Posted on 05/14/2002 5:05:40 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right and a desire to know." -- John AdamsWillful ignorance is destructive of those ends.
Thank you for your kind offer YAH, but if these are the same specialists who have been treating you, I think I'll take a pass.
Then allow me to fill you in: if you were to shoot me because I was sitting on MY deck, on MY property, you would spend many years in prison.
Weary? You didn't answer it once, except for spouting off some I-net muscle rubbish along the "there'd be hell to pay if someone invaded my privacy."Thinly veiled threat?
You have got to be kidding me. Sniffle, sniffle. For someone who talked as much trash as you did on this thread, I'm astounded at how quickly you run to mother's apron.
Please be specific about your criticism.
Not necessarily. In some developments, the obligation to maintain a common area is the developer's until a certain number of lots are sold, at which point, the homeowner's association takes over. Since the tax bills were still being sent to the developer (and the developer didn't pay) it is reasonable to assume the common area had not yet been transferred to the association. The article is not clear on why this was the case. In view of the fact that the lake was still "owned" by the developer who sold the homeowner's their homes, it seems unlikely to me that this was a case of the homeowner's attempting to get "something for nothing." Rather, it seems as though there was some basis for the owners to think they had some rights to the lake. It is just not clear from the article what those rights were.
Perhaps not, maybe careless and lazy would be a better term. When you make purchases, particularly large ones, you do your homework and find out all the particulars. Or you hire someone to do it.
Someone unscrupulous came along who invested $1000, with purpose of making $300,000 from it
I do that everyday. I trade stocks and I am always trying to buy things cheaply which other people think are expensive. Is there such a thing as "too much" profit on a transaction?
not by doing work, but by making life so uncomfortable for them that they'd pay it
He did the work to research the property and the availibility. Then he made the investment. He bought a lake. It was for sale. They didn't buy it. No one else bought it. It was for sale.
Taking it to a court of law, to see if there is legal remedy is not force
Legal remedy? Sure, if he did something wrong or they can show that they somehow have a legal claim to it, that would be fine. But if they get the government to take his property away because they have more political clout, it would be immoral. They would be thieves. And cowards to get the government to do it under the veil of legitimacy.
I do not believe the judge would rule on his side If the judge did, I would move
That is your opinion and moving is always an option.
Would you remain and pay this guy $30,000?
In the first place, $30000 is the asking price, the beginning of negotiations if you will. I might do it and I might not, it would depend on the value of the property to me.
Love TJ
If I owned one of the homes I would consider building a deck--perhaps 20 feet high--so I could look over his fence at my leisure. Or maybe I'd have soil brought in to make a ten-foot hill across the length of my backyard. Throw down some sod on it, put in a barbecue pit etc. If he erected a fence high enough to block my view at ten feet, I would then build a 20 foot observation deck on the ten-foot hill. At thirty feet, he would find his fence-building stratagem challeneged beyond its limit.
There's a lot I could do creatively with $30,000 short of surrendering to this jerk.
Yes dear... COUGH COUGH COUGH HACK SPIT COUGH LICK
You sure you still want it?
History's clear demonstration is that governments are necessary and that there has never been anything more closely approaching the libertarian ideal than the U.S. governments. Even with all their flaws and stupidities.
Since you haven't figured it out I suppose I must inform you that in many of the cases of Scumbag vs. Senile Ole Coot that the taxing authorities facilitated (accomplices to theft if you will) it is other government agents who step in and rescind the theft. Public Guardians are often called upon to prevent such injustices here in Chicago and thwart the vile intentions of scavenging scumbags.
Initially jurisdiction was claimed over all "navigable" waters but Wetlands regulation was imposed over waters which were clearly not navigable but the enviro-whackos had the law changed to eliminate navigable. I was squawking over a decade ago about the illegal abuse of the Rivers, and Harbors Act of 1889 (?) which had been stretched to give cover to wetlands regulation.
Better write to the Republican congressmen and senators about your government run amok. I can't remember which President signed it, but it's a good chance it was also a Republican. Go figure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.