Why Proof/Facts/Evidence Is Not Always True

[KazDog]

post 149would be quite telling in the thinking and decision with any fair minded and impartial jurors and judge.

I read post 149 and it didn't say much of anything. What said everything to me is in post #1.

You stated....I signed a contract that said, "No pets allowed because they may do damage to other people's property."

A judge can see that as, "No pets allowed means no pets allowed."

or

"Well, because it's in your condo at all times and it's not harming other people's property, I will let you keep it there."

Again, no clear cut answer....It's a judgment call. And statue of limitations doesn't work on a signed contract. Their rules can be enforced at any time.

KAZ

[KazDog]

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.

You can try and argue here say and well, she did this and they did that. Bottom line is this.....If a judge wants, he/she is going to say, "did you or did you not sign a contract that stated, 'NO PETS ALLOWED?'"

You really don't much about the system if you think a judge is going to sit there and try and decipher through all the here say and who did what. Most of the time, and not all of the time, they go by the letter of the law. And in this country, a signed contract is legally binding. You knowingly signed a contract that stated no pets allowed. As I said, you'd have one loophole in your favor because the wording after that is vague....

IT'S A JUDGMENT CALL. You'd have to hope he/she saw it in your favor. To think the other side doesn't have a legitimate argument or that your side of the story is totally right, is completely naive. But hey, argue your ass off.....

End of story.

KAZ

[vols fan]

To be perfectly fair about this matter, I will say this and perhaps it is because I am older and wiser:

Unless your 137 years old Savage,Spark is older and wiser

Sorry Spark

[flarendep1]

[QUOTE=savage1;1671528]

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.

Go rest your brain, geniuses and intellectual's like you need it. Meantime try and read a book on common sense.

[Spark]

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

I agree ....

[savage1]

Unless your 137 years old Savage,Spark is older and wiser

Sorry Spark

I may not be wiser than Spark but I am older based on what I read in other threads-any other brilliant statements today?

[savage1]

[QUOTE=flarendep1;1671538]

[/I][/B]






Go rest your brain, geniuses and intellectual's like you need it. Meantime try and read a book on common sense.

I am actually surprised you were able to find time from your all consuming gambling day to respond to this thread.
ps It is now time to mow the lawn and then take my wife to the ****-see you all later.

[jcindaville]

I see Tweedle Dee's tag team partner(referring to KB Sooner), Tweedle Dum, has one again surfaced to enlighten his with his brillance and profound statements.

[jcindaville]

Savages smuggness makes me laugh, you guys are cracking me up

[wayne1218]

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.

Yes, i know what it is and i'm sorry but you are wrong on this one. I've seen it go to court more than once and it was ruled on in a matter of minutes ... IN FAVOR OF THE ASSOCIATION!