subject:
Re: A New Paradigm for the Governance of Common Interest Developments
 (was:  Re: Should We Continue Privatizing Local Government? (was: Re:
 CID's  Are  Here To Stay

text:
HOACIDSUCK wrote:

No, this is a link to "Community First!" One of the articles featured in
"Community First!" is "Reflections on a New Paradigm for the Governance
of Common-Interest Communities," by Evan McKenzie. I think it is
excellent, albeit a little too academic for my tastes.

Putting community first would be a change of the generally accepted
perspective of those that currently rule HOAs. Right now, IMO, HOAs put
community last.

Here is one of my favorite excerpts from his article:

<< As I see it, the key common assumption underlying both new urbanism
and the CID new paradigm is this: a housing development is, first and
foremost, a place where a group of people will live in close proximity
to each other for a long time. During that time they will form social
relationships (not just formal, legal relationships). These
relationships are a large part of what people want when they buy a house
in the first place.
This may seem obvious, but it isn't accepted yet by banks, federal
mortgage insurers and the secondary market, mortgage companies,
architects and planners, developers, lawyers and property managers. Many
of them still seem to behave as though these developments were
collections of precious inanimate objects--houses, streets, swimming
pools, yards--that unfortunately require the presence of human beings to
purchase and take care of these monuments to the designer's and
builder's arts. From this perspective, all the things people do in
forming and conducting relationships are excess baggage except insofar
as they involve servicing the property. So, assessment and rule
enforcement are very important. Spontaneous, informal social activity is
not. We have regimes that mandate the 'important' activities, prohibit
many others that are 'threats' to property values, and do little or
nothing to promote a healthy, happy neighborhood.
In short, for the past quarter century, common interest housing has been
driven and shaped by the interaction of three powerful forces:
commodification of housing, privatization of local government services
and functions, and trends in the American consumer culture. The new
paradigm proposes that the next phase should be driven by the effort to
build working communities. >>

That's right. That's where the quote was from.

"Paradigm change" can be described can be described as change that is
"an example that serves as pattern or model." It can be considered
change to "the generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline
at a given time."
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=paradigm

"Incremental change" can be described as change that is "a slight, often
barely perceptible augmentation."
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=incremental

George Staropoli has accused the AZ legislature of "incrementalism"
(Social or political gradualism)
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=incrementalism

H.S.H.I.A. http://hshia.org/ called the AZ legislature's proposed
legislation
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/45leg/1r/bills/hb2098p.htm a
"waste". They sent the legislators toilet paper.

The CID industry uses incrementalism to its advantage:

<< In VA, associations have the power to fine and foreclose non
judicially for non payment of assessments AND fines...  but getting to
that point took a little time.  I suspect other states went through a
series of similar events to get to that point as well.

You see, the enabling legislation to empower associations to fine and
then to foreclose non judicially (for non payment of legitimate
assessments and illegitimate fines) were enacted incrementally, a few
goodies at a time, a few years apart.  First they had to get the power
to fine passed, ignoring a VA Supreme Court decision finding fines to be
a sovereign power which cannot be delegated and opining that fining by
associations violated both the US and VA Constitutions.

That took a couple of sessions but they got it through.  Then they came
back and got language passed calling  fines "assessments". Then they
came back, lobbied for TEETH so they could collect those fines without
having to go to a real court and explain to a real judge why Harry was a
bad boy and deserved to be punished.  That's when they were granted the
statutory authority to foreclose non judicially.

When one of our delegates was told, a couple of years ago, that
associations had the statutory power to adopt rules, allege a violation
by a member, levy fines and then foreclose, non judicially, for non
payment of those fines, she said, "No.  It can't possibly be. You are
mistaken!  We would never do that!"  She was horrified when another
attorney confirmed it.  You see, when these bills were presented they
looked like a piece from a jig saw puzzle and it wasn't till all the
pieces had been added that a picture began to emerge.

So as not to raise any eyebrows and tip their hand, the industry
lobbyists propose minor changes.. small enough in some cases not to be
noticed.. it might just be the addition or deletion of a word but every
year they come back and massage existing legislation some more till they
have what they want.
...
It has taken many years, many proposed bills, many legislators and many
governors all shuffling papers and signing bills to give associations
the powers they currently enjoy. >>...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hoanet/message/1829
<snip>


author: HOACIDSUCK

subject: Re: Limiting HOA Powers (was: Re: CID's Are Here To Stay

text:
"Rico" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

THE CONTRACT THEORY OF ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT:

    The homeowners and the association being created by the homeowners enter
into the following agreement:

    PURPOSE OF THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION:

    It shall be the purpose of this association to maintain the common areas
by using the combined buying power of the homeowners who are members to
retain gardeners and other tradesmen at the lowest possible prices while
providing the best possible service. The association shall have no other
powers.

DUES

Each homeowner member agrees that to accomplish this purpose, the member
must
timely pay his membership dues.  Such dues shall be set from time to time so
that the money collected shall be sufficient to meet the expenses of
maintenance.  A sum not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the total estimated
annual expenses may be collected by the board as a contingency fund for the
annual expenses for that year.  If the contingency fund remains unused, no
such extra money shall be collected in the following year.  The board shall
present a budget reflecting both actual expenses for the year and
anticipated
expenses for the following year, along with the amount of monthly dues
required to pay such expenses.  This budget shall be approved by a majority
of the homeowners before any such dues shall be collected.

MAJOR EXPENSES

Where major expenses are required (for example, major repairs to the
building
or buildings, termite control, roofing, and the like), the association shall
determine the time table for such repairs by using standardized tables for
like repairs and alert homeowners at least one year in advance of any such
repair that an assessment for those repairs will be made, and the expected
amount of the assessment.  The association shall not maintain reserves.

PAYMENT OF MAJOR ASSESSMENTS

Major assessments may be paid by the homeowners to the association in
monthly
installments over a period of time not to exceed one year. Failure to pay
such assessments may result in the association placing a lien for such
assessments on the property, however, such liens shall not take precedence
over any prior lien or mortgage, and such liens shall not be foreclosed upon
until the sale of the property or the death of the last surviving
titleholder.

    RESTRICTIONS ON ASSOCIATION POWERS

The homeowner's association shall not act in any capacity to restrict or
otherwise impact the use and enjoyment of the property by the individual
homeowners.   To that extent, the association shall not make rules, levy
fines for failure to adhere to such rules or conduct itself in such a manner
that any homeowner or group of homeowners is omitted from any decision
making
process undertaken by the association.  The association shall do only those
acts which are specified in this agreement and no others.

    TERM LIMITS

A member of the board of a homeowners association shall serve no more than
three consecutive terms on the board, regardless of position held.   Any
term
of office shall not exceed two years.  A period of two years shall pass
before a member may once again be elected to the board of the association.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

This paragraph is in the process of being researched/written.  It revolves
around Buyers/Sellers, and Boards with respect to property rights in voting
proxies and the day to day running of the HOA in a CID.  i.e., who's "say"
is
it?  The Buyer?  The Seller?  The Board?

    RECORD OF ACTIONS

    All actions of the board shall be recorded in minutes of the board.
Said
minutes shall be available to members upon demand.  Records shall be
maintained for a period of not less than seven years in a form that makes
them easily understood and available.  Such availability is limited to
normal
business hours.  The board members acknowledge and agree that the records
belong to each member and that the board is responsible for creating and
maintaining them.


author: Rico

subject: Re: Misinformation (was: Re: CID's Are Here To Stay

text:
Evermore wrote:

Can you waive your right to contract with others through a contract?


subject:
From Whence Come Your Rights? (was: Re: Misinformation (was: Re: CID's
 Are Here To Stay

text:
Evermore wrote:

The Constitution only puts on paper human rights every human being has,
unless their government has denied them that right.
http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/Rights/rights.html The same goes for Magna
Carta.

According to your theory that your rights come from a document, I submit
this to you:

Before the Constitution, according to your theory, the colonists had
rights based on what their government (essentially England) gave them.
Yet they wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends,
it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, ..."
...
"[The present King of Great Britain] has dissolved representative houses
repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights
of the people."
...
"We, therefore, ... solemnly publish and declare, that these united
colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that
they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all
political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and
ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states,
they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances,
establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which
independent states may of right do."
http://www.EagleRing.com/foundations/the4th.html

Apparently, some people believe it is "self-evident" that they have
"certain unalienable rights" beyond those that are given to them by a
piece of paper, or by a tyrannical government.
http://starman.com/HOA/statement1.htm

Ramona Ripston was the Executive Director of the American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, one of the largest
ACLU affiliates in the nation. She wrote, ï¿½The historical reality is
that the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
recognized that one of the most important objectives of any American
government would have to be limiting the ability of a majority to impose
tyranny on all.ï¿½ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/federalist/opinion-prop.html

Private Contract
http://starman.com/HOA/hoabill2.htm

The Contract Theory
http://www.mailgate.org/misc/misc.consumers.house.homeowner-assn/msg04877.html

Adhesion Contract
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=2325&bold=||||

You are oversimlifying things. Certain rights cannot be waived. Illegal
contracts are void. Both parties to a contract are supposed to be able
to enforce it, and if you think that all you are getting into when you
buy a home in a CID is into a contractual arrangement, then I must beg
to differ with you.
http://boardserver.mycomputer.com/read.html?collapse=1&uid=533212&u=houston1&id=322&loc=0&thread=322&f=1&u=houston1


author: Evermore

subject: Re: The Libertarian Argument (was: Re: Misinformation (was: Re: CID's Are Here To Stay

text:
Tilting at windmills.
"Rico" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section10
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amend
mentv


subject:
CID Industry Perpetrated and Perpetuated Illusion: Good For Sales (was:
 Re: Misinformation (was: Re: CID's Are Here To Stay

text:
"P.Flamingo" wrote:

<<  When I served on the Homeowner Association Task Force for the
Department of Real Estate ï¿½ and I was the only non-industry
representative on it ï¿½ I repeatedly pointed out that the CC&Rï¿½s of an
association should be provided to a potential purchaser at the beginning
of escrow, not a few seconds before closing. The Department of Real
Estate ï¿½ whose mandate is consumer protection ï¿½ refused to enact this
provision on the grounds "that it would hurt sales".  >>
http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/News/keyreports/kr_McMahonCIDs.html

Scores of thousands. http://www.callaw.com/stories/edt0228j.html
<snip>


subject: Re: Tax Discrimination (was: Re: CID's Are Here To Stay

text:
Thousands and thousands will use the government free for all, now I am sure
that I don't want YOUR reform.
"Rico" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Les Thompson in CA

subject: Re: More Laws or Less Laws? (was: Re: CID's Are Here To Stay

text:
In CA the Davis-Stirling CID Act, Corporation Codes as well as other statutes
mandate the terms and conditions in the construction of CC&Rs.  If the CC&Rs
conflict with those laws the laws take priority over any inconsistent CC&R
provisions.  Any provisions of the law would apply that are not in the CC&Rs.


subject: Re: A New Paradigm for the Governance of Common Interest Developments  (was:  Re: Should We Continue Privatizing Local Government? (was: Re:  CID's  Are  Here To Stay

text:
Nice analogy.

Limiting the board's scope of duty and authority to a common area
maintenance function would certainly relax tensions that scandalize many CID
homeowners and may fill the "social void" by removing other variables that
disrupt social interaction within our communities.

"Rico" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
https://www.caisecure.net/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=CAI&P
How


subject:
The Contract Theory of Association Management (was: Re: Limiting HOA
 Powers (was: Re: CID's Are Here To Stay

text:
HOACIDSUCK wrote:

Part II  --  Association Management without an Association:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hoanet/message/2526


subject:
Fight City Hall (was: Re: From Whence Come Your Rights? (was: Re:
 Misinformation (was: Re: CID's Are Here To Stay

text:
Rico wrote:

"The bedrock of our country is the Constitution, but underlying that is
the belief held by almost all those who wrote it, that humans were given
certain basic rights by GOD that no government had a right to
remove....ever. The problem, as they saw it, was that most governments
did take these rights, over and over and over, so the Founders would try
their best to protect and preserve these rights by writing a basic
constitution. When the question of delineating various rights arose,
some of the delegates actually did not feel it was necessary since they
were from God.

"But such individual rights get in the way of oppressive government,"...
http://www.syspac.com/~jpatton/carz/cityhall.htm


subject: Re: From Whence Come Your Rights? (was: Re: Misinformation (was: Re: CID's Are Here To Stay

text:
Whatever, you still only have rights the constitution gives you, and you can
waive those rights through a contract .

ws:[email]...
http://www.mailgate.org/misc/misc.consumers.house.homeowner-assn/msg04877.ht
ml
http://boardserver.mycomputer.com/read.html?collapse=1&uid=533212&u=houston1
&id=322&loc=0&thread=322&f=1&u=houston1
what
http://www.mailgate.org/misc/misc.consumers.house.homeowner-assn/msg04964.ht
private
http://www.mailgate.org/misc/misc.consumers.house.homeowner-assn/msg04877.ht
(in
demand
http://www.propertyrightstexas.com/PressRelease/California%20Pro%20CIA%20Jud
http://propertyrightstexas.com/PressRelease/Houston%20Realtors%207.10.htm
and
should
harshly. A
just
kowtowing
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=McMahon&num=25&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=1&s
all
not
than
applys
but
ABOUT
one
http://www.kiplinger.com/magazine/archives/2000/September/managing/hoa.htm


subject:
Thousands and Thousands (was: Re: Tax Discrimination (was: Re: CID's Are
 Here To Stay

text:
Evermore wrote:

"State official says criticism led to firing"
"[Testa] also said Ashworth was never given enough staff to handle
complaints from homeowners, which number 500 to 1,000 a month."
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2001/jan/12/511291322.html

<<  HOA stories produce flood of reader reaction

Ask Republic reporter Chris Fiscus what comes to mind when you mention
"homeowners association" and he winces. He knows he'll probably spend
the day after the story runs answering a ton of calls from readers with
their own stories on HOAs. As a reporter covering growth issues in the
Southeast Valley, Chris has written many stories on associations and the
controversies some trigger when their leaders apply covenants, codes and
restrictions too rigidly. With every story comes the same reaction:
scores of e-mails and voice mails demanding tighter controls on HOAs and
a request for more exposes by the paper. Monday brought the same
reaction after Chris' A1 story on a legislative panel's planned
recommendations to add more rationality to the activities of
out-of-control HOAs. "Of all the stuff I've covered," Chris said, "I
don't think anything matches this in terms of reader reaction"...
..."if you're in one run by people who are a little too overzealous,
they can make your life miserable." They also can make Chris' day long,
but if the tips are worth investigating, he'll follow up. - Paul
Maryniak; Bureau Chief; Southeast Valley: Reach the bureau chief at
(602) 444-7716 or [email].  >>

"Urbanetti works in the Nevada Real Estate Division's Ombudsman's
Office, which gets more than a thousand calls a day. They can help
resolve homeowner's disputes with their associations, ..."
http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=248568&nav=15MV

It's not my reform. I never proposed it, nor would I.

I think it's a good idea; it's just not my angle.

Homeowner associations are systemicly, inherently, and fundamentally
flawed, and I think we need to get people asking if we want to privatize
government. That which needs to be disclosed will never be disclosed and
potential homebuyers will never take the requisite time to learn and
understand about HOAs, nor should they be expected to. If HOAs were
drugs, the FDA would have pulled them from the market already. Oh, and
by the way, the FDA doesn't subscribe to your majority-minority thesis.

I don't know who wrote this passage, but he must be very smart:
;-)
<< Does it make sense to incrementally tweak statutes written by and
largely for the benefit of the industry to make them more
consumer-oriented, or should we instead be asking the legitimate public
policy question of whether we should continue down the road of
privatizing local government by continuing to enact more legislation on
top of an already sizable body of industry-authored statutes enacted not
necessarily to benefit voters and consumers, but to maintain and
preserve the future of the CID industry? As Evan McKenzie notes in
"Privatopia", "the rise of CID housing is a unique, ad hoc form of
privatization carrying with it significant social and policy
considerations that never have been adequately considered by government
or academics." >> http://propertyrightstexas.com/HTMLarticles\cai_1.htm

James Madison wrote, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative,
executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or
many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be
pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
http://www.mcs.net/~knautzr/fed/fed47.htm
http://www.jmu.edu/madison/quote.htm#Separation

For fifty million Americans, the United States has become that which it
was formed to get away from ï¿½ a tyranny.

But this time, itï¿½s worse. Itï¿½s on the home front.

ï¿½What is government itselfï¿½, asked James Madison, in The Federalist #
51, ï¿½but the greatest of reflections on human nature? If
men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to
govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would
be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men
over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the
government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to
control itself.ï¿½ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/federalist/paper51.html

So he argued, successfully, that ï¿½the structure of the government must
furnish the proper checks and balances between the different
departmentsï¿½, to ï¿½oblige it to control itself.ï¿½
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/federalist/paper51.html

Corporations http://www.calassoc-hoa.com/corporationsdefined.html have
no checks or balances. They are run by boards of dictators
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/1998/apr/15/507090836.html
ï¿½ I mean, directors ï¿½ that are the executive, legislative, and judicial
branches all rolled into one. As long as incorporated HOAs are
classified as ï¿½corporationsï¿½, they will have no checks or balances. As
long as our legislators fail to institute any form of government
oversight, something the Industry is adamantly opposed to, the boards of
directors will continue to be unaccountable. These ï¿½corporationsï¿½ arenï¿½t
causing problems as fictitious persons. It is the people on the BOARDS
that are. Not all boards, but enough to make it worth the time for those
legislators of ours ï¿½ that are not afraid of losing Homeowner Control
Industry campaign contributions http://www.caionline.org/govt/caipac.cfm
ï¿½ to do something about it.

ï¿½Since it is CAI's public policy to ... coerce, bribe.... statesï¿½,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAISLA/message/122 this may take some
work.

Keep your eye on your legislators.
http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/Contact/contact.html Donï¿½t let them sell you
out. Let them know how you feel. Let them know you are watching how they
vote, what they propose, what they refuse to propose, and who's giving
them money.

Reprimands, violation letters, reimbursement bills, inconsistent
enforcement of the governing documents (harassment), fraudulent fines,
the intentional infliction of emotional distress, liens, morally
insensitive http://propertyrightstexas.com/News/Ocala_Fl.htm
http://www.a-k.com/newsletterwinter99.html#article2 judicial
foreclosures, unconstitutional nonjudicial foreclosures
http://www.calassoc-hoa.com/menu/judicialforeclosure.htm , neighborhood
cleansing, the suspension of voting rights or usage of facilities or
services, rigged elections, and the revelations of the tip of the
embezzlement iceberg only fuel the spreading ground fire of discontent.

Remember, ï¿½it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an
irate, tireless minority, keen to set brush fires in peopleï¿½s minds...ï¿½
ï¿½ Samuel Adams, ï¿½Father of the American Revolutionï¿½
http://www.informamerica.com/They_Told_The_Truth.htm

And fifty million minds are a lot of minds.

The large and wellï¿½funded CID industry cares neither about
homeownerï¿½friendly communities ï¿½ nor about the longï¿½term viability of
the CID concept ï¿½ and considers HOA homeowner rights an impediment best
trampled upon, to smoothly do business, unfettered, and rake in the
dollars.

But ï¿½never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can
change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever does.ï¿½ ï¿½
Margaret Mead


text:
This disclaimer should do it.

The provisions of the Corporation and Civil codes are subordinate to all
provisions of the  maintenance agreement. Whenever a conflict exists the
terms of the maintenance agreement shall prevail.

"Les Thompson in CA" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
statutes
CC&Rs
CC&Rs.


subject:
Affecting the Provisions Found in CID Governing Documents (was: Re: More
 Laws or Less Laws? (was: Re: CID's Are Here To Stay

text:
Les Thompson in CA wrote:

Susan F. French wrote, in her "Scope of Study of Laws Affecting Common
Interest Developments," "the Subdivided Lands Act, Business &
Professions Code ï¿½ï¿½ 11000-11200, comes into play during the initial
stages of a CID and regulations issued pursuant to the Subdivided Lands
Act substantially affect the provisions found in CID governing
documents."
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=10001-11000&file=11000-11008
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=11001-12000&file=11010-11024
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=11001-12000&file=11200
"Pursuant to this provision, the DRE has adopted policies and published
a number of regulations covering provisions of the governing documents
with respect to financing, governance, and other aspects of the
operation of CIDs. The regulations appear at 10 Cal. Code of Regulations
ï¿½ï¿½ 2790 et seq."
ftp://clrc.ca.gov/pub/Study-H-RealProperty/H850-CommonInterestDevel/BKST-811-French-CID-Scope.pdf

Study up!
http://www.commerce.ca.gov/business/small/management/pub/license/sec72.html


subject:
Control: Association Control vs. Individual Rights (was: Re: The
 Contract Theory of Association Management (was: Re: Limiting HOA Powers
 (was: Re: CID's Are Here To Stay

text:
Rico wrote:

"It is important that boards keep in mind that their powers are limited
to the maintenance and management of the common areas, and not the lives
of those who reside in the community."
http://www.a-k.com/newsletterspring99.html#article1


subject: Re: Fight City Hall (was: Re: From Whence Come Your Rights? (was: Re: Misinformation (was: Re: CID's Are Here To Stay

text:
If you really knew what you were talking about you would know that the
Constitution is the original document plus the entire body of law handed
down by the Supreme Court. Again, you only have rights the Constitution
gives you. Please, don't reply, Just aim your debate at Lawrence Tribe, he
said it not me.
"Rico" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
http://www.mailgate.org/misc/misc.consumers.house.homeowner-assn/msg04877.ht
ml
http://boardserver.mycomputer.com/read.html?collapse=1&uid=533212&u=houston1
&id=322&loc=0&thread=322&f=1&u=houston1
what
of
thing.
associations."
http://www.mailgate.org/misc/misc.consumers.house.homeowner-assn/msg04964.ht
Less
were,
impose
private
http://www.mailgate.org/misc/misc.consumers.house.homeowner-assn/msg04877.ht
not
excursions.
the
your
ADR (in
demand
for
afford
http://www.propertyrightstexas.com/PressRelease/California%20Pro%20CIA%20Jud
WHICH
says
state,
http://propertyrightstexas.com/PressRelease/Houston%20Realtors%207.10.htm
and
withdrawal
often
should
harshly. A
just
kowtowing
the
themselves.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=McMahon&num=25&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=1&s
all
not
other than
in
with
applys
but
ABOUT
is
for one
statutes
more
public
on
not
government
to
http://www.kiplinger.com/magazine/archives/2000/September/managing/hoa.htm


text:
Do you really think that people  would KNOWINGLY waive their rights to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness???

Evermore wrote:


text:
Only if a statute states that to be the case.  Maybe you can get Nakano to
introduce it for you!  >VBG<


subject: Re: Affecting the Provisions Found in CID Governing Documents (was: Re: More  Laws or Less Laws? (was: Re: CID's Are Here To Stay

text:
You guys keep twisting it all around. The question is show me a legal
precedent that prohibits HOA's from adopting a maintenance contract to
govern them.

statutes

Where? What article and section?

The initial construction of the CC&R's define the how the developer and the
HOA transfers ownership, therefore you will find specific statutes that
regulate such transfers. Other types of codes effect CID's like, the vehicle
code, health and safety codes, revenue and tax codes but that doesn't mean
they are supposed to be included in the construction of CC&R's. Al it means
they must be observed when applicable. My CC&R's don't say the board must
abide by the standards of conduct included in the corp. code. A simple
disclaimer can effectively eliminate state statutes.

How so?

After the owners take control of the association the DRE exits the picture
along with their regulations. Maybe thats the reason so many HOA's rewrite
their CC&R's. With all that CC&R rewriting going on, surely there must be a
statute somewhere that specifies all the requirements.

Guys there is no law that directly enforces or limits an association of
homeowners from rewriting/replacing their CC&R's and adopting a contract
between the parties of a priviate mebership organization. If there was a
format/requirement to follow it would be published somewhere. No law can
infringe on an agreement between priviate parties.


subject: Re: Affecting the Provisions Found in CID Governing Documents (was: Re: More

text:
00&file=11000-11008
00&file=11010-11024
00&file=11200
811-French-CID-Scope.pdf

What you say is true BUT for PROPOSED CIDs!  Professor French is talking about
*PROPOSED* construction (initial stages of a CID) and the DRE policies and
regulations would not be applicable to an EXISTING CID which the conversation
is concerning.  For an *EXISTING* CID refer to the second paragraph above that
I wrote.
Your post appears to be telling me to study up but I think you are really
addressing the writer of the first paragraph aren't you?  You need to make your
posts clear as to who you are responding to and you should have stayed on the
subject of EXISTING CIDs rather than switching to PROPOSED CIDS.


text:
Les my man, that's the beauty of the maintenance contract. It is no more
than an agreement between the parties. Doesn't need introduced, doesn't need
legislated.
"Les Thompson in CA" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


subject:
Adopting a Maintenance Contract to Govern CIDs (was: Re: Affecting the
 Provisions Found in CID Governing Documents (was: Re: More  Laws or Less
 Laws? (was: Re: CID's Are Here To Stay

text:
HOACIDSUCK wrote:

Who said CID owners can't adopt a maintenance contract to govern them?

Correct. At that time our buddies -- NOT -- at the DRE have been
overseeing the whole thing.

No, but the CC&Rs must include what the DRE says they must. The DRE is
there from the get go. (pretty scary)

It does mean that.

They don't have to. State law controls.

Disclaimers can't eliminate state statutes unless the state statutes
specify that they can. Otherwise, the state statutes supersede the
CC&Rs.

Like this:

Can you blame them? The CID industry doesn't give a rat's ass about us.
That's why you can't trust them to write laws or to sit on bodies that
consider CIDs. These "stakeholders" all have vested interests that all
boil down to greed. As the owners of these gulags, our interests should
take precedence. Legislators that allow the converse are traitors.

You really didn't read what Susan French wrote, did you? 10 Cal. Code of
Regulations ï¿½ï¿½ 2790 et seq.! (I don't know where it is.)

Take this class:
http://www.commerce.ca.gov/business/small/management/pub/license/sec72.html

No. In fact, I' pretty sure the Constitution expressly protects people's
rights to form contracts.

10 Cal. Code of Regulations ï¿½ï¿½ 2790 et seq.

Wrong.


text:
Damn Les, the topic had nothing to do with proposed CID's. New CID's and
their governing documents must conform to specific requirements especially
issues concerning the transfer of power, but after the property is turned
over to the owners it becomes a whole new enchilada.

Here's the laundry list of compliance mandates:

Civ. Code 1352 - Requirements for creation of common interest developments:
A). A declaration
B). A condominium Plan, if any exists.
C). A final map or parcel map.

Civ. Code 1353 - Contents of Declaration
A). A legal description of the development i.e. apartment project, condo
project, planned project...
B). The declaration may contain any other matters the original signator of
the declaration or the owners consider appropriate.

Study up didn't come from me, I'm not usually so mild tempered.

about
conversation
that
your
the


subject:
Re: Affecting the Provisions Found in CID Governing Documents (was: Re:
 More

text:
Les Thompson in CA wrote:

Yeah, it took me a little while to realize that.

It was mostly directed towards HOACIDSUCK, but it was more
tongue-in-cheek than anything else. "Study up" was just a segway that I
used to post a hyperlink to a class that kept coming up on my searches
for 10 Cal. Code of Regulations ï¿½ï¿½ 2790 et seq.

It really didn't matter.

I was just on the wrong track.


text:
If you want it to take priority over any statutes applying to CIDs it would
have to be a law and it is a CID if it meets the requirements of Civil Code
Section 1352 like it or not.


subject: Re: Adopting a Maintenance Contract to Govern CIDs (was: Re: Affecting the  Provisions Found in CID Governing Documents (was: Re: More  Laws or Less  Laws? (was: Re: CID's Are Here To Stay

text:
Look read this:
Civ. Code 1352 - Requirements for creation of common interest developments:
A). A declaration
B). A condominium Plan, if any exists.
C). A final map or parcel map.

Civ. Code 1353 - Contents of Declaration
A). A legal description of the development i.e. apartment project, condo
project, planned project...
B). The declaration may contain any other matters the original signator of
the declaration or the owners consider appropriate.

That's it guys. No other provisions required! Now what do you consider
appropriate? How do you justify all the other provisions as a requirement to
create a CID?

With regard to Susan French, she is just another opinion.

You summed it up well: "I am not a lawyer. I am not providing legal advice.
You should consult

Just like S. French and her opinion. For every lawyer with an opinion there
is another lawyer with a contradiction.

"Rico" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
CC&Rs.
the
mean
Lands
published
Regulations
picture
rewrite
http://www.commerce.ca.gov/business/small/management/pub/license/sec72.html


text:
Les, I don't want it to take priority over any statutes applying to CIDs,
especially when those requirements which are clearly stated in Civ. Codes
1352 and 1353 don't require much.

If you want to add covenants and restrictions to your declaration then Civ.
Code 1354 should be reviewed.
Going to Civ. Code 1355 here are a few simple rules to observe when amending
the declaration, proper notice to the members, authority to amend
unrestricted, approval of members, recording the amendments.
Civ. Code 1355.5 states you can't delete the developer provisions before the
developer is completed with the construction and sales of the project.
Civ. Code 1356 The courts role to insure all amendment procedures were
completed.
Civ Code 1357 The legislature further finds that covenants and restrictions,
contained in the declaration are an appropriate method for protecting the
common plan of developments and to provide for a mechanism for financial
support for the upkeep of the common areas.

Well that narrows it down to a pinhead.

2 Key elements of the declaration:

"Protecting the common plan of development".
"Provide for a mechanism for financial support for the upkeep of the common
areas".

 Lets see, a declaration... a condo plan (if one exists)... and a parcel
map. The last two, the plan and map are easy, now that declaration??

Here we go Civ. Code 1353 (B) The declaration may contain any other matters
the original signator of the declaration or the owners consider appropriate.

Cross out the original signator of the declaration as they no longer exist
and we are left with the following:

The declaration may contain any other matters the owners consider
appropriate.

We don't consider the vehicle code appropriate.
We don't consider board functions beyond a maintenance oversight function
appropriate.
We don't consider foreclosure appropriate.
We don't consider the DSA appropriate.
We don't consider Arbitration & Mediation appropriate.
We don't consider rules violations appropriate.
We don't consider imposed homeowner fines appropriate.
We don't consider outside swim teams in our swimming pool appropriate.
We don't consider reserve funds appropriate.
We don't consider outside influence appropriate.
We don't consider offensive legal battles appropriate.
We don't consider an approval process of less than a majority of the members
appropriate.
We don't consider board members acting as law enforcement agents
appropriate.
We don't consider refusal to access association documents appropriate.

I'm almost done with our amended "declaration"
Now what?

"Les Thompson in CA" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
need
would
Code


author: David Terracino

subject: Re: What is DirectX used for?

text:
Colin Dawson <[email]> wrote in article
5i0p4c$[email]>...

Microsoft's answer to Java?  Not quite.  Microsoft is supporting Java!

DirectX is a software layer that lets PC programmers not worry about the
specifics of each individual piece of hardware a person might have (not a
problem in the console world, but a major concern in the PC world).

You write your sound for DirectSound, your graphics for DirectDraw, etc.,
and the DirectX subsystem talks to each individual card for you;
programmers don't really need to worry about the fact that one person might
have a Sound Blaster and one a Pro Audio Spectrum, or that one person might
have a Diamond Stealth and another a Trident card.

Dave


subject: Has anyone got visa granted these two weeks?

text:
I am applying 136 SI and have sent everything to DIMIA a month ago and
still waiting. I do notice there are not many "Got it" posts recently.
Does anyone here know what's really going on?


author: Rabc

subject: Re: Has anyone got visa granted these two weeks?

text:
Yes I think so to, also I undertsand that DIMIA are diverting resources
onto the backlog for a while. July is only a few weeks away.


author: Rob Morton-Jone

text:
As Rab has said region 3 case officers were put onto clearing the pre
July 2004 visa application backlog, hence the slight delay in the
issuing of visa grant letters.

My guess that it will pick up again once the new quota kicks in on July
the 1st. As far as i am aware, this does not effect MODL visa
applications and medical/pcc requests.

Rob


author: wargod

text:
I am right in thinking that region 3 includes the UK ? If so....    arse
!!!


author: bridiej

text:
There have been a few grants, I've posted some links in the other
threads (cant remember where sorry!).

Only a couple of weeks til July anyway!


author: yinwong

text: if u look at austimeline, no region is spared from this slow down


text:
Region 3 includes the UK unfortunatly but think of those poor pre 2004
Julyers!!!!

Rob


author: flapsterhp

text:
Tell me about it Rob, I started all my TRA stuff in June 2003, am I ever
going to get A visa

                     Andy


text:
I know, I think I'd be in a padded cell by now if I was one of them....

here's hoping they get their visas soon :)


text:
Thats a long stretch Andy.

We first started back in January 2004. Seems like an eternity, even more
so for you.

I'm sure that it will pick up once we hit July

Rob


text:
I hope so, I'm getting really stressed out now, it has been an
agonisingly long time especially the last month, I keep telling myself
that its gotto come soon

      Andy


author: Leroy N. Soetoro

subject: David Mamet's Coming Out Party ("Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal.'")

text:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304520804576347110395478634.
html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Before he moved to California, Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright David
Mamet had never talked to a self-described conservative. 'I realized I
lived in this bubble.

In March 2008, David Mamet was outed in the Village Voice. The Pulitzer
Prize-winning playwright had a comedy about an American president running
on Broadway, andï¿½perhaps to help with ticket salesï¿½decided to write an
article about the election season. The headline was subtle: "Why I Am No
Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal.'"

"They mistitled it," he insists. Mr. Mamet had given the piece the far
more staid title, "Political Civility." But the Voice's headline was truth
in advertising. "I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I
have changed my mind," Mr. Mamet wrote, referring to his prior self as,
yes, a "brain-dead liberal."

The article was the most popular ever published on the Voice's website.
But was the acclaimed Mr. Mamet really a conservative?

For a few years, he played it coy. In a 2008 interview with New York
Magazine, he sloughed off a question about who he was voting for: "I'm not
the guy to ask about politics. I'm a gag writer." In 2010, he told PBS's
Charlie Rose he'd only offer his opinion about President Obama off-camera.

But spend five minutes with Mr. Mamet and you realize that coy can only
last so long. "Being a rather pugnacious sort of fellow I thought, as
Albert Finney says in 'Two for the Road': 'As I said to the duchess, 'If
you want to be a duchess, be a duchess. If you want to make love, it's
hats off.'"

Hats off, indeed. Now Mr. Mamet has written a book-length, raucous coming-
out party: "The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture."
(If only the Voice editors had been around to supply a snappier title.)

Hear him take on the left's sacred cows. Diversity is a "commodity."
College is nothing more than "Socialist Camp." Liberalism is like roulette
addiction. Toyota's Prius, he tells me, is an "anti-chick magnet" and
"ugly as a dogcatcher's butt." Hollywood liberalsï¿½his former crowdï¿½once
embraced Communism "because they hadn't invented Pilates yet." Oh, and
good radio isn't NPR ("National Palestinian Radio") but Dennis Prager,
Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt.

The book is blunt, at times funny, and often over the top. When I meet the
apostate in a loft in Manhattan's Greenwich Village, he's wrapping up a
production meeting. "Bye, bye, Bette!" he calls to the actress walking
toward the elevator. That'd be Bette Midler. Al Pacino gets a bear hug.
The two are starring in an upcoming HBO film about Phil Spector's murder
trial. Mr. Mamet is directing and he looks the part in a scarf, black
beret and round yellow-framed glasses. Looking out the window at NYU film
school, where he used to teach, I ask him to tell me his conversion story.

He starts, naturally, with the most famous political convert in modern
American history: Whittaker Chambers, whose 1952 book, "Witness,"
documented his turn from Communism. "I read it. It was miraculous.
Extraordinary hero-journey of this fellow that had to examine everything
he believed in at the great, great costï¿½which is a cost I'm not subject
toï¿½of abandoning his life, his sustenance, his friends, his associations,
and his past. And I said, 'Oh my God. . . . Perhaps it might be incumbent
upon me to see if I could get my thought and my actions into line too."

There were other books. Most were given to him by his rabbi in L.A.,
Mordecai Finley. Mr. Mamet rattles off the works that affected him most:
"White Guilt" by Shelby Steele, "Ethnic America" by Thomas Sowell, "The
Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War" by Wilfred Trotter, "The Road to
Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek, "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman,
and "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill.

Before he moved to California, Mr. Mamet had never met a self-described
conservative or read one's writings. He'd never heard of Messrs. Sowell or
Steele. "No one on the left has," he tells me. "I realized I lived in this
bubble."

When it popped, it was rough. "I did what I thought was, if not a
legitimate, then at least a usual, thingï¿½I took it out on those around
me," Mr. Mamet says wryly. It took "a long, long, long time and a lot of
difficult thinking first to analyze, then change, some of my ideas."

Then comes one of Mr. Mamet's many Hollywood fables. "It's like Orson
Welles," he begins.

"It's his first day on the set of Citizen Kane, and he's never directed a
movie, he's the greatest stage director of his time. Gregg Toland is his
cinematographer, and Toland's the greatest cinematographer of his day. And
Orson says, 'Ok, this next shot we're gonna put the camera over here. And
Gregg says, 'You can't put the camera there, Orson.' So Orson says, 'Well
why not? The director can put it wherever.' Gregg says, 'No. Because
you're crossing the line.' So Orson says, 'What does it mean crossing the
line? So Gregg explains to him that there's a line of action." (Mr. Mamet
attempts to demonstrate the principle to me by indicating the line of
sight between our noses.)

"Orson says, 'I don't understand.'" (Neither did I.) "So Gregg explains it
again. And Orson says, 'I still don't understand'ï¿½'cause sometimes it can
get very, very complicated. So Orson says, 'Stop! Stop filming! I have to
go home.' He went home and he stayed up all night with sheets of paper and
a ruler and he came back next day and said: 'Now I understand, now we can
go on.'"

And so it was with Mr. Mamet and politics. He couldn't move on, so to
speak, before he understood "what the nature of government is, just
sufficient so that I as a citizen can actually vote without being a member
of a herd." Same for taxes: "I pay them, so I think I should be
responsible for what actually happens to them." As for the history of the
country itself, he wanted to understand "the vision of the Founding
Fathers. . . . How does holding to it keep people safe and prosperous?"

Reading and reflecting got him to some basics. Real diversity is
intellectual. Whatever its flaws, America is the greatest country in the
history of the world. The free market always solves problems better than
government. It's the job of the state to be just, not to render social
justice. And, most sobering, Mr. Mamet writes in "The Secret Knowledge,"
there are no perfect solutions to inequality, only trade-offs.

It's a wonder he didn't explicitly adopt this tragic view of reality
earlier on. The play "Glengarry Glen Ross," for example, for which Mr.
Mamet won the 1984 Pulitzer Prize, is about a group of desperate men
competing with each other in a Chicago real estate office. At stake: a
Cadillac for the top seller. Second place: a set of steak knives. Third
prize: you're fired.

Needless to say, no one ends up getting the Caddie. "That's the essence of
drama," Mr. Mamet says. "Anyone can write: And then we realized that
Lithuanians are people too and we're all happier now. Who cares?" Tragedy
is devastating, he says, precisely because it's about "people trying to do
the best they can and ending up destroying each other.

"So it wasn't a great shift to adopt the tragic view, and it's much
healthier," he says. "Rather than saying, as the liberals do,
'Everything's always wrong, there's nothing that's not wrong, there's
something bad bad badï¿½there's a bad thing in the world and it's probably
called the Jews,'" he says sardonically. "And if it's not called the Jews
for the moment, it's their fiendish slave second-hand smoke. Or transfats.
Or global warming. Or the Y2K. Or partially hydrogenated vegetable oil.
And something must be done!'"

It's the last partï¿½the temptation to believe that everything can be
fixedï¿½that Mr. Mamet thinks is the fatal error. "That's such a fï¿½ bore,"
he says. "I mean, have you ever tried to get a pipe fixed in your bathroom
on a Saturday? It's not going to happen. It's gonna happen wrong, and the
guy's gonna be late because his dog got run over, and he's going to fix
the wrong pipe, and when he takes it apart he's gonna say, 'Oops, the
whole plumbing system's gonna have to go and dah dah dah and etc. etc.
etc. And your daughter's Bat Mitzvah's gonna be ruined. It's
interestingï¿½it's the tragic view of life."

As Mr. Mamet quotes his son, Noah, in "The Secret Knowledge," "it's the
difference between the Heavenly Dream and the God-Awful Reality."

On the left, Mr. Mamet is accused of having ulterior motives for his
political shift. The New Republic's Jonathan Chait writes that the story
is a familiar, Zionist one: "An increasingly religious Jew with strong
loyalty to Israel, he became aware of a tension between the illiberal
nationalism of his right-wing views on the Middle East and the liberalism
of his views on everything else, and resolved the tension by abandoning
the latter." Mr. Mamet calls this a "crock of sï¿½."

The Slate website has run with the "Rich Person Discovers He Is a
Republican" narrative. And then there's the jiu-jitsu theory offered by a
film blogger: "Mamet's escalating interest in martial artsï¿½traditionally
the domain of right-wing nutjobs like Chuck Norrisï¿½has pointed toward this
new stance for some time." Obviously.

None of these responses comes as a surprise. And, being a contrarian and a
dramatist, Mr. Mamet doubtless relishes the attention for his heresy. What
will be more interesting is to see how critics respond to his two new
plays.

The first, playing now in Manhattan, is called "The Linguistics Class."
Only 10 minutes long, it's part of a festival of 25 short plays at the
Atlantic Theater Company, running alongside works by Ethan Coen and Sam
Shepard. It's a coming home for Mr. Mamet: He founded the company with his
friend, the actor William H. Macey, 25 years ago.

The play is about a teacher and a student who don't see eye to eye, and
Mr. Mamet assures me "it has nothing to do with Noam Chomsky."

"The Anarchist," on the other hand, sounds like it will be red meat for
conservatives. The two-woman show, which opens this fall in London, is
about a prisoner, a former member of a Weather Underground-type group, and
her parole officer. The play's themes have been developing since Sept. 11,
2001.

Mr. Mamet was in Toronto that day for a film festival. "I read an article,
I think it was in that day's Toronto Star, that had been a reprint from
the Chicago Tribune," he says. It was an interview with Bill Ayers and his
wife Bernardine Dorne, two former leaders of the Weather Underground.
"They were talking about the bombings in the '60s. And the guy says to
Bill Ayers: 'Are you regretful?' And he said: 'No, no, no.' . . . And I
read it, and I thought, this is appalling and immoral," recalls Mr. Mamet.

"Then I got on a plane. And while I was on the plane they blew up New York
City. The combination of the two things just started me thinking what have
weï¿½meaning my generationï¿½done?" Mr. Mamet knows these characters
intimately. They went to school with him at Goddard College in Vermont, or
they passed through. "Some of the people I knew actually were involved in
blowing up the building on 11th Street [in Manhattan by members of the
Weather Underground in 1970]. . . . And I thought: how does this happen?"

Is it a coincidence that this play is arriving at the same time as Mr.
Mamet's public conservatism? Does he worry that critics will see it as
polemical? "I don't know," he contends, insistent that his job as a writer
is not to worry about politics but to entertain and surprise his audience.
"The question is can you put the asses in the seats and can you keep the
asses in the seats. That's not me, that's Aristotle. I've forgotten the
Greek for it."

Ms. Weiss is an assistant editorial features editor at the Journal. A
review of Mr. Mamet's book, "The Secret Knowledge," can be found on page
C13 in today's Review section.


author: William December Starr

subject: Re: David Mamet's Coming Out Party ("Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal.'")

text:
In article <Xns9EF75C7001E3B6F089P2473@202.177.16.121>,
"Leroy N. Soetoro" <[email]> said:

Just wondering: is it _true_ that people like you keep cross-posting
your gunk to rec.arts.sf.written because you're so stupid that you
actually think the "sf" stands for "San Francisco"?

-- wds


author: rincewind

text:
There are "brain dead" on both sides of the political wall.
We elected on of the other ones President back in 2000
(At least, that's what the courts said.)


author: Bill Snyder

text:
On 2 Jun 2011 22:29:56 -0400, [email] (William December
Starr) wrote:

No.  They're so stupid that they think it stands for "spam
freely."


author: spamblock

subject: FS: 5 SCSI RAID Array controllers $350-$500

text:
Please reply to:
[email]

Unfortunately, I am the raid controller king. Please help releive me of
my throne. I have 5 SCSI raid controllers for sale:

ALL HARDWARE! NO SOFTWARE OR DRIVERS TO LOAD! WORKS INDEPENDENT OS's!

SCSI wide to 5 channel SCSI narrow. Made by Digi-data, new, includes
manuals. Takes fast and wide SCSI and supports RAID 5 across 5
independent fast SCSI busses. Features 64kb of SCSI path buffer, an I960
processor and fully hot-plugability on the raid channels. It supports
RAID 0 through RAID 5. Asking $500. This is a great controller and is
perfect for driving an array of disk drives.  It is the size of a 5.25"
full height drive has an LCD display and menu buttons. Serial console
port allows you to configure the array through a VT-100 terminal.

Ultrastore array controller very similar to the one above. It has either
WIDE Single Ended, WIDE Differential, or Narrow SCSI interfaces.  It
uses a 68030 processor hand has 256k of SCSI path buffer. It does not
have a LCD dislay, but it has a bunch of LED's. It outputs to 5
independent SCSI narrow channels.  It supports RAID 0 through RAID 5 and
fits in a 5.25" full height drive bay. It is used, no manuals, asking
$375.

I have a new CDW three host  SCSI raid controller. This unit is the
fastest of them all. It allows 3 computers (or 1 computer with 3 SCSI
controllers) to talk to one SCSI storage array. It takes in 3
independent SCSI buses and outptus RAID 5 to five independent SCSI
busees. All buses are SCSI fast and narrow. It fits in a 5.25" drive bay
and has a LCD setup display and control panel as well as a serial port.
It supports RAID 0 through RAID 5. This unit is brand new with the
manual. Asking $500.

I have a SCSI raid housing that takes 5 3.5" IDE drives and spits out
Standard SCSI at RAID 5 speeds. It is a completly contained unit
featuring:
5 hot swapable 3.5" x1" IDE drive bays
RAID 5 controller with it's own microprocessor
4Mb of buffering ram
Dual Fans
Locking Front panel
Single 50 pin SCSI Interface
Serial Port

The whole package fits in a 5.25" Full heigh package. It is a little
talles than a Full height drive. Asking $350.

Normally you would pay $1000-$3000 for the above stand alone
controllers. I am more than willing to set them up in a nice case with
drives if you want a pre-packaged RAID array. Email me if you have any
questions.

THIS ONE WORKS BEST WITH NT:

I have an Adaptec 4 channel differential PCI raid controller. This
controller sits ont he PCI bus an has 4 independent differential SCSI
buses. It support psudo-RAID 5, and no hot swapping. Internal only. It
runs Adaptec RAID software that uses CPU resources. New SCSI
differetnial drives are available very inexpensivly from
www.corpsys.com  Asking $350

-John Bodo
[email]


author: PLamble

subject: Color Codes for Fuel Containers

text:
Someone here knows this. I think I read something about it on this group.

Isn't there a color coding system for liquid fuel containers? Gasoline always
goes in red containers. Kerosene in ????. So forth.

Is this an informal system, or is there some legal or industry mandate for it?

I've been discussing this with a friend, and he's intrigued as well.

Any answers for me?

Pablo


author: Free 'o Fat

subject: Re: Color Codes for Fuel Containers

text:
A Picture is worth 1000 words:
http://www.blitzusa.com/auto_products_fuelcans.html

Gasoline: Red
Kerosene: Dark Blue
Diesel: Yellow
Water: Light Blue

However, could not find  specific OSHA, CFR, ANSI./ ASTM standard references
calling out these specific colors.

"PLamble" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
always
it?


author: Art

subject: Re: Color Codes for Fuel Containers

text:
Yes, pilgrim there is a standard!

Check with your fuel distributor for local variations, but:
Red - Explosive flammable, e.g., Gasoline and deriatives (including
"Regahol";

Blue - Combustive in mist, non-explosive, e.g., Diesel (all flavors,
including BioDiesel);

Green - Flammable, non-explosive, e.g., JP-4, Lamp Oil, Kerosene and
Combustive Supporting (certain mixtures that are not appropriate to the
Misc.Rural. newsgroup.

Remember that the color coding does NOT apply to compressed and/or
flammable gas!!!!  Your local Fire Department will be very willing to
help you mark those containers correctly (if you hadn't already checked
with them about the liquids).

(Pablo) PLamble wrote:


author: Jan Flora

subject: Re: Color Codes for Fuel Containers

text:
In article <[email]>,
 [email] (PLamble) wrote:

Typically, red is for gasoline, dark blue for kerosene, light blue for
water and yellow for diesel. At least, those are the colors that plastic
jugs sold around here are, with labels molded into the plastic for the
contents.

Most of us buy red jugs for fuels and mark them with a Magic Marker,
for gas, mix or diesel, but some of the more obsessive neighbors strive
to buy jugs in the correct colors.

   Jan


author: JonquilJan

subject: Re: Color Codes for Fuel Containers

text:
PLamble <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
always
it?

Kerosene in blue or white.  Gasoline in red.  Otherwise I don't know.
Also don't know if it is a requirement or an advisory.

JonquilJan

Learn something new every day
As long as you are learning, you are living
When you stop learning, you start dying


author: enigma

subject: Re: Color Codes for Fuel Containers

text:
"JonquilJan" <[email]> wrote in
news:403acc2c$0$68994$[email]:

i think it's an advisory. gasoline in red, kerosene in blue &
diesel in yellow. i haven't seen white containers around this
area. we have all red ones & gerry cans for the M37. the red
cans are labeled gas or diesel or whatever gas:oil mix they
contain (gerry cans have gas with lead additive)...
 i think the color coding is fairly recent, since i never saw
anything but red containers before 5 years ago & now the
colored ones come with labels molded on.
lee


subject: Re: Color Codes for Fuel Containers

text:
enigma <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns949949CA3FEECenigmaempirenet@199.125.85.9...

My first 2 kerosene containes (5 gallon cans) were purchased 23 years ago.
The next two (not replacements, just more) were blue and purchased about 15
years ago.  Maybe it's just this area - or this state (New York).  They all
say 'Kerosene' - painted on.

JonquilJan


author: [redacted]

subject: *^*^*^*^ Download Enormous Tits Videos *^*^*^*^*^*^*

text:
Free Video Download http://enormoustits.blogspot.com/ watch these tits
bounce to and fro FREE!.


author: Fuddy Duddy Judge

subject: Re: *^*^*^*^ Download Enormous Tits Videos *^*^*^*^*^*^*

text:
On Mar 14, 3:27 pm, [email] wrote:

is scRunge in there......


author: Runge

text:
Nope but you seem to be, eh <?

"Fuddy Duddy Judge" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de
news: [email]...


author: Roland Perry

subject: Re: Flying Delta to Europe? Bring your own food!

text:
In message <[email]>, at 12:03:50 on Thu, 23 Sep
2004, Miss L. Toe <[email]> remarked:

I try not to use LHR, but am fairly frequently at LGW. Where is this
supermarket?


author: Miss L. Toe

text:
"Roland Perry" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Coming out of the south terminal customes hall head towards the train
station it is the last (or maybe penultimate) shop on the right. Great for
picking up milk and bread after an trip. (But as one might expect NOT
bargain prices).

I think there is also one at the North terminal in the middle floor just
before the shuttle train.


author: AJC

text:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:34:59 +0100, "Miss L. Toe"
<[email]> wrote:

I must admit I've missed it too. Is it really supermarket sized, or
just a bread, milk, instant meal, corner shop type establishment?
--==++AJC++==--


text:
"AJC" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
for

I guess its more of a corner shop or minimarket size.


text:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:00:47 +0100, "Miss L. Toe"
<[email]> wrote:

I'll look out for it next time. The one at AMS is somewhere you could
easily do your week's grocery shopping.
--==++AJC++==--


author: Lansbury

text:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:00:47 +0100, "Miss L. Toe"
<[email]> wrote:

are you referring to the Whistle Stops shops, at least at LHR anyway?

-
Lansbury
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup


author: MartinWY

text:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:24:03 +0200, AJC <[email]> wrote:

But that doesnt help those who are flying Delta from the UK to the USA
does it.


text:
"Lansbury" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Yup


author: Thomas

text:
Trouble is you need to remortgage your house to pay for a weeks shopping.
Are the prices similar to the ones in London Rail Stations??


author: Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals

subject: Obama announces his support for illegals.

text:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/04/21/obama_we_are_all_connected_whether_you_crossed_the_rio_grande_or_not.html

"No matter who you are. No matter where you can came from. No matter
what you look like. No matter whether your ancestors landed here on
Ellis Island or came here on slave ships or came across the Rio
Grande, we are all connected. We will rise and fall together. That's
the vision of America I've got, that's the idea of the heart of
America," President Obama said at a fundraiser in San Francisco.

"That's the idea of the heart of our campaign," Obama added.

Posted on April 21, 2011


author: John Illsley

subject: Re: Obama announces his support for illegals.

text:
Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals wrote:

Too bad you can't vote, you retarded, drunken, Mexican mule fucker.


author: Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS

text:
On Apr 23, 2:32 am, Kent Wills <[email]> wrote:

Well then you're an idiot.  When he refers to those that cross the Rio
Grande. That includes the illegals from mexico.  Get your butt outta
your head.


text:
On Apr 23, 12:40 pm, "Mr.Sandman" <[email]>
wrote:

Fine. Why don't you post your name and adress and we'll send these
parasites to you and you can house them and feed them and school their
kids.  But don't expect us taxpayers to continue giving benefits to
people that aren't even allowed to be here.


author: Marcus Aurelius

text:
Obama's comments denigrate rather than reinforce republican principles
in affect declaring that he will support
the continued illegal invasion of the USA by those who use force,
intimidation, disrespect for the US Constitution,
graft, criminal behavior, and insult. He supports the same because of
their race while denigrating those who
defend the USA, principles of justice, and who defend their very homes
and livelihoods because of their race!
This is the "New Fascism" with the same type of terminological
inexactitudes and specious sophistries that the
old European fascists used as false and deceptive premises to enslave
and attack their victims during W.W. II.
Our response to the same, like that of Neville Chamberlain, has of
yet, been too moderate and too late!


author: Kent Wills

text:
At one time, not so long ago, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves
highway criminals <[email]> wrote:

     Where is the support for illegals to be found in the article?  I
don't see it.


author: f. barnes

text:
On Apr 22, 11:55 am, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
criminals <[email]> wrote:


text:
On Apr 22, 11:55 am, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
criminals <[email]> wrote:

And when this clearly open borders president or any of his lying
henchmen claim that they want a secure border, or intend to do
anything except talk about securing the border, what do we do?  We
shout, "You lie."

The man has no shame.  He is slobbering all over Hispanic ass for
votes.  The man is sickening: there's no difference in coming through
Ellis Island to get here and in swimming the Rio Grande get here?


author: JohnJohnsn

text:
On Apr 22, 11:55 am, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
criminals <[email]> wrote:

The new `buzzword' for CREEP Obama 2012 is "compassion;" replacing
"hope & change."

"President Obama has begun road-testing his 2012 campaign message this
week in a series of speeches that can be boiled down to a single word:
compassion."
-http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150172816302996


text:
On Apr 23, 7:42 pm, Kent Wills <[email]> wrote:

I never said that everyone crossing the RG is illegal. But bammer said
we must welcome those crossing the RG into america and that includes
illegals obviously.


author: Bill Graham

text:
Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals wrote:
 We will rise and fall together.

Yup.
That's the liberal line all right. We will all rise and fall together
because we will all get the same thing whether we like it or not. Like a
colony of ants. And, like ants, there can be no deviation from the norm.
That can't be tolerated. Its called Socialism, guys. And no freedom exists
within its philosophy. Striking out on your own to make your own way in life
is not allowed. You might make a few bucks more than your neighbor and be
tempted to buy a better car, or a bigger house, or take up a more expensive
hobby...... One that the state finds inconvenient.


text:
Kent Wills wrote:

Unfortunately, he forgot to add that his vision includes stealing my money
away from me and giving it to his favorite charities.


text:
On 4/23/2011 6:05 AM, f. barnes wrote:
I'm sure that there are bridges across the Rio Grande river.
He did not say anything about swimming across the Rio Grande.
As far as I see it, those coming across the Rio Grande should be given
preference if they are Mexicans and by implication fellow North Americans.


author: Hisler

text:
On 4/22/2011 11:24 AM, JohnJohnsn wrote:

Yep. Those Predator drones with Hellfire Missiles he's sending over to
Libya are the Nobel Peace Prize winning commander in chief's way of
showing "compassion" to the Africans fighting the Western attack on Libya.


text:
At one time, not so long ago, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY
PSYCHOPATHS" <[email]> wrote:

     So everyone who came across the Rio Grande did so illegally?
     I will enjoy reading your proof that everyone who came from a
location south of the Rio Grande came to the U.S. illegally.
     Oh wait, your latest LIE having been exposed, you'll run away.
Coward.


author: WallStreetHarvest

subject: Hostile Takeover of Microsoft!

text:
Hostile Takeover of Microsoft!

Well, Not Exactly

Wall Street Raider is an awfully fun game that I thought might be
of interest to some of you.

The goal of course is to make money. However, you do this by
successfully running companies as opposed to picking stocks. The
game has a fairly sophisticated economic environment. There are
industry groups, government regulations, economic variables and a
scrolling ticker. Junk bonds, green mail, leveraged buy outs and
mergers are all part of the game's strategy.

If you've ever wanted to do a hostile takeover of Microsoft (and
let's be honest, who hasn't?) this is definitely the game for
you. It even has a mode that allows players to violate SEC rules!
(I told you this was fairly realistic)!

The software has been around for a long time as shareware. In
fact, it's a DOS program but a Windows version is due to be
released this summer. It's available at many different download
sites. Registration is $15.

This was brought to my attention by Nicholas Mercader's
*excellent and quite unique newsletter* Business Model Insider.
This particular issue has an interview with the game's developer
if that might be of interest to you.

I realize that I should have put this item in the Off Topic part
of the newsletter. However, I just couldn't resist using the
headline as one of the *featured stories*. Well, now you know
where my priorities are! :-)

Warning: This game can be *highly addictive*.

RoninSoft - The publisher of the game.
http://www.roninsoft.com

The Business Model Insider, Nicholas Mercader
Special Supplementary Issue, May 3, 2001
http://www.businessmodelx.com

The above was originally published in Wall Street Harvest (June
7, 2001).

Cheers,

Gregg Terry
Publisher/Editor of Wall Street Harvest
Wall Street's best FREE digest
Your solution to information overload
http://www.WallStreetHarvest.com


author: David

subject: Re: Hostile Takeover of Microsoft!

text:
That game can be highly addictive. I have been playing that game off & on
for years. It would be very offsome if you could inter company stock symbles
& get updates off the net.
An game any trader would love.

David
WallStreetHarvest <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: T-Care1 Austria

subject: We need YOUR Help ....

text:
How YOU can HELP People.....

    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our organisation is asking you for a donation, for the realisation
    of urgent projects. We thank you in advance for your help.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Please transfer your donation to the
                       account number: 00812-506566
                 by DIE STEIERMAERKISCHE Bank in Austria.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Any donation is wellcome and will be used efficiently and serve its
    purpose.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    e-mail:[email]
    -------------------------------------------------------------------


author: Zhahai Stewart

subject: Re: VIDEO OF FLAME THROWING TANKS EXISTS (Was Re: BATF Cover-up Attempt for Waco, TX Massacre)

text:
In article <26l73p$[email]> [email] (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

Um, just what should a reasonably intelligent and rational citizen do if they
find that their home is besieged by a bunch of armed thugs dressed in black,
with machine guns, army tanks, and black unmarked choppers?

1) Assume this is a well organized burglar, and attack them with a baseball
club (assuming one owns the franchise to said club), or a gun; you will
almost certainly be shot dead.

2) Assume that it's more than likely the government knocking; attack them
with a baseball club or a gun; you will almost certainly be shot dead.

3) Assume that it's more than likely the government knocking; do NOT attack
them with anything, no matter how justified; take your chances.

None of these is risk free.  However, the government wins virtually 100% of
armed shootouts.  Their success rate in court is much lower, even if you are
guilty, much less innocent.  (Yes, Virginia, innocence does seem to still
have some statistical influence on the outcome of court cases).

People choosing #1 and #2 are weeding themselves out of the gene pool.  While
I strongly support sending bad cops (or tank and helicopter wielding burglars)
to prison, I cannot help but wonder just how low we think the standard for
"a reasonable man's conduct" should sink.  "Gosh, person or group X did just
about every possible stupid stunt in the book and missed hundreds of chances
to surrender without further bloodshed, but that's responsible citizenship,
so 100% of the blame for any subsequent events goes to the government which is
supposed to be omipotent in protecting armed and alleged citizens from coming
to any harm despite themselves".  Sorry, that attitude just winds up supporting
more paternalistic government.  We have to have some reasonable standard of
conduct; if you fail to meet it, if you "had a chance to safely swerve the
car and avoid the collision", then you share in the blame.

Note: The above does NOT apply to the killing of Donald Scott by the L.A.
Sheriff's department; he had no reason to realize that his attackers were
law enforcement, and he had no time to surrender - anybody could have wound
up on the losing side of that; it was an atrocity and Deputy Gary Spenser
should be prosecuted.  It does apply to the events in Waco, where the adults
inside the compound had seven weeks to surrender; many did and none of them
died as a result.  Before that, they knew (unlike Donald Scott) that they
were killing government officers in the initial shootout, to the best that
we can tell (unless burglars now make daylight raids dressed like 100 men in
swat teams with helicopter support).  The initial ATF may or may not have
been justified, but citizens have the right to fight it in court, not the
right to kill the arresting officers knowingly.

It's about time that intelligent critics of the very disturbing trends towards
government abuses learned to assess responsibility rationally, to distinguish
between cases with very different facts rather than unthinkingly support just
any "factoid" that can be hurled against the government - this just discredits
the many legitimate and vital criticisms.

I greatly appreciate such taglines; let's us know something about the relative
objectivity of the source, no?

May the dieties preserve those of us opposing government oppression from the
partisan politicos opportunistically trying to make hay for their causes by
jumping onto the bandwagon, distorting and misrepresenting the evidence,
fanning emotional flames detached from fact, and discrediting the opposition
      Z


author: Jyrki Kuoppala

text:
In article <[email]>, zstewart@nyx (Zhahai Stewart) writes:

I can agree with this.  Though you may end up dead anyway as a result
of shootings when the thugs mistake your TV remote control for a weapon.

This I can't agree with.  It sounds like "Now there, be a good Jew, if
you resist you'll only rightly be killed right away, while if you let
yourself be arrested you'll have better chances of surviving."  When a
group of armed looters or terrorists attack, I can't blame anyone for
defending oneself - no matter whether the looters are backed by a
government or not.

Yes, Scott and Waco are different cases, Weaver case is different from
them, a bunch of FDA agents attacking a vitamin company is a different
case from any of them, a bunch of SS agents seizing electronic
publishing equipment from people is also different, etc.  So?

//Jyrki


author: Don Baldwin

text:
In article <[email]> [email]
(Zhahai Stewart) writes:

If the ATF had started by sending two lightly armed ATF agents to the door
and said agents were blown away, I might agree with you.

However, they did not and I do not think the government should be allowed
to send what amounts to a military force to attack civilians, when a less
aggressive approach has not yet been tried.

Also, it seems that the courts in Idaho feel that, if the government acts
with unreasonable aggressiveness in attacking you, you can be acquitted
for fighting back.

     don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Are you a Democrat?
	Do you like to shoot?
	Then join Democrats for the Second Amendment today!

        (Mailing list requests to [email])
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  [email]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


author: C. D. Tavares

text:
In article <[email]>, [email] (Zhahai Stewart) writes:

  "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without
   bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not
   too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with
   all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.
   There may be even a worse case.  You may have to fight when there is no
   hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves."

                                      Winston Churchill

But, of course, he wasn't a citizen, so feel free to blow him off.


author: John Hagler

text:
[email] (Zhahai Stewart) writes:

initially they had every right to fire....think about it....you are paranoid
about the collapse of civilization or some extremest govt attack
(how unrealistic!). Then your door is kickked in and a 100 men dressed in black
are shooting at you. You and your 80 or so compadres have weapons and lots
of ammo...with a little luck you might stand a chance. You also have
the right to protect yourself.

they stood a chance and did hold off the attackers.

Also not true.....after all they werent shot dead and maybe they held
out in the hopes of getting through to the media what was REALLY happening.
Besides even the paranoid Davidians must have found it hard to believe
the govt. would do something like fry them alive.

If they could get a good attorney and if the govt. didnt fix the trial
as they tried to do with Randy Weaver.

True....mostly because the public rarely questions the actions of the govt.

I guess if you consider losing your home and children 'safely swerving'
you are correct....but there are those who still think some things are
worth fighting for.

Ummm...I beg to differ but someone earlier posted the Texas law stating a
person has the rigth to fight if unreasonable force is being used by
govt.

Ahhhh....you mean just give in since you will lose anyways? Glad you werent
around in 1776.


text:
In article <26o1m6$[email]> [email] (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

Yes, all too true.  The chances of surviving, and embarassing the government
in court, are much better, tho.  Meanwhile, we DO have to work towards
lowering this risk, by prosecuting overanxious law enforcement folks who apply
lethal force with near impunity.  And by making "no knock" warrants a much
more limited option; they are the real problem here.  (And the "War on Drugs",
going back to Nixon's version, is the main justification thereof).

Nope, not the point.  The best course for survival (and for pinning back the
gov't ears) was discussed above.  By this paragraph I'm speaking of assessing
responsibility.  If we make the government 100% responsible, say for any
injuries suffered by a bank robber or a real terrorist holding hostages,
then we imply that the government is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent.
I've heard critics of Waco say that the FBI should have had the house so well
bugged as to completely and absolutely know everything going on inside so that
they could do their actions without hurting anybody; failing to do so was
criminal malfeasance.  Yeah, right, that's certainly the way to keep down
government power all right; make them big daddy who is supposed to take care
of everybody (and needs commensurate powers to do so).

My point is that that there was only ONE side which could have, say, saved
100% of the kids in Waco (and 100% of the adults too, unless some were later
convicted by a jury of their peers).  The government is NOT permitted to
simply walk away from apparent criminal acts (shooting of Federal agents);
to do so IS malfeasance.  Short of just abandoning the siege and pinning
a note politely asking for anybody who thinks they might be guilty to show
up at the courthouse for a trial, there was NO course of action available to
the FBI (remember, we're talking about *after* the failed BATF raid, now
during the siege after the FBI took over) which was guaranteed not to hurt
the kids.  They could do another, larger and more competent lightning raid.
They could just wait (but remember, the fire could have broken out at any
time, even without an assault; we are talking open flame lamps in a dry old
building with overcrowding and stress).  They could use non-combustible
tear gas.  They could poke holes in the outer walls.  They could negotiate.
Actually, the FBI did all but one of these, and would have gotten around to
that had not the fire occurred.  All of them had risk.  The risks inherent
in one of them actually occurred, with tragic results.  On the other hand,
the BD's could have released the rest of the children at any time, with
zero risk of injury to said kids (they did release half the kids, who are
still alive).  They could have walked out themselves; again, nearly half
did, and none were shot down.  They could have "swerved", and taken their
chance in court.  F. Lee Bailey and scores of other lawyers were offering
to represent them, and this had been conveyed to them.  Any "reasonable
citizen" (one smart enough not to smear jelly on their kids face in
Yellowstone to get cute pictures of the friendly bears, then sue the
government for what results) should have done so.  Only one car had the
possibility of swerving with no further injury; it did not.  Yet some want
to make the government 100% responsible.  (And some pretend that I must
want to make the government 0% responsible if I mention this; binary
personalities, I guess).  I don't buy it.  Unless we hold alleged criminals
responsible for how they conduct themselves, we are pushing the government
vs citizens into a parent/child relationship; ie: the extremen disparity of
responsiblity will inevitably encourge an extreme disparity of authority,
which will then be abused.

This is a subtle point; some types of government critics will never grasp
how their holding the government to inhumanly perfect standards, while
excusing extreme stupidity or irresponsiblity on the part of armed opponents
as OK (and not producing any liability or responsibility for the results),
backfires on them with a bigger and stronger government (which, naturally,
still fails to produce the desired results of benign omnicisence and omnioptence).  Sigh.

If you shoot at a known government agent, expect to have to go to court over
it.  If you refuse to surrender and brandish arms, expect that there are going
to be nasty results and you have done a lot to create same.  The presumption
of our laws is that sometimes the government is wrong in the first place (if
not, we could just let law enforcement execute sentences without bothering
with courts; the reason for having criminal courts is the presumption that
sometimes the government wrongly accuses, being no infallible).  There is
no right to resist arrest with arms; the right we have if innocent (or guilty)
is to  present our case in court.  The BD's had not more right to engage in
a siege (not surrendering) than does any other alleged criminal, guilty or
innocent.  By engaging in an armed siege, and keeping the children as hostages,
they took on a MAJOR share (not 100%) of the responsibility for the outcome.
They and only they could have avoided all further bloodshed, but did not.  This
does not excuse the government abuses, of course.

 When a

Does this apply to real criminals too?  Do criminals have a right to defend
themselves from the police?  What about criminals who consider themselves,
rightly or wrongly, to be innocent?  Do they have the right to shoot cops
rather than go to court to determine innocence or guilt, if they believe in
their hearts they are innocent?

I don't blame anyone for defending themselves from unknown attackers; once they
know that it is law enforcment, and especially once shooting has stopped and
negotiations have begun, it is a different matter.

So, an intelligent response to importantly different cases is to deal with them
differently, stressing the individual merits of each case.  Lumping them
together is counter-productive except for demogoguery.  Scott's case concerns
local law enforcement, fiscal motivations, lack of chance to surrender.  It
must be challenged on those grounds.  Waco involves two very different cases
lumped into one: the BATF and initial raid and initial warrants, and the
FBI and siege and final fire.  A hard concept to grasp for some people: even
if the BATF's warrant was 100% unjustified and the raid was improper, the
FBI may be completely justified in apprehending those who shot BATF agents,
to stand trial.  The arguments applicable to Scott do not apply to Waco, and
vice versa.  If we confuse these, we are ineffective.
         Z


author: David Slack

text:
Don Baldwin ([email]) writes:

:Also, it seems that the courts in Idaho feel that, if the government acts
:with unreasonable aggressiveness in attacking you, you can be acquitted
:for fighting back.

Let me atempt to clearify this, the government DOES'T feel anything like
this.  As a matter of fact, the government DOES'T feel they are
"unreasonable" in anything they do.  Aggressiveness is the norm not the
exception.  It was the CITIZENS that said NO!  Now if we could just
make those bastards that killed for no reason hang we would actually be
taking back our freedoms.

Slack


text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Don Baldwin) writes:

(This misses the point; see below.  Just by the way, would YOU have been
willing to be said agents?  Nice to say "if they get blown away" from the
distance; but real humans have this tendency to want to be prudently covered).

Um, does this always apply, no matter how likely you think it is that a less
aggressive approach will send people into mortal danger without adequate
backup?  Or is it a judgement call?  I think the latter.  However, I think
that it's likely that the BATF called this one wrongly; I'm not defending the
BATF, so much as challenging your blanket assertion.

HOWEVER, what your argument comes down to is "perhaps the BD's would be found
innocent of killing the BATF agents, in court".  Um, they didn't surrender
and go to court, remember?  They had no right to use armed force to avoid
going to court (on original firearms charges, or on later murder charges).
They did have a right, in court, to present the defense you suggest - that
they were acting in self defense.  That right doesn't active until they
surrender and face the court, tho.

Again, this means you are allowed to use that defense in court, to try to
convince a jury.  It does not mean you are allowed to avoid going to court,
using arms.  Big difference.

If the BDs had surrendered to the BATF, all would be alive today.  If they
had surrendered to the FBI, almost all would be alive today.  In the former
case, perhaps they could have beaten the firearms charges completely.  In
the latter, perhaps the defense you suggest (or technicalities and lack of
proof of who pulled the triggers) would have acquitted them of the deaths of
the 4 BATF agents.  If you believe so, hopefully you would act more
intelligently than did the BDs in a similar situation.
     Z


text:
In article <[email]>, [email] (Zhahai Stewart) writes:

Really.  Well, I've heard critics of Waco say that the FBI *did* have the
house exactly that well bugged!  And gee, they still buggered up the ending.
So does that make the criminal malfeasance better -- or worse?

Why, sure they could.

1) They could have just waited.  (Sure, fire could have still broken out,
   but that's because the FBI had cut the power and water off.  Well, I
   guess you can't have everything.)

2) They could have let in the negotiators and lawyers that the BD's asked
   for.  Remember "GOD HELP US, WE WANT THE PRESS?"  But instead, the
   press was sent miles away, further than even in war zones.  Remember
   "SEND IN DON STEWART, CFA, AND RON INGLEMAN?"  But the FBI wouldn't
   let them through.

3) They could have delivered on their promises to Koresh.  They promised
   Koresh that they would play his tape NATIONALLY, and UNCUT.  They
   broke both those promises.

4) They could have stopped demonizing him every night to the media,
   including accusing HIM of breaking HIS promises.

5) They could have shut off the noise torture.  What a revelation.

Sorry.  Some that did WERE shot at, if not shot.

Who says it was conveyed to them?

Well, the BD's were held responsible all right.  They paid the price.
They're dead.

Now, when it is the government's turn to take responsibility for ITS
percentage?

And if you stage an action that results in the deaths of 80-some citizens,
do you expect to GO TO COURT OVER IT?

That is ALL WE ASK.


author: James Buster

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Zhahai Stewart) writes:

Sure there was. Just wait them out. That's what the FBI siege negotiation
manual *says* to do. But no, they had to ignore years of well-founded
siege tactics and assault the place anyway, with predicably tragic results.
That's criminally negligent, in my opinion.

Who says there was *zero* risk? Those incompetent boobs at BATF?

Would *you* give your children to the Anti-Christ? That's what Koresh
had been preaching for years, that agents of the Satan himself would
come knocking at their door and they should prepare themselves for that
event. Lo and behold, here comes BATF, guns in hand. Koresh's teachings
realized in real life.

But BATF and FBI refused to let the BDs talk to those lawyers. What's the
point of an offer of representation if you can't talk to your lawyer?
Besides, what did the Feds have to lose by the lawyers talking to the BDs?

Yes, they do, if those police are illegally doing something to them.
And they have the right to respond with deadly force, if necessary,
to stop those illegal acts.


author: Steve Kao

text:
Zhahai Stewart ([email]) wrote:

Considering that the ATF initiated a no-knock raid to serve a search
warrant, fired the first shots, and killed unarmed civilians, it's not
surprising to me that the BD refused to surrender, at least while the
ATF was in charge.  While the ATF were in charge, I think the BD had a
reasonable fear for their lives even if they did surrender.

- Steve Kao


text:
Zhahai Stewart ([email]) wrote:

If the police are using illegal means to nab the criminals, of course
the criminals have the right to defend themselves from the police.

- Steve Kao


text:
Zhahai Stewart ([email]) wrote:

I cannot recall anyone here saying that the FBI did not have the
authority to arrest the BD who shot BATF agents.  What I and others have
been protesting is the way in which the FBI chose to exercise that
authority.  Why did the FBI have to use a tank?  Why did they have to
flood the compound with a flamable gas and ignite it?  Why did the FBI
agents not even try to separate the shooters from everyone else?  Why
did the FBI kill everyone in the compound without bringing them to
trial?

- Steve Kao


author: Phil Ronzone

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Zhahai Stewart) writes:

Yep, and if the US had surrendered to Japan on 8-Dec-41, why, we would have
hundreds and hundreds of THOUSANDS of innocent people alive and/or uninjured.

Yep.


author: Chris Bartz

text:
In article <[email]>,
Zhahai Stewart <[email]> wrote:

The above is not the only available option of less aggressive approaches.
How about the ATF surrounds the place and then calls up the BDs one the
telephone and says "We are the ATF, you are surrounded, come out with
your hands up".  Use of a blow horn would probably be quite affective
also.

I am sure the ATF could come up with other possibilities that did not
put their agents at risk.

I also note that the option they chose was no less risky than sending
a couple agents to the door.

And, to answer your question.  No, I would not be willing to go knock
on the door.  But I would not be willing to bust in through a second
story window either.

Maybe there are such situations.  I do think that if we are going to allow
this sort of thing there should be some procedure for the agency to get
permission, instead of just leaving it up to them.  I also think they
should be held responsible if it turns out to be a bad idea.


author: Michael Lodman

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Zhahai Stewart) writes:

Yet another easily refutable point - maybe the BATF should have sent the
local sheriff in with the search warrant. He didn't seem to feel the BDs were
a threat.

Frankly, I don't believe the BATF thought they were a threat either or they
wouldn't have staged such a blatently stupid raid and invited the media but
no ambulance support. You government apologists seem to want to argue both
sides of the fence.


author: Daniel Meyer

text:
On a show called "Real Stories of the Highway Patrol", which is
rather similar to "Cops".  I saw a rather interesting incident.  There is
this guy that goes and kills his girlfriend, and then walks away, and drives
off to his house.  The Cops apparently made a mistake and believed him
to be in a different house.  When they surrounded that house (guns everywhere),
a man emerged from a window with a shotgun and told the police they were
tresspassing and that they had to leave.  The police used teargas on him
and he in return fired at them.  Eventually he was driven out of his
house and apprehended.  They then realized that they had made a mistake
and indeed he was not the man who had killed his girlfriend.  Yet, oddly,
he got charged with attacking the police officer, who tresspassed on his
land and threatened him for no valid reason.  Obviously they did not have
a warrant, because they knew where the man lived, and they did not actually
see him run into the innocent man's house.


text:
In article <26q8i1$[email]> [email] (Steve Kao) writes:

Then you need to read more carefully.  It has been posited that the BD's
never shot at the BATF, and that all casulaties were from friendly fire.
Here.

The problem with answering such things is that you are assuming some rather
speculative assertions as fact, then asking why.  If you can answer me why
the Allies let Hitler settle peacefully in Argentina after the war, perhaps
I can answer the above (hint: the answers are probably related, as we know
that Hitler runs the BATF).
     Z  (getting disgusted with a *portion* of this discusssion, not all(


text:
[email] (Steve Kao) writes:

HOLD IT!! I say they had no authority! You start shooting at me then you
get shot by me in self defence. Now you say I should be arrested? I dont
think so. Ivestigated maybe but to be arrested (lose my children in the
process) and jailed....no way. Thats too much govt power to say they can
attack its own citizenry and no matter what the citizen must submit. Sorry
folks but thats why we had a revolution 220 years ago.


text:
[email] (Chris Bartz) writes:

By this reasoning the BATF should go to everyones home with a small army.
After all everyone they deal with tends to be under suspicion for arms
violations. The Davidians had never resisted before so you cant say theywere
a special case. Well, I hope for your sake no one ever turns you in as being
the owner of illegal weapons....if so BBQ time.


author: Mike Light

text:
: >>If the ATF had started by sending two lightly armed ATF agents to the door
: >>and said agents were blown away, I might agree with you.
: >
: The above is not the only available option of less aggressive approaches.
: How about the ATF surrounds the place and then calls up the BDs one the
: telephone and says "We are the ATF, you are surrounded, come out with
: your hands up".  Use of a blow horn would probably be quite affective
: also.

The BATF was just following standard operating procedures during the raid.
(I sure wish such procedures would be forbidden by law).  The main objective
was to get at the weapons cache before the BD's could; the time of the
raid was chosen to coincide with the religious services which the BD's
regularly held on Sunday morning.  Unfortunately for everyone, the BD's
were forewarned of the raid and were prepared to resist.

Someone(s) in the BATF do need to have their butts severely kicked, though:
Whoever advertised to the media about the raid, giving opportunity for the
Davidians to learn about it, and the officer(s) in charge of the raid who
learned that the element of surprise was gone a full half hour before the
raid commenced.  (This evidence came out during the questioning of BATF
director Higgins in the House hearings).  Many of the ATF agents were
justifiably pissed off when they learned they had been sent into a trap.

And there is the fundamental question of whether the government should
conduct military operations against its own citizens based on "suspicions",
and create a danger to the lives of large numbers of obviously innocent
folks, particularly the children.

-- Mike Light @ Hewlett-Packard  Cupertino CA  [email] --