Why Proof/Facts/Evidence Is Not Always True

[savage1]

What if the cat died and you just left it there rotting and stinking up the whole building? Are you just going to argue that it is your personal property and you are entitled to keep it?

What if you kept a young Cuban boy as a sex slave inside your place as personal property. You gonna tell the police it is your personal property, they can't touch it.

Arguing that a cat is personal property and not subject to a signed contract is idiotic, and no rational person can think that is a reasonable argument. If that was the case what would be the point of having any rules if you can just say it is your personal property to get around it?

You are using absurd circumstances about a dead cat and a slave boy-both those especially the second are against the law and cannot be compared to an indoor LIVING cat which NEVER last my dwelling, go on other's property and cause damage and in fact didn't even go on the common ground.
My attorney friend is a pretty damn good one in the State of Connecticut and well respected-it was his idea to use this line of arguing;think what you like.

[flarendep1]

Be careful when you use the words "simplistic mind," when you refer to me;I will put up my intelligence, thought processes and intelligence against anyone in this forum including you.
Without being present to the initial negotiations regarding my purchase of the house, what transpired over the four years durign which nothing was said or done about the cat, knowing the mindset of those who were in charge of the makign and enforcing rules and exactly what my attorney said(then personal property thing is the thing which probably subdued them), you my friend are not in a very good position to say anything.
ps How does the "buy in" for the other lady with the cats fit into your legality of things?

Savage, you are so intelligent that you don't see the forest through the trees. Does intelligence include common sense?

[WayneChung]

harold,have you been hanging out at my house,i do feed him well-LOL !!

[WayneChung]

GUYS IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE DEBATES WE HAVE ON THIS SITE-people from the real world would just shake their heads !!

[harold_bush]

harold,have you been hanging out at my house,i do feed him well-LOL !!

No, just spying through the window!

[savage1]

Wrong again savage. I lived in 2 different condo associations and both had no pet policies. Both also had residents with pets. Most overlook it or do not make a big deal about it until the pet either causes a problem or they receive complaints about it. Once that happens, the policy is listed so they can enforce it. Once they enforce it, that then opens the door for all other there that own pets. The reason why they left you alone was because you went fucken ballistic over a cat and acted like a lunatic. I'm sure at that point they probably agreed to just leave you and your fucken house cat alone. It certainly wasn't because they couldn't pursue it, it was because they chose not to. Plain & simple and you should have thanked them AGAIN for saving you more embarrassment. All they have to say about the other lady is that she was notified too and being dealt with. After that, the judge would have moved on and not given 2 shits about her. Keep reaching savage. You signed it and you broke the Association laws. It's right there in blue or black ink buddy. Can't do much about that. Next time use a pencil i guess!

I don't know where to start with thuis-you actually made my case stronger with this:
Most overlook it or do not make a big deal about it until the pet either causes a problem or they receive complaints about it.
Lets see now-what problem did my pet cause and to what?
And what would the complaint be-perhaps they saw a cat sitting in the window minding its own business?
You skirted the issues in your remaining comments and simply brushed the lady with two cats away or generalized because you couldn't come up with anything more substantial, that the Association backed down because I was a lunatic, etc.
Let me ask you this and change the circumstances a little because I want to understand how you think and what you consider important:
Lets say as before I moved in 1983 and brought the cat with me, and with nothing differerent re: the salesman and what I signed.
Now again fast forward to 1987 and the same thing happens-someone rats on me. I talk to the lady, my attorney and I go the hearing, etc.
Now lets assume that the Association doesn't back down and somehow this goes to some kind of a court.
Lets say in addition to all my evidence(the salesman, the 4 years durartion which went by before the acted upon it, the fact that they acted on it because some other dog did some damage at the same time they sent me the notice, the personal property, the other lady who had bought her way in foe her two cats without affording me the same opportunity, etc.) I have another piece of evidence-namely that the Condo Association knew about my cat when I moved in and /or shortly after I moved in and still did nothing for four years.
Do you think that the judge and jury would still rule in the Condo's favor or as many stated in the Ortiz thread put two and two together and rule in my favor since they had chosen to wait for four year before deciding to do anything.

[savage1]

Savage, you are so intelligent that you don't see the forest through the trees. Does intelligence include common sense?

Common sense does not equate with evidence in cases like this.

[savage1]

You are using absurd circumstances about a dead cat and a slave boy-both those especially the second are against the law and cannot be compared to an indoor LIVING cat which NEVER last my dwelling, go on other's property and cause damage and in fact didn't even go on the common ground.
My attorney friend is a pretty damn good one in the State of Connecticut and well respected-it was his idea to use this line of arguing;think what you like.

Line 4 should read "never left my dwelling."

[savage1]

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 !!

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!

[savage1]

Wayne-assuming you read post 66(or even if you didn't read it), I would like for you to respond to the question I posed.

[harold_bush]

Wayne-assuming you read post 66(or even if you didn't read it), I would like for you to respond to the question I posed.

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.

[kbsooner21]

Savage, your intelligence is that of a 6 month old.

[savage1]

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.

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.

[savage1]

Savage, your intelligence is that of a 6 month old.

Kbsooner-any time you would like to take an iq test and compare the results, let me know-I will even spot you 50 points to make it fairer.

[kbsooner21]

Kbsooner-any time you would like to take an iq test and compare the results, let me know-I will even spot you 50 points to make it fairer.

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