Why Proof/Facts/Evidence Is Not Always True

[BettorsChat]

The 4 year thing doesn't matter monte. People in my condo tried doing and saying the same thing. The association fought them and guess what, they lost because of the paper they signed and the cat that they currently owned.

I believe that it does matter. If an Association or board knows that someone has an animal and they don't do anything about it the clock starts ticking from that day to whatever the Statutes of Limitations is for his or her State. If you went before a Judge and you said yes I did sign the papers, however your Honor the association/board knew about my cat 4 years ago as I went before the board. The Judge would want to know why the hell didn't they make the person get rid of the cat before now. And one could argue that the contract is null and void because of the Statutes of Limitations among other things.

[savage1]

I believe that it does matter. If an Association or board knows that someone has an animal and they don't do anything about it the clock starts ticking from that day to whatever the Statutes of Limitations is for his or her State. If you went before a Judge and you said yes I did sign the papers, however your Honor the association/board knew about my cat 4 years ago as I went before the board. The Judge would want to know why the hell didn't they make the person get rid of the cat before now. And one could argue that the contract is null and void because of the Statutes of Limitations among other things.

I think what might have happened is this:
As I stated I firmly believe the Association knew about my cat right along;I didn't hide it and it regularly sat in he window in plain view.
In all honesty when I first moved in during 1983, I used to jog and around the premises and never saw nor heard any dogs barking nor did I see any cats outside ever(I may have seen a few other cats in the windows-honestly that was 26 years ago and I don't remember).
As stated before, they came after me in October of 1987 after some complaints that there were dogs on the premises which had done some damage.
My guess is that the Association contacted their lawyer after the incident, who in turn told them to send the offending dog owners letters to get rid of them as well as anyone else in the Condo of whom they had knowledge owned a pet(including me) or be fined or face even possible further action.
Thus the judge and jury would have to consider the fact that the Association didn't appear to give a damn about my indoor cat UNTIL at precisely moment an OUTDOOR dog did some damage.
Although we will never know for sure had the Association chosen to bring me to court, I feel that there is a good chance that the notice sent to me at that particular time was more than coincidental, and that because of this, quite possibly the court might rule in my favor with some type of Statue of Limitations ruling.
If the lady with the two cats cooperated and brought in a document proving that they had allowed her to have two cats because she paid a couple of grand to the Association to keep them, the judge and jury would have also frowned at this, thus strengthening my case, the feeling been that the Association had not being consistent and had violated its own bylaws no matter when the lady moved in.
My own opinion is that if the dogs hadn't been discovered and done damage, the Association would have continued not to not bother me until/if a similar incident occurred with any dogs or outdoor cats for that matter.

[savage1]

Here is something, while which not contribuiting to who is right or wrong in this debate, is interesting:
As promised, I just called the Office of the Condominium in which I used to live before moving out in 1993 and spoke to the Office Manager.I explained that the reason that I called was because of the topic under discussion and gave him the basics of my case and asked him what the present policy on pets and specifically indoor cats is and when it changed if it did.
He told me that he has been the Office Manager for two years, and that the present policy is that no dogs are allowed, BUT that aindoor cats are allowed provided that someone pays a one time only $5 charge, signs some papers stating cat will always be kept indoors and providing proof annually that the cat has got all of its shots, etc.
I asked when the policy changed and/or whether there was some member of the Association who had been around a long time(since the 80's) and would know.
He stated there was one, and that he could have him contact me if I gave my phone numner, which I of course did.
I will update this later after I speak to him.
My conclusion is that while above does not directly mean I was correct in this matter, it sure as hell indicates to me that during sometime after I left, the Association saw the lunacy of what they were trying to enforce-hopefully my hearing had at least a little bit to do with their change of policy.
ps if anyone thinks I am making this up, I will be more than glad to list the phone number of the Office Manager here.

[BettorsChat]

Here is something, while which not contribuiting to who is right or wrong in this debate, is interesting:
As promised, I just called the Office of the Condominium in which I used to live before moving out in 1993 and spoke to the Office Manager.I explained that the reason that I called was because of the topic under discussion and gave him the basics of my case and asked him what the present policy on pets and specifically indoor cats is and when it changed if it did.
He told me that he has been the Office Manager for two years, and that the present policy is that no dogs are allowed, BUT that aindoor cats are allowed provided that someone pays a one time only $5 charge, signs some papers stating cat will always be kept indoors and providing proof annually that the cat has got all of its shots, etc.
I asked when the policy changed and/or whether there was some member of the Association who had been around a long time(since the 80's) and would know.
He stated there was one, and that he could have him contact me if I gave my phone numner, which I of course did.
I will update this later after I speak to him.
My conclusion is that while above does not directly mean I was correct in this matter, it sure as hell indicates to me that during sometime after I left, the Association saw the lunacy of what they were trying to enforce-hopefully my hearing had at least a little bit to do with their change of policy.
ps if anyone thinks I am making this up, I will be more than glad to list the phone number of the Office Manager here.

Did you ask him about the old bag that ran the thing back in 83?

[savage1]

Did you ask him about the old bag that ran the thing back in 83?

No-she is probably dead by now-she was in pretty bad shape back then, and as stated before, the office manager has only been around for two years and doesn't know much about her
If/when the older guy who has been living here from the Association since the 80's calls me, I will ask him.
Actually what I think happened is that once all of the units were sold, she gradually got fazed out, new folks took over the reins and the old bitch probably took her tyrannical act somewhere else. lol
Judging by their present and more reasonable attitude toward indoor cats, it seems the new Administration is better than the okld one(thats not saying much considering the gestapolike manner she and her flunkies tried to run things).

[kbsooner21]

You are a weirdo man.

[savage1]

You are a weirdo man.

Why-because I stand up for my rights, don't let others push me around, document and verify things when they need to be and do follow up work like today to see the present state of the issue which was at issue(the indoor cat) and perhaps gather more information?
My 34 years of doing investigative work is one of the reasons I think like I do.
If all of that makes me a weirdo, then I guess you and I have a different interpretation of the meaning of the word.

[kbsooner21]

Dude you think anyone besides the only guy here that is weirder than you really cares about your condo's pet policy?

I don't mind talking some things, but man, this is far out.

[savage1]

Dude you think anyone besides the only guy here that is weirder than you really cares about your condo's pet policy?

I don't mind talking some things, but man, this is far out.

Then if YOU feel that way, don't read it in the same way you would change channels on your tv if you are not interested in watching a certain game or tv show.

[wayne1218]

I believe that it does matter. If an Association or board knows that someone has an animal and they don't do anything about it the clock starts ticking from that day to whatever the Statutes of Limitations is for his or her State. If you went before a Judge and you said yes I did sign the papers, however your Honor the association/board knew about my cat 4 years ago as I went before the board. The Judge would want to know why the hell didn't they make the person get rid of the cat before now. And one could argue that the contract is null and void because of the Statutes of Limitations among other things.

How the hell did he prove they knew about the cat monte??????????

[wayne1218]

And one could argue that the contract is null and void because of the Statutes of Limitations among other things.

You are fucken just as whacked as he is monte. I lived in them for 10 fucken years and there was no statute of limitations on the association contract i signed. It isn't rape or murder, it says as long as you fucken live there, you go by the rules. I also told you that 2 others tried fighting them over a shitbag cat too and they lost, and moved out. This isn't fucken rape or rocket science here.

[wayne1218]

and the ONLY way a contract changes is if a new association takes over. They can write a new one and i was in a place where that did happen. Small pets WERE allowed and the new association took over and changed the policy to no pets. The people who already had them were grandfathered in at that point and could keep their pets. Once they died off, no replacement pets. This is not law, it is a personal policy set by the private association. There is no statute on them and they are simple, follow the rules or get the fuck out. I never knew of them losing one case when the policy was involved. Some they fought and others were considered a waste of time & money and not pursued. It really is that easy.

[wayne1218]

and i mentioned the 3 car thing early in this thread savage cuz it does fucken matter whether you want to believe it or not. We were each given 2 spaces with our Condo unit and a 3rd vehicle was not allowed. My girlfriend ended up moving in with us and i was approached about the 3rd car there every night parked off to the side of the numbered spaces. I told them that my girlfriend spent the night often. They never really bugged me again but if 2 years or 4 years later they came back to me and said she can't park there anymore, SHE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PARK THERE ANYMORE. I signed the contract and it's in the contract. What, would i say "She knew my GF was staying there?"

They don't give a shit, the policy is the policy and it can be enforced AT ANY TIME. I asked a lawyer about it too and that is exactly what i was told. It is a private contract by a private association.


savage, Your ignorance is amazing to me!!!

[savage1]

and i mentioned the 3 car thing early in this thread savage cuz it does fucken matter whether you want to believe it or not. We were each given 2 spaces with our Condo unit and a 3rd vehicle was not allowed. My girlfriend ended up moving in with us and i was approached about the 3rd car there every night parked off to the side of the numbered spaces. I told them that my girlfriend spent the night often. They never really bugged me again but if 2 years or 4 years later they came back to me and said she can't park there anymore, SHE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PARK THERE ANYMORE. I signed the contract and it's in the contract. What, would i say "She knew my GF was staying there?"

They don't give a shit, the policy is the policy and it can be enforced AT ANY TIME. I asked a lawyer about it too and that is exactly what i was told. It is a private contract by a private association.


savage, Your ignorance is amazing to me!!!

YOUR ignorance is what is amazing to ME.
You make sweeping generalizations such as the broad assumption that because you lived in a comdominium that everything that applied YOUR condominium when you resided there, applied to my SPECIFIC situation and the circumstances surrounding as carefully delineated in this thread.
Your comparison to an outdoor parking space to an indoor case, which was contained within the borders of my condominium OWNED by me is ludicrous and absurd.
For you to say that several persons in your condominium were not able to keep their indoor cats under the SPECIFIC conditions relevant to THEM has ZERO bearing on all of the conditions surrounding my case.
And now you insult Monte because says I may have a point about Statue of Limitations in MY case because they didn't act upon the cat issue for four years knowing full well I had one UNTIL the dog incident four years ,and from my point of view because they had allowed a lady who moved in after me with two indoor cats to BUY her way in, thus violating THEIR OWN bylaws;yeah I'm "sure" that would have no effect on the thinking of the judge and jury if the case ever went to court-yeah right!
perhaps before you refer to someone else as being ignorant in the future and by implication ,take a good hard look in the mirror, and next time consider ALL of the facts and NOT simply those which suit your argument.

[kbsooner21]

Any judge would laugh his ass off and tell you to get the fuck out of his courtroom savage.

Savage: I'm here to represent my cat with my lawyer

Judge: After picking himself off the floor from laughing so hard, savage, get the fuck of my courtroom. Then laughs some more and says, dumb old bastard needs less time on his hands.