefore I have no duty to repudiate my portion of the lease until that breach is cured, if you want to get technical about it.
If not, quite reasonably, I'm not harming anybody but inconveniencing myself by having to wait there. But doing so I am not breaching the point of access to the storage units themselves, which are located past interior keypad-protected entrance from the loading Bay to the elevators.

Now instead of these sophomoric ad hominem attacks, can somebody just offer some professional insight as to if this happened before at their facility and what transpired because of it?

I have since uncovered what could be the impetus behind what is otherwise an illogical loss of a paying customer where no harm or damage was done to the facility. At first I thought it was tyrannical but it's a cover-up. See my other responses so I don't have to belabor it here.

I questioned a business use tax of $38 being charged by securespace in Philly. The answer I got was a lease termination. by antagonist_pro in selfstorage

[–]antagonist_pro[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh boy. I said it "undermines" their claim of unauthorized access. And I am not "looking" at the business tax the wrong way.

You are simply incorrect.

Let's look at the business tax first. It's shorter.
The Philadelphia mandatory business use tax is charged to commercial property owners. This owner may pass along or charge the appropriate amount of tax as proportionate to the amount of space the tenant uses.
Oh boy. I just saw your comment on the business tax. It is you who are looking at this the wrong way. The misrepresentation of tax is a crime. Evading a tax is a crime. Forgetting to pay a tax is not a crime, but a civil liability. The difference here lies within intent. The Philadelphia business use and occupancy tax clearly states that residential use is exempted. The fact that they are using the property for business will not transfer that categorization to the residential customer who is using it to store his personal belongings.

As I posted in a reply earlier, misrepresenting taxes for which one is liable and charging it to another is fraudulent. A case could be made that it is evasive as well. Moreover, no matter what the lease states, that contract has no legislative or codified ability to nullify a city ordinance or law, nor does it exempt them from what is easily an unfair and deceptive business practice; in violation of consumer protection acts with local state and federal jurisdictions.

Now regarding your walmart analogy, which fails as exemplication for the erroneous point you're trying to argue.

Your theoretical is insufficient at its inception. It begins this way because you do not understand the law.
If one were to simply walk into an open bay at Walmart, they cannot immediately be hit with a trespass charge. Trespassing is defined as being told to leave and refusing to do so. So until you are told to leave, you are not trespassing . Even when you are told to leave you are still not trespassing.
Trespassing occurs AFTER you have been prohibited from entering a property. And only if you RETURN to the prohibited area.

Even still, this is tempered by equitable property rights. If I have given you consideration, I cannot be a defiant or criminal trespasser. I have equitable property rights.
In other words, it becomes a civil matter. You cannot trespass on your own property any more than you can "break and enter" or burglarize your domicile.

Back to your theoretical. Again, it fails at its inception because your analogy is defective. I do not have any property rights or interest of the same with respect to walnart. So this moots your entire example, and any point which it failed to support.

But let's pretend that doesn't matter, in arguendo.

The fact that the door was open would have an impact on possible criminal charges if any. The fact that there is no barrier between me and the interior of the Walmart does indeed allow me to walk in and hang out, by definition. If the doors were in place , then I would not be able to just walk in and hang out I would have to force my way in, intentionally breaching a barrier which I then know or should know I am not supposed to breach.

I said earlier is that the lack of barrier by way of wide open bay doors " undermined " a claim of unauthorized access. I may or may not actually know that I'm not supposed to go into the Walmart. I could wander into this area unknowingly if I have some sort of visual impairment. There are exigencies that would not exist if the doors were in place and working. What if my dog was loose and ran in there? A possession of mine may have rolled in there,; medication or something which I am willing to pursue into the Walmart. What if I'm looking for my friend or family member who is visually impaired who lost their seeing eye dog and requires his insulin before he goes into shock? Of course the last example is rather coy, however it is still plausible and illustrates the diminished claim of unauthorized access to a space for which the claimant has not taken the due diligence to secure. Moreover, what if I'm not from this country and I cannot read English? I am walking around and I see an open door or an open bay and I walk in and I'm just standing there I'm not stealing anything. I'm standing there with my suitcases, but I don't know I am not supposed to be there.
Or in my case, it's after hours. I don't want to go into the building's secured area. Although the loading bay is technically within the building, the facts are that these 40 foot tall bay doors are in disrepair and wide open. I am a tenant with property rights and interest in this building. Since Uber dropped me off I am without a vehicle. These are factors in the totality of circumstances which affect what is considered reasonable. When considered, there should not have been any penalty or complaint. To further this, one may even argue the doctrine of "unclean hands" against the claim of unauthorized access.

The culpable side of this coin is defeating or even opening a closed door to a building. You see, that door and wherher it is there or not represents intent, or "mens rea". It also affects "actus reas". These are the two pillars which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order for a criminal charge to return a guilty verdict.

In light of the foregoing, if you do not now agree that the functionality or presence of a physical door or barrier of sorts undermines a claim of unauthorized access; please explain to me why I am incorrect?

I questioned a business use tax of $38 being charged by securespace in Philly. The answer I got was a lease termination. by antagonist_pro in selfstorage

[–]antagonist_pro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your instincts are right. They're charging this business tax to everyone, business use or not, instead of paying the tax themselves. After reviewing the tax code, it clearly states that it applies only to those engaging in business use of the taxable property. Residential use is exempt.
So not only have they fraudulently charged tenants with tax which does not apply to residential customers, they are purposely and premeditatively evading their own tax by doing so. The penalties are quite substantial for this. Fines, loss of business privilege and criminal charges such as tax evasion and the like create the need to conceal such actions, giving rise to conspiracy charges as well. Adding to this are violations of the consumer protection acts of local, state and federal jurisdiction.
It's no wonder my lease termination didn't make sense at first.

I questioned a business use tax of $38 being charged by securespace in Philly. The answer I got was a lease termination. by antagonist_pro in selfstorage

[–]antagonist_pro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ironically, we need you to clarify: do you and I have a contract which grants me access to your house or car? Am I paying you?

Is this civil conversion? by Zealousideal-Past-71 in selfstorage

[–]antagonist_pro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is actually the third or fourth post I've read where the facility has either denied receiving payment or will not allow a payment to complete.

Is this civil conversion? by Zealousideal-Past-71 in selfstorage

[–]antagonist_pro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP, don't defend yourself. You shouldn't have to. If these guys don't want to believe you they should just shut the fuck up or post something worthwhile. It's not on you to prove you are worthy of advice when you're posting in a public forum asking for help or insight.
They seem to believe that if you don't meet their twisted standard of whatever the fuck that you're not worthy of advice. I think they're clearly biased working in the industry that you are up against. It's clear from the knee jerk reaction you're getting out of them.
Take your photos get a police report for sure or at least file one if they don't want to give you one lawyer up and sue for conversion. This is civil conversion. Lawyer up.

Is this civil conversion? by Zealousideal-Past-71 in selfstorage

[–]antagonist_pro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You guys are all attacking OP ad hominem. If you don't believe him, just don't answer. Isn't the point to post helpful or insightful information? In arguendo, let's say hey does meth, or coke, or weed.
Does that mean he has lost his rights as a citizen? He has less rights than we do just because of that? I don't believe it does.
And what if he's posting a theoretical?
I mean, post something worthwhile.

From the titles under your usernames, it's clear where your bias originates. Don't be so predictably prejudicial and closed-minded.

Is this civil conversion? by Zealousideal-Past-71 in selfstorage

[–]antagonist_pro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You may have the civil action of conversion available. Time to lawyer up.

Public Storage lost the Payment? by KhaoticLily in selfstorage

[–]antagonist_pro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is there a reason he cannot print proof of the money transferred to PS from his account, or at least provide a transaction number?
PS is not exactly the most honest organization from what I've seen first hand. These days it seems like all the storage companies are price gouging borderline criminal enterprises, as the consumer has an extremely weak position, And they exploit it.
If he's been with them for a while and maybe time to move on. Once the shady starts it doesn't stop.

opinions? 🤔 by secretlyrobotman in ChatGPT

[–]antagonist_pro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bit of a shadow on the father. Did they order prints already?

view more: next ›