Why Proof/Facts/Evidence Is Not Always True

[savage1]

Your dull, focused on irrelevant sox bs, old rickety mind is no match for my young quick witted brilliant lump between my ears.

Yeah so brilliant that you didn't/couldn't respond to not even ONE of my previous posts when you tried to confront/argue me with your "brilliant" one line posts.
Your mind has the depth and intelligence as a shallow puddle of piss.

[BettorsChat]

savage i had rental property for 25 years,i had a no pet policy but everybody broke it,i finally just started charging a big non-refundable pet deposit up front,have no clue if that was legal or not,anyway condos and apts are two different ballgames !! the main thing with rentors was to make sure you didnt get maniacs that would terrorize your property-good referals are a must in that game,but in 25 years i went to court one time over a bad check,back in the old days if they didnt pay we would move their stuff out on the street-THEY WOULD OWN YOUR ASS IF YOU TRIED THAT UNDER THE MODERN LAWS,BUT LIKE I SAID CONDOS AND APTS-2 DIFFERENT BALLGAMES-I THINK YOU HANDLED YOUR ORDEAL WITH DIGNITY AND CLASS-ANYWAY THATS MY 2 CENTS !!

Chung these days they can not pay you and it takes 6 months to get them out which is

[BettorsChat]

Savage, again I don't want to be insulting, but it is clear you have no working knowledge of contracts or how the law works.

1. the conversation you allegedly w/ the salesman isn't proof of anything. You likely couldn't even locate the salesman if this went to court, and even if you did he would have no recollection of the conversation...guaranteed. Besides, the conversation makes you look as bad as the salesman b/c it was clear you both knew right from wrong and just ignored it.

2. The 4 years duration thing is also irrelevant. The condo association doesn't lose its ability to enforce the contract b/c they let weeks, months, years go by w/out enforcing it.

3. It doesn't matter that your cat didn't bother anyone. The rules are the rules and you signed a contract agreeing to no pets.

4. You don't have enough details on the other cat lady's agreement, so it really isn't worth talking about. The association could have been having a hard time selling units and might have changed the policy to allow cats if a large enough pet deposit was put down. The lady could have been lying to you. There just isn't enough information to really discuss this situation and each contract stands on its own. If this lady signed the agreement you did she would also be out of luck if the issue was pressed.

5. YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT AGREEING TO NO PETS....END OF STORY IN COURT. You can argue all you want but the bottom line is YOU VIOLATED THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT....YOU LOSE. You can cry about all the conversations you had, and that this lady had this, and that guy had that, but in the end that doesn't hold any weight against a SIGNED CONTRACT.

How is the 4 year thing irrelevant? If they knew he had a cat and X amount of years went by then the Statutes of Limitations could be argued on Savages behalf.

The bottom line is the Condo board didn't want to hire an Attorney and fight Savage. They probably didn't have or want to spend the monies fighting him so in the end Savage did win.

[BettorsChat]

What you said is very true and especially the part about the difference betweem a condo which is OWNED by someone and an apartment, which is rented property.
My God if a strictly harmless indoor cat is not permitted and not considered off limits in a condo OWNED by ME, then what next should the Condo Association be allowed to do if i ever moved back-tell me what time I must turn off the lights, get up in the morning, turn off my tv,tell me at what times I can have sex with my wife, what I can eat and not eat and on and on.
I would love to know what the rules are in general now regarding indoor cats in condos-are fols allowed to have them, etc.
I have owned a house since 1993 and haven't followed the matter.
I may just go back to the old condo(it is only a few miles away), go to the office and find out the current policy on pets and especially indoor cats-like the proverbial cat, I am curious at this point.
ps I will also ask when the policy changed (that is if they allow indoor cats now) and why they changed the policy.
Stay tuned!

Go back and let us know what the new laws are or if there is any. Do you think they will even remember you?

[savage1]

Go back and let us know what the new laws are or if there is any. Do you think they will even remember you?

I will go back in the next week at the latest and report back.
It is immaterial if they remember me or not(I doubt they will remember me or the incidentt-I moved out of there 16 years ago, and the incident took place in 1987-22 years ago-lots of changes in personnel).
The key issue is if/when they changed the rules regarding pets and especially indoor cats, why they changed it if they did and what the current rules are regarding this matter.

[savage1]

How is the 4 year thing irrelevant? If they knew he had a cat and X amount of years went by then the Statutes of Limitations could be argued on Savages behalf.

The bottom line is the Condo board didn't want to hire an Attorney and fight Savage. They probably didn't have or want to spend the monies fighting him so in the end Savage did win.

And yet Harold Bush claimed like I was like a little kid because I claimed I won.
The last I heard, in this country at the end of a court case there is a winner and a loser.
It is the same here.
No there was no court to render an actual verdict.
However, my attorney and I presented good evidence re: why the Condo Association acted inappropriately in trying to getme to get rid of my cat and the fine being the penalty if I did not comply.
To say that they chose not to pursue it further because I wasn't worth their while is a rationalization and/or a copout.
Those people were vindictive and went out of their way to hassle and intimidate folks;most of the people were scared them,; when a few went to hearings about matters involving them, they got destroyed and humiliated because the folks running them had already made up their minds.
In this case, if they thought they could have won and got their way and fined me if I refused to get rid of the cat , they would have, trust me.
This was a clearcut victory for the way justice is supposed to exist in this country!

[kbsooner21]

Yeah so brilliant that you didn't/couldn't respond to not even ONE of my previous posts when you tried to confront/argue me with your "brilliant" one line posts.
Your mind has the depth and intelligence as a shallow puddle of piss.

I wake up in the morning and piss excellence

[kbsooner21]

Savage owning a cat speaks volumes in itself

[kbsooner21]

Savage talking about cat court on a GAMBLING board speaks volumes in itself

[harold_bush]

Harold I don't want to be insulting either, but I think you aren't even close on this one.

First of all the four years does count for something;you don't know how a judge or jury would regard the fact that the Association did nothing for four years while aware of the cat and under the circumstances I presented-don't know the rules regarding Statue of Limitations on the matter involving and INDOOR cat;you know most judges and jurors aren't robots-they are human beings and imo would look at the situation in the context in which it happened and NOT just a signed or signed agreement-you poo poo this like like it is nothing.

The cat didn't bother anyone-I revert back to what my lawyer argued-the cat was never seen outside of my dwelling, there were never any complaints and it was never on the common grounds and as my attorney argued so well, she was thus considered part of my personal property inside my personal OWNED and NOT rented dwelling and thus was off limits to them;add that to the fact that the Association ordered me to get rid of it at the PRECISE time that some dogs did some damage after doig nothing for four years would imo weigh very heavily on normal rational thinking human beings who hopefully would comprise the jury and judge- I am NOT talking about robots.

Regarding the lady with the cats, I saw the cats in her window and that is why I questioned her about them
We will never know the veracity of her statements because before I was able to question the The members of the Association at the "hearing," my attorney and I stormed out of there when things got nasty.
Lets just say that if the matter ever did go to court and the lady provided some kind of a signed contract showing she was able to buy her way in with the cats, while I who had been living there lone before her had never been afforded the same opportunity and especially at the time when they ordered me to get rid of the cat, it would weigh heavily on any fairminded judge/juror/human being.
Your assumption that the Condo may have had difficulty selling units was the reason that they allowed the lady to "buy her way in" is faulty in that at the time I checked the rules, at the time I received my notice about the cat , there was something akin to the fact that pets are not, period-nothing was said about exceptions and buying one's way;THEY WERE BREAKING THEIR OWN BYLAWS!!!!
I would have loved to have questioned them about this but since as stated before, we left the hearing before I could have done this; they left me alone subsequently, meaning at that point, I actually really didn't give a shit.
You can say what you want about not wanting to bother with me because of the big fuss I made-I think they may have even consulted their own attorney after the "hearing" and was told to leave it alone when all which my attorney and I stated was presented to them-the bottom line is they didn't pursue it.
You can rationalize it anyway you want to including your roofing analogy-the circumstances are QUITE different here.
They had nothing to rebut what I had said and I was left alone afterwards for six years WITH the cat until I moved out.
That is all that matters to me.

maybe I missed the part showing you have proof that the association was aware you had a cat.

[harold_bush]

How is the 4 year thing irrelevant? If they knew he had a cat and X amount of years went by then the Statutes of Limitations could be argued on Savages behalf.

The bottom line is the Condo board didn't want to hire an Attorney and fight Savage. They probably didn't have or want to spend the monies fighting him so in the end Savage did win.

Obviously Savage won, he got to keep the cat, but we aren't debating who won, we are debating whether or not he was right, so winning vs. being right are two totally different arguments.

Again, I'm not aware of any proof that Savage has proving the Association knew about it his cat. I'm guessing that would say they didn't know he had a cat until it was brought to their attention.

[savage1]

maybe I missed the part showing you have proof that the association was aware you had a cat.

Ok-fine and understood. I think if I had that(remember it was a supposition), it might change the odds dramatically in my favor.

[savage1]

Obviously Savage won, he got to keep the cat, but we aren't debating who won, we are debating whether or not he was right, so winning vs. being right are two totally different arguments.

Again, I'm not aware of any proof that Savage has proving the Association knew about it his cat. I'm guessing that would say they didn't know he had a cat until it was brought to their attention.

My main contention with your argument is that I don't believe like you that an indoor cat which remained in my home 100% of the time for four years with nothing said or done by the Association, and considering the circumstances and factors I presented, would be subject to the same rules(simply a signed contract)/considered in a court of law in the same way after four years as would a regular signed business contract, where the circumstances would be far different(sorry for the runon sentence).
As I stated before, judges and jurors are human beings also and not just robots, and under the circumstances cited might also give a good deal of weight to some of the intangibles and not just a signed contract in making their ruling. jmho

[savage1]

Savage talking about cat court on a GAMBLING board speaks volumes in itself

Speaks volumes perhaps to a person who can't or doesn't want to think and can't see the issue is a lot bigger than a cat.

[kbsooner21]

Your old condos are weak for not confiscating your cat and sending it to the nearest Chinese buffet.