Why Proof/Facts/Evidence Is Not Always True

[savage1]

Can we get this thread locked? Really mods nothing good has come out of it.Were all hardheaded but MY GOD Savage might be the most hard headed/his way or the highway fucker I have ever talked to here.

Do you want to "lock" it with a regular padlock or be safe with a combination luck?
Perhaps we should get a security guard to "guard" some of the "brilliant" statements made by you or KB during this discussion.

[vols fan]

Do you want to "lock" it with a regular padlock or be safe with a combination luck?
Perhaps we should get a security guard to "guard" some of the "brilliant" statements made by you or KB during this discussion.

We don't need a lock.Your reputation is doing a good enough job by itself.Your other thread "What would you prefer to do" has 1 response Keep up the good work Savage

[savage1]

We don't need a lock.Your reputation is doing a good enough job by itself.Your other thread "What would you prefer to do" has 1 response Keep up the good work Savage

Perhaps everyone is worn out over the cat thread and now wants to return to their more nomal and in some cases entire existence, namely deciding on which teams to gamble and then watching every pitch, inning, play, etc. of every game they can find which they have bet on hopefully for the entire day.

[mavskidd02]

Settle down guys, it's a thread about a cat....

[Spark]

I still can't believe you thought you were mistreated. You should have thanked them for letting you break the rules for 7 years and keeping a cat.

As far as mental anguish goes? The judge would save you some after he ruled against you by getting the shitbox out of the house!

Savage, All you would have to do is take a copy of this thread to court ... I am sure the judge would rule in your favor for being "Mental" ... for the life of me I can not see your argument ...

Many many moons ago(1972) I moved into an apartment ... I do understand yours was not an apartment but I signed a contract(lease) as well as you did ... I was subletting it ... I was with the people that were subletting and the property manager ... The contract clearly said NO PETS ... I stopped right there and told them we had a dog and no way I was going to give him up ... at that time the couple who was subletting said that is no problem ... there are pets in this building right now ... I looked at the property manager and he said yes, that is true ... so I signed the contract and moved in ... well 2 years after we moved in there was a knock on my door ...never forget it ... I was told either to get rid of my dog or get out ... I was then handed a copy of my lease where they circled the part no-pets ... they were cracking down on pets because of damage to some of their apartments ...

Now, I should tell them because I was getting away with it for 2 years I should continue to get away with it??? if your kid has been stealing cookies out of the cookie jar for years and you catch him ...should he be allowed to continue stealing those cookies because he was doing it for years???

Makes no sense ...

I had to make a decision ... either get rid of my dog(That would never happen) or move ... I would never think of fighting it because someone "SAID" it was ok to have pets even though I signed "NO PETS" ... I was out of there within a month ...

so like I said, I just do not get your argument ...

[BettorsChat]

Monte, It is a private association with their OWN rules. What don't you get about that?

And no shit they knew once he was in front of them talking about the fucken fleabag. At the time, when they 1st found out, they could have applied the rules if they chose to. Who gives a shit about 20 years later. All along we have stated that "AT THE TIME" the association could have EASILY won the case. Where the hell do statute of limitations apply there? `

You don't know what Statutes of Limitations are? Once he went before the Condo board they had a certain amount of time to do something which is probably either 2 or 3 years. After that 2 or 3 years Savage and his Lawyer could argue Statues of Limitations. It's the Law. No private Organization is above the Law unless you're a Indian Reservation which makes it's own Laws.

[BettorsChat]

To most of us our car is more important than a fucking cat.That cat don't get you to work everyday

Can I be the judge.I vote for Wayne and KB being right

Not to me as I would get a new car as I can't replace my pets.

[savage1]

Spark-I understand your point, but again in all due respect I think that there is a huge difference in subletting an apartment, owned by SOMEONE ELSE and owning your own condominium.
One difference is naturally that if there was damage which occured within the confines of the apartment and any damage over and above any security deposit and/or sue the tenant, it could get costly and take a lot of time.
Obviously if the dogs got outside and did damage to the property of others, things could get even worse.
In my case, I owned the unit and the cat was of the indoor variety and NEVER went outside, meaning that if any damage was done within the unity and I wanted to sell the unit, it would be my problem and not that of a condominium to either fix the damage or let the would be buyer decide on what the impact would be for the selling price.
At this point whether one accepts the premise or not that the salesman's implicit nod of being allowed to have the cat or not as opposed to signing the contract would be of no value in court is not really that important when taken within the entire context of my argument.
I don't know if you have read all of the give and take beteen me and the other members, but if you have not, post 149 summarizes all of the chief reasons why we are not simply dealing here about a simple signed contract.
We are talking about a situation which occurred four years later after I purchased the unity (trying to tell me to get rid of my cat or fine me BECAUSE and only because because some dogs had done some damage to the properties of others); also, and as stated and as argued by my attorney, the cat was never seen outside, never bothered the cat should be considered as part of my personal property and off limits to their rules;this is even more true especially in consideration of the fact that they were aware of the cat for a long time(it was in the window every day and no secret) and hadn't acted upon their rights until now because some entirely unrelated incident(the dogs) had occurred. I would think that my point and Monte's could be reason for some kind of Statue of Limitations thinking on the part of the court.
When you couple this argument with the indisputable fact that I saw two other indoor cats in the dwelling of another lady, who moved in after me and upon questioning, told me that as stated in post 149 and in other posts contained within this thread that she had been allowed to "buy her way in" by putting down a couple of grand as a deposit(I don't remember the exact amount), (meaning that the Association had made an exception for her withour affording the same opportunity to me and most importantlly violating its own no pets policy), imo any rational and fair judge and jury would frown on this and it would weigh heavily in my favor.
In all due respect, your simple cookie jar analogy does not apply here because in that case you are simply talking about parental/child discipline and what is deemed right by the paren ts in relation to what the child is permitted to do and not do.
The case which I presented is far more complex than that and not simply a case of a kid disobeying his parent and being caught at it at a future date.
Anyways, we will obviously never know what would have happened;I and my attorney felt our case was sound.
After my attorney and I walked out of the hearing, the Association chose NOT to carry out their threats of a fine as they had done with others who had failed to comply with their notices about violations dealing with things outside of the units(not closing detached garage doors, not securing trash bags, etc.) and the never sent my any fine notices again and/or ordered me to get rid of my cat, and I stayed there another six years when I got married and decided I wanted to buy an house.
In essence and although there have been some in this thread who dispute my terminology, I clearly came out the winner in this;no one will ever convince me that the case that my attorney and I presented in that hearing didn''t weigh on the decision to simply drop any furrther proceedings against me.
Hope that helps.

[savage1]

To be perfectly fair about this matter, I will say this and perhaps it is because I am older and wiser:
If I was going to buy a condo today in a complex which had just been developed, I would act differently, meaning that I would not assume that simply because the salesman gave me an implicit nod it was ok to have an indoor cat, it was ok to have one-I would demand that he either get it in writing from the developer or I would go to the developer myself and get it before I signed the contract.
Lets go back though to the terms under which I actually bought the condominium back then and signed the contract- if the people in charge came to me a month or very short time after I moved in and stated that they had knowledge I had a cat and I either had to get rid of it or be fined, my case would be obviously much weaker if I chose to fight them and probably would not have won in court, simply because the developers had felt I had breeched the contract for something which they deemed to be important.
However, as we all know that wasn't the case, and under the circumstances which unfolded leading up to the hearing FOUR YEARS LATER, I think my case was solid, and it also very importantly would have proved and/or indicated to the court that the nod given by the salesman that it was in fact ok to have the cat-otherwise they would have done something a lot sooner;it would be obvious to someone examining the facts and using logic that they came after me ONLY after an exterior and unrelated event( dogs doing damage to someone's property)had promoted them to do so.

[flarendep1]

Savage please go to a town hall meeting on health care and ask a 100 page question about a 1000 page bill. That would teach these Senators a lesson.

[KazDog]

You don't know what Statutes of Limitations are? Once he went before the Condo board they had a certain amount of time to do something which is probably either 2 or 3 years. After that 2 or 3 years Savage and his Lawyer could argue Statues of Limitations. It's the Law. No private Organization is above the Law unless you're a Indian Reservation which makes it's own Laws.

Statue of limitations would probably not hold simply because he signed a contract and I would think they can enforce that at anytime, even if he got away with it for years.

Bottom line, it would come down to the wording in that contract. It sounds like the wording was vague. Since the wording is vague it would come down to a Judge's decision or juries decision.

I can see both sides with a legitimate argument so it would come down to a judgment call. That's what they do everyday, they make judgments and we live with their decisions. It's why we have a judicial system. Of course there is an appeals process. I really don't see a clear cut answer...

KAZ

[savage1]

Savage please go to a town hall meeting on health care and ask a 100 page question about a 1000 page bill. That would teach these Senators a lesson.

It is increasingly obvious to me that there are some on this forum who don't care about intellectually challenging topics, who care ONLY about thinking about what teams they are going to bet on for that day, eating of course,spending their entire existence watching the games and then either getting excited if they won or worrying about how they will get their money back(the latter which occurs a lot more often than not in most cases) lol).
Then the next day the same things occurs-Can you say Ground Hog Day.

[savage1]

[QUOTE=KazDog;1671514]Statue of limitations would probably not hold simply because he signed a contract and I would think they can enforce that at anytime, even if he got away with it for years.

Bottom line, it would come down to the wording in that contract. It sounds like the wording was vague. Since the wording is vague it would come down to a Judge's decision or juries decision.

I can see both sides with a legitimate argument so it would come down to a judgment call. That's what they do everyday, they make judgments and we live with their decisions. It's why we have a judicial system. Of course there is an appeals process. I really don't see a clear cut answer...

I agree with some of what say but feel that the circumnstances summarized in my last few posts and post 149would be quite telling in the thinking and decision with any fair minded and impartial jurors and judge.

[KazDog]

Statue of limitations would probably not hold simply because he signed a contract and I would think they can enforce that at anytime, even if he got away with it for years.

Bottom line, it would come down to the wording in that contract. It sounds like the wording was vague. Since the wording is vague it would come down to a Judge's decision or juries decision.

I can see both sides with a legitimate argument so it would come down to a judgment call. That's what they do everyday, they make judgments and we live with their decisions. It's why we have a judicial system. Of course there is an appeals process. I really don't see a clear cut answer...

I agree with some of what say but feel that the circumnstances summarized in my last few posts and post 149would be quite telling in the thinking and decision with any fair minded and impartial jurors and judge.

I agree with some of what say but feel that the circumnstances summarized in my last few posts and post 149would be quite telling in the thinking and decision with any fair minded and impartial jurors and judge.

What's fair doesn't always work out. Like I said, and I think I'm pretty impartial and I can see where they would have a legitimate argument. Based solely on the fact that you signed a contract that stated PETS WERE NOT ALLOWED. Those words are VERY clear and I can see a judgment going against you. I would pound those words out to a judge if I was on the opposing side. Your one loophole and argument in your favor is that it stated damage to other people's property.

In my opinion, it would come down to a judgment call. No clear decision here. You'd have to hope the judge sees it in your favor.

Forget all the other crap about how long you had it and salesman said this, blah, blah, blah. That's all here say....The judge is going to look at what's written in that contract that you signed, and his decision may largely be based on that. That's just my opinion.

KAZ

[savage1]

[QUOTE=KazDog;1671524]

What's fair doesn't always work out. Like I said, and I think I'm pretty impartial and I can see where they would have a legitimate argument. Based solely on the fact that you signed a contract that stated PETS WERE NOT ALLOWED. Those words are VERY clear and I can see a judgment going against you. I would pound those words out to a judge if I was on the opposing side. Your one loophole and argument in your favor is that it stated damage to other people's property.

In my opinion, it would come down to a judgment call. No clear decision here. You'd have to hope the judge sees it in your favor.

Forget all the other crap about how long you had it and salesman said this, blah, blah, blah. That's all here say....The judge is going to look at what's written in that contract that you signed, and his decision may largely be based on that. That's just my opinion.

KAZ

In all due respect, imo the most telling things in my favor would be that action was brought against me AFTER four years of indifference ONLY because of the fact that a dog had done damage to someone else's property and just as importantly, because during the interim those in charge had made an exception for the woman with the two cats by letting her buy her way in violation of their own bylaws without affording me the same opportunity at the same time and including at the time of the appeal.
If you don't think those are of any relevance ,and the signed contract is the ONLY thing the judge and jury would consider under ALL of the circumstances, then lets just say we are are the opposite ends of the spectrum on this one.
ps I am now going to go outside take in some nice warm sunshine for a while, read and perhaps mow the line and won't be able to respond to anything you or anyone else say for a while.