It's not moving goalposts. There was never a time where how much above asking price was a determination of whether or not it's fraud to accept a higher amount than asking price. So no goalposts to move.
So you change the argument to weather it is true or not?
This is probably the most asinine thing I've read this year. The argument is always about whether (not weather) or not claims being made are true. That's pretty important, unless you live off in LaLa land somewhere.
I was never arguing that the price was a factor on if it was a fraud or not. You were. I was simply suggesting that before you invested too much in that argument that you actually check to see if the numbers you're basing your opinion on were accurate. That was simply me offering you some advice on general debating skills (though this could not in the most fanciful of thoughts be considered a debate).
And again, I didn't claim that Stewart's house sale involved a bidding war. As I already explained, in very simple language, it was an example of how paying above listing price is common, and not fraud.
I'm trying to determine if you're being willfully obtuse, or if you're just not capable of understanding simple concepts.
Of course everybody knows it is legal to pay more for something. I told you in my first post we got 30 k more than our list price. And, our list price was more than the tax rolls. All, totally common. What is not at all common is paying almost 10 TIMES more than what the property is valued.
It's not moving goalposts. There was never a time where how much above asking price was a determination of whether or not it's fraud to accept a higher amount than asking price. So no goalposts to move.
This is probably the most asinine thing I've read this year. The argument is always about whether (not weather) or not claims being made are true. That's pretty important, unless you live off in LaLa land somewhere.
I was never arguing that the price was a factor on if it was a fraud or not. You were. I was simply suggesting that before you invested too much in that argument that you actually check to see if the numbers you're basing your opinion on were accurate. That was simply me offering you some advice on general debating skills (though this could not in the most fanciful of thoughts be considered a debate).
And again, I didn't claim that Stewart's house sale involved a bidding war. As I already explained, in very simple language, it was an example of how paying above listing price is common, and not fraud.
I'm trying to determine if you're being willfully obtuse, or if you're just not capable of understanding simple concepts.
Of course everybody knows it is legal to pay more for something. I told you in my first post we got 30 k more than our list price. And, our list price was more than the tax rolls. All, totally common. What is not at all common is paying almost 10 TIMES more than what the property is valued.
And again, just because something is not common does not automatically make it illegal.
This is a very simple concept. Do you really not understand it?
No matter how much you want it to be, it doesn't make it fraudulent or illegal.
You can say it's suspicious and want to have it looked into further for evidence of an actual crime.
But it's still not a fraud, no matter how much above asking price they get.
There are no laws on the books saying someone can only get X amount over asking price on real estate.
You need to find some evidence on an actual criminal act and use that in your argument instead of just making unsupported accusations.