Legal question.

charge me for unleashed animal when the animal was not mine. Adding insult, they convicted me in absentia without giving me a chance to defend myself and fined me. Then they failed to notify of this action and told me the matter had been dismissed. Then sued me charging many times more than the original fine because I did not pay the fine, which I did not know about because they told me the matter had been dismissed.

by av . Feb 18, 2009

I don't know if you live in a smaller town, but it sounds like you do. I've had my own issues with my local government and to me, it all boils down to who you know. If you don't know anyone connected with that local government, you're an outsider and you will lose. Even if you're right. Been there.

Why did you go recover the dog yourself? Why not tell your tenant to call the police and report a stolen dog, and let them deal with getting the dog returned?

Deliberate deprivation of civil rights? That's pretty much a stretch, and no decent attorney would dream of presenting such a thing in court for what you described. Of course, there are plenty of attorneys who might lend a sympathetic ear to your case - and milk you out of hundreds of dollars in legal fees in the process.

Under the heading of [i]pick your fights carefully[/i], this sure doesn't sound like one of them.

Pay the $25 and call it a day.

At least that's my opinion.

by jdclyde Feb 16, 2009

$25 is not one of them. Right on Max, make it go away.

it's the principle, not the $25.

It's not a principle once you put a 'not worth fighting over' tag on it.

by rob mekel Feb 17, 2009

This is the way to get the money out of you ... every day just a small amount ... say $25 ... from lets say about 100,000,000 citizens ... woohoo $ 2.5 bilj
Talking about Battles worth fighting for :)

Or does the principle do count!

[i] Oh man ... [b]2.5 Bilj a day[/b] ... what economic crisis :^0 ... let the fun begin
(free to the roman saying let the games begin ... mmm or were it the greek at the olympics)[/i]

[i]edited for the italic add[/i]

replying to Boxy.

The paperwork given to me with the summons and affidavit provide the data prima fascia that a hearing was held in absentia nine days before the hearing was scheduled. The summons clearly indicates that the matter was heard on 10/15/2008 and is signed by the court clerk and a notary and the summons for original hearing shows that the date for the hearing was to be held was 10/24/2008. How much more does a person need to prove deliberate deprivation of civil rights.

I do not look for trouble, but I will not run from it either and I am a fighter.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=301798&messageID=3016339

.....chooses his fights very carefully.

There's a saying for those of us who love the game of golf. Don't follow a bad shot with a stupid one. Take the penalty stroke and move on. (Meaning don't try to slice a shot out of deep rough and around a tree. Just lay-up to the fairway and take the bogie.)

You made a REALLY bad shot when you poked your nose into someone else's business. Perhaps you should consider yourself lucky that you got off with only a $25 fine. It could have been much worse. Just take the bogie and move on.

There's the biggie. Proving intent.

The possibility does exist that sheer ignorance is at fault. The brightest bulbs on the planet ain't working in government. IMO.

What more do I need than the court documents. The Documents show that I was scheduled on 10 Oct. 2008 for a hearing on 10/24/2008 at 9:15 AM but that the actual hearing was held on 10/15/2008 five days after scheduling and nine days before it was scheduled. This indicates an absentia hearing where I was not given an opportunity to defend myself.

At this point, I think the proof is self evident.

There is a lot more than what I presented. The physical altercation was one that I beat up three people who refused to relinquish the animal who asserted the dog was theirs. Since I bought the animal as a gift for the tenant, well...

The reason for the altercation was two-fold, because they had been taking property from my yard and they had been told on several occasions to find another place to live; my properties parking lot was not an acceptable living arrangement for them. I also had the written permission of the owner of the property next door to have them, or to remove them from his properties. The homeless were harassing my customers as well. The police refused to do their job and run the tramps off.

The tenant was subleasing the house where my office was from me, I kept a room for sleeping on those all to frequent all-nighters, kept a room for my office, kept shower rights, and leased the remaining three rooms (two bedrooms and the living room) to her for about half the going rental rate in exchange for cleaning services.

The day following the homeless escalated the issue which resulted in four more getting beat up. They called the cops when they lost the fight. The result of that was that three of them went to jail. The next day, two stepped into my parking lot and challenged me. When I undid the block under the back gate and stepped out, the only thing I saw was @ssholes and elbows as they ran. The next day, another had the courage to stand up and fight. When their champion lost in less than five seconds, they called the police again. When the police came, I answered the door with a sword in hand and a shotgun sitting next to the door. After the normal BS, I told the police that if the problem was not taken under control there would be bodies. My tenant was hysterical by this time. Four more went to jail.

The next day, I went out with a machete and cleared the saplings and brush that they used for cover. The police were again called. They suggested that I use something less intimidating than a machete to clear the saplings and brush. I innocently replied that I did not have a chain saw or weed eater. Then I showed them the written permission from Andy, who owned the apartments next to me and shared a common boundary. The police called Andy who supported me. As a result the police knocked on the door of each of Andy's apartments and notified the tenants that homeless were not allowed on the property at any time and that anyone providing aid to them would be cause them to be evicted and that any homeless found on the property would be jailed.

That is a condensed version of the facts.

by santeewelding Feb 16, 2009

I picked up on your initial vague reference to the event from which this ensues.

You appear to have prevailed legally, morally, and practically (three considerations of exigent force).

You must be young, strong, and trained. Or old, trained, and treacherous. Which brings me to my question:

Who were you before you returned here as DHCDBD?

"You appear to have prevailed legally, morally, and practically (three considerations of exigent force).

You must be young, strong, and trained. Or old, trained, and treacherous. Which brings me to my question:"

In my 50's, Highly trained in combat, highly skilled in combat. Been in just about every hell hole you can name since Viet Nam. Who am I? Sometimes I don't even know.

by santeewelding Feb 16, 2009

I constructed that carefully enough, I thought, to refer you to your previous moniker. As to your existential perplexity, I suggest you stop wasting your time with, "who".

I answered your question in a polite way that stated that I will not expose who I am, and if discovered will neither confirm nor deny.

As to the existential aspect of "Who am I," I gave up on that long ago. What am I, I gave that one up as well. I am what I am.

.....you've seen too many war movies.

(I've learned that people who really did experience the [i]hell holes[/i] never talk about them.)

It's $25, dude! Pay it and move on.

to think what you may.

I'm reminded of the time I was issued a parking ticket for blocking my own driveway. I was absolutely livid. The mail-in fine was $20, and I strongly considered fighting it because of the [i]principle[/i] of the thing.

I called the courthouse and complained, but I didn't even get a sympathetic ear from the clerk. She did inform me, however, that the law - as written - makes no exceptions. I could have gone to the initial hearing and pleaded not guilty, but that would have only postponed the issue, and a trial would have been scheduled for a later date. Oh great, I thought. I take 2-4 hours off work to go to the hearing, and then another 2-4 for the subsequent trial (or more), all for the [i]principle[/i] of the thing - and I would have probably lost anyway.

This would have cost me many hundreds of dollars in lost wages for the [i]principle[/i] of saving twenty bucks. Well, being the poker player I am, I considered what's called [i]pot odds[/i] before making a bet. As such, I'm simply not going to bet many hundreds dollars for what is, at best, a slim chance to win twenty. In this case, the principle of reason trumped the principle of fighting an unjust parking ticket.

There's a bigger - and more important - principle, however, that we could focus on instead, and that's working towards a goal of limiting the overall scope and size of government. People have been asking for bigger and bigger government for decades, and we're only getting what the majority of people have asked for. They've been turning to the government to solve every little problem they face, every little issue that arises, and now they complain about the monster they've created. As such, I'm reminded of yet another [i]principle[/i]: Be careful what you ask for; you just might get it.

Besides, in my opinion, the guy who started the discussion acted in an extremely reckless manner by [i]forcefully[/i] taking a dog that wasn't even his in the first place. He should have either done nothing or called the police - no more. In my further opinion (and I run the risk of insulting him), he should be fined ten times that amount for stupidity. Any reasonable person just doesn't confront a homeless person and forcefully take a dog that isn't even his!

Pay the $25 and consider yourself lucky that you weren't arrested and tossed in jail!

I strongly support your right to hold your position, but I equally strongly disagree with your position of "Bend over, grab your ankles, expose it, and smile."

I agree with your position in reducing the size and scope of government; but add the caveat that there are somethings the government can do better than an individual.

One thing that I was taught and had drilled in is that there is a time to take decisive unilateral action.

I place this event in the same category as those American cities that have been caught shortening the yellow light time to increase revenue because they poorly planned the budget in the first place. Don't reach into my pocket on a pretext and take money from me.

.....[i]"Bend over, grab your ankles, expose it, and smile."[/i]

I said that you acted in a reckless and stupid manner for doing what you did. Learn the lesson and move on. And consider yourself lucky. You REALLY COULD HAVE been arrested and thrown in jail for [i]forcefully[/i] taking a dog from a homeles person - a dog that wasn't even yours.

Here's the real question: What in the hell were you thinking?

by rob mekel Feb 17, 2009

If you start the fight consider putting in a claim of regaining all your costs including the loss of income because of the time y'll have to spend.
So if you are in the right ... you can claim all your losses :)

Meanwhile you're right about the way to handle in the first place ... it's never a good idea of using force as private person to regain possession of what is stolen from you or somebody else. It's a cops-job to do so.
As we say in dutch [i]trancelated for you[/i] "Shoemaker stay with your boot-tree"
meaning: mind your own business.

[i]edited for some typo's[/i]

by maxwell edison Feb 17, 2009

Isn't that what OJ Simpson did recently in Las Vegas? What did it get him? Fifteen years in prison?

by santeewelding Feb 16, 2009

Paraphrasing "You should just pay the fine and move on." That is the same thing, just using different semantics.

What was I thinking?
The police refused to move the individuals who were causing problems, told me "file in court." I as well as my tenant had told the homeless to stop enticing the dog to dig under the fence by teasing it with food, to stop harassing my customers who used the rear parking lot, etc. Myself and everyone in the neighborhood were tired of the homeless creating problems resulting in police calls where nothing was done - people being beat, drugs, alcohol, etc.. I was tired of replacing fences slats that they would rip from the fence to use as firewood.

I decided unilaterally that the problems would stop after spending months with the neighbors attempting to unite them.

As to the possibility of being jailed or getting hurt. Everything has a consequence.

If the individuals would not have caused problems for everyone, no one would have begrudged them staying.

Now, you know what the best part was. The Saturday after I concluded the issue, I walked out to my car to go to a meeting. All the neighbors were out on the street socializing rather than huddling behind locked doors and peeking out the windows. I received no thanks, and asked for none and no one ever mentioned the matter.

It was your tenant's problem, not yours. You acted in a reckless and stupid manner - period. You brought it all on yourself, and now your crying about twenty-five bucks.

With all due respect (or perhaps it's not due), you need a clue.

Since you asked, I said what I think. Otherwise, I would have said nothing. Take it for what it's worth - and in your mind, that's probably nothing, since you're hell-bent on pursuing the [i]principle[/i] of the thing. The real [i]principle[/i], however, is that you initially acted irrationally, and in a stupid and reckless manner, and you don't want to reap that which you have sewn.

Good luck to you. Since I'm the only one (so far) to question your actions, I think I've said all that I can - or will.

That goes without saying.

Who among us would, [i]forcefully take a dog from a homeless person[/i] - a dog that didn't even belong to you? If you found yourself in such a circumstance, you have options. Which option would you take?

Who out there would consider forcefully stopping a burglar in your home or business?

Who out there would consider forcefully stopping an armed robbery, if they had the means to.

Who out there would consider forcefully stopping a rape, if they saw it occurring and had the wherewithal to stop it.

Who out there would consider forcefully stopping a gang beating on an 80 year old woman so that they could take her social security check.

Each of these events has some real possibility of harming you. So it comes down to: who has the guts to stand up for what is right.

by the maverick phantom wanderer (formerly macoza, nodice, kp, etc.) Feb 17, 2009

That alone is almost comical!

[b]HEADLINE: Homeless woman steals a dog. Caring Landlord forcefully retrieves the canine.[/b]

Oh my - what a Purina moment!

A dog and a homeless woman - and you treat it like it's a friggin' war!

Who would have simply called the police and reported a stolen dog? The answer is almost everyone.

(Shaking my head in disbelief.)

Rephrase all you want, dude. It still does not compute. Enough said.

Spin it however you want, dude. But like I said before, you are in dire need of a clue.

Wait a minute, This is a joke, right? Do you really expect people to believe what you said. You're really pulling everyone's leg, right?

Have fun laughing at everyone, but I'm not buying it.

P.S. to the TR regulars. Who is this guy? He's been a member for 30 days and you're defending his [i]cause[/i] like he was a brother. Give me a break.

if I the property/ possessions/ pets/ (whatever) of someone I knew in the hands of someone else who didn't obtain the property/ possessions/ pets/ (whatever) by legal means, and doing the "right" thing- notifying the proper authorities and otherwise staying out of it- was of no help, I would have attempted to correct the situation on my own, regardless of the consequences to myself.

This may make me a fool in the eyes of many, but at least I will consider myself a just fool.

As for the rest of the matter (concerning the hearing and anything that follows), I would pay the $25, but then would actively work to ensure (within the law and the scope of human reason and dignity) that those responsible for this travesty are soon removed from a position where they are able to cause such travesties again.

by jdclyde Feb 16, 2009

I have learned the hard way over the last few years that the laws are NOT in place to protect us, the citizen, but to control us, the citizen.

If you don't have a high priced lawyer, forget it, they won't even kiss you before they screw you.

Cut your losses.

There is more to the issue than I have presented. I am not going to present the collateral issues at this time.

Attorney's are costly, and will shaft you. This is why I have complete a paralegal course.

Let it be said that the collateral issues are why this is going to be fought.

by jdclyde Feb 17, 2009

My statement was based upon information presented, combined with my personal experiences over the last few years.

Good luck.

My opinion is that you are sadly mistaken. Each of the events above, excluding the home/business burglary would be none of the individuals business. Each has some element of serious risk or death. Each is a citizen action taken to correct or mitigate some wrong.

I forget the names of the gang or town in the old west. I believe it was the James Gang in Youngtown. The citizens became tired of the injustice heaped on themselves by the gangs and when the gang attempted to rob the local bank, the citizens shot the gang to doll rags.

If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.

Community doesn't extend to dogs and homeless people, nor are you obligated to participate productively.
(/sarcasm)

edit - remove carets insert parentheses

stated nor implied that anyone had to participate productively in society. I did imply that a substantial part of the reason we are in our current situation is that we choose not to participate.

As to whether dogs or homeless are Community, it depends on the persons perspective.

I have this discussion with my 79 year old uncle about every other week. He is a retired educator from the California War Zone, err school districts. He believes in discipline far more heavily than I. In order to better ourselves, we need to stand for the rights and privileges of all, not a select few that the police or society determine are more deserving of protection. Where wrong is committed, I often choose to look a little further into it. Being unfavored or disenfranchised does not automatically confer the right to harass annoy or violate others.

If I misread your post, I apologize.

by tonythetiger Feb 17, 2009

Just so long as you realize that by doing so, you are probably cutting into some government employee's job security, and they will sometimes attempt to block your path to productivity.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=301798&messageID=3016393

But logic and reason made me see this for what it really is - a joke, a scam, pure nonsense.

Who is it that continually changes his alias to jack around with people around here?

I submit to you - my esteemed TR peers - that he has, yet again, reared his ugly head.

when you are positioned against an opposing example.

To give you a more direct answer to a previous question, one that you can understand: I was involved because 1) I was asked by the tenant to intervene, 2) It was my property that was affected - even if I only maintained an office there, and 3) I felt it was the correct thing to do!

.....where is that link? Oh my, I can't find [i]the link[/i]. You know, [i]the link[/i].

Oh well,. I suddenly have better things to do.

Hence the (/sarcasm), which loses its impact without carets. But at the moment anything between carets doesn't display as it's taken as a HTML tag, I guess.

Perhaps I should have used the word positively in place of productively, but positive participation is productive participation...

I think we do have an obligation to community. It ain't, without us. How we act in relation to our neighbors shapes it. I'm partial to friendly community where members have the backs of other members (including the homeless), and their dogs.

If I misled, I apologize.

Been building a guitar for over a year. I have had many ask me why I am building a guitar when I already have eight, cannot play worth a damn, and can buy a decent one for $800 or less.

Well, the answer is that I choose to and it will be something "I built."

Enjoy.

Where exactly is Perdition, Utah, the place DHCDBD claims to be from? The place where those Animal Control officers issued a citation for a dog he did not own? A place where a homeless woman actually stole the dog?

Yea, right!

It was fun talking about it, but at this point, color me skeptical.

Did you also notice that there is no profile on me. Perdition is a better answer than I give most. Usually it amounts to "None of your business." Where I live is on a need to know basis. The community here on TR or any other forum I frequent has no need to know.

Now less politely. You are being excessively nosy and rude.

in one of the IRS's megalopolises. Just got a PETAfied clerk probably.

Contacted over 30 attorneys. They were to sissified to go after government. The two effective civil rights attorneys in the area have been bought off by receiving large consulting fee's from the city and state.

Did my research, found six foursquare on point cases decided by the Federal and State Supreme Courts and typed out a motion for Summary Judgment. Something, I'm sure, that the clerks don't run into at this level often. The cases date from 1898 to 2003. They probably do not know that regardless of whether no motions will be heard before trial in a Justice (Kangaroo) Court, they still only have ten days to file a written response and that the failure to file a written response is considered an admission to the facts and points raised.

by av . Feb 18, 2009

If attorneys won't go for it, forget it. Some will go for carrion if they think theres something to gain.

Or to that level of jurisdiction competent to entertain your Quixoticism?

The rules of Justice Court Procedure state: Pleadings do not need to answered, they are deemed denied. They also state: no motions will be heard before trial. The rules of Civil Procedure (22a) state that failure to answer a motion for Summary judgment is deemed and admission of all issues raised.

Because these are glorified clerks my money is placed on them not knowing that they must file a written response to a motion for summary judgment and instead rely on the pleading rules of "No response is required" (to the initial complaint). Because this is the city and these types of cases are handled by the least experienced of the prosecutors, I think they will also overlook that issue as well. Time will tell here.

Why I called the attorneys sissified is because 3/4 of them told me that they will not take cases involving government.

This state can be very stubborn. There is an Indian reservation south and west of where I now live that the state has been trying for years (about 20) to steal and incorporate. This issue has been to SCOTUS nine times. Finally the Court held in their holding that they would hear no more about the issue. The State lost all nine times. In another issue, the "Cable Indecency Act," the state lost five times in SCOTUS before the court held that the state was being frivolous.

The state regulates the mouth pieces well. In most cases, if the attorney does not toe the line, they find their Bar license revoked. When the attorney is cagey enough to prevent this, as in Brian Barnard, the state buys him off with consulting fee's. In Barnard's case $5,000,000 /year.

I have had to fight the state before alone. Current score: state 2, me four. I simply prefer an attorney when possible. The majority of the issues that are worth fighting generally have to be fought pro se until an attorney sees that there is a possibility of winning, at which point they are no longer needed or wanted.

Can't poke fun at meself??? Wha kinda forum es thes?

Oops, wrong place belongs under Boxy's post one over.

You appear to have the time and youthful yen for fresh, on-the-ground learning.

Meantime, I am assured you are not by sign of your moniker, and by sign of now adequate grammatical sequalia, that you are not who I had respected in other venues. Beware the meaning of "respect". It can mean also the act of ramming into a lamp post without looking.

>"Beware the meaning of "respect". It can mean also the act of ramming into a lamp post without looking."

Then, the Chinese ideogram for "Opportunity" also means "Great Danger."

See what you mean by "Grammar," I am writing on the fly, without review before posting, and only editing to clarify an idea. Besides, my education was in Engineering and Computer Science; everyone knows they can't spell or construct a sentence.

Obscure Chinese characters having something to do with, "to lead".

Try engineering that of one's self, and the self of all that is; who leads, who follows; what "who" means.

We may then speak.

Godspeed.

[i]Besides, my education was in Engineering and Computer Science; everyone knows they can't spell or construct a sentence. [/i]

;)

For McDonnell-Douglas, then Boeing. He was a stickler for all sorts of things, not least of which was spelling and grammar. He was my favorite uncle, our families spent a lot of time together when I was younger.

etu

Do what thou wilt is the law. Love is the law, Love under will.

What is will? Is it that which each person desires or something else? Is it that which, we as individuals, desire for ourselves or is it that which guides our inner being for the greater good and which guides us.

Besides, just what is the sound of one hand clapping? Is it the same sound that a tree falling in the forest makes when no one is around? Maybe the egg did come before the chicken or even the chicken before the egg.

"Correct" Grammar, depending on usage and verbiage and meaning.

I have often found that the engineer who is a stickler for grammar is the administrative engineer, rather than the 'get er done' problem solver.

When I write for a point, then I use correct grammar - most of the time. I still miss stuff until I proof read it several times.

That which makes action of decision.
IMO

etu

Bet you that Santee gets it.

the wine and the fire. My brain has gone languid.

beer, and cigarettes should help solve the questions beyond the literal meaning of the words themselves, or the factual issues of the forest.