At the end of each one of these "voluntary association" contracts, the vast majority of which are non-negotiable
Yes they are, you had the option to NOT buy the property...
Actually, the argument I've heard goes this way. There are not really any houses available which are of similar age, cost and location that don't have CC&R's. I know in my area, nearly ALL the builders have boiler plate CC&R's that prohibit ALL antennas, and good luck finding a new house that doesn't. So in a way, hams don't really have a choice. Sure, they can incur a longer commute, spend more, or buy an older home that's not subject to CC&R's, but in many cases economics and location pretty much lock you in. It did me. I purchased my home 15 years ago, full knowing it had CC&R's and likely didn't allow antenna structures. I'm not kicking or grousing about it, but if the FCC saw their way clear to pre-empt local land use (zoning laws) regulations, I didn't see the logic in refusing to pre-empt CC&R's too.
After all, hams are literally 0.2% of the population. The likely hood that one lives close enough that you could see his/her antenna from your house is pretty small... But that didn't stop my HOA from putting the k-bosh on my attempts to get even a modest 63' vertical tower (no guy wires or added structures, just a plain tower 43' with 20' of pipe on the top approved. I doubt anybody would have noticed the thing except my nearest backyard neighbors.
Is that deed restricted properties are even allowed under law.
I almost agree with you. Think about the long term affects of CC&R's and I shudder to think what's going to happen in 40 or 60 years. It's going to be a mess to clean up all this legally when we want to redevelop the all these lots with the ramshackle old shacks which need to be leveled.
Personally, I believe that CC&R's should have a sunset provision, where the HOA and the CC&R's should be required to demonstrate that the majority of lot owners still want the covenants every decade or so, or they cease to exist. So they will exist as long as a majority of lot owners still want them, and eventually terminate once their usefulness is gone.
I was under the impression that those covenants were unenforceable, as the FCC has direct jurisdiction over all consumer communications equipment and ordinances.
The FCC has only pre-empted antenna structures for Over the Air TV and Data services OTARD for private land use contracts (CC&Rs) (i.e. HOAs) since 1970 or so. They have specifically and steadfastly refused to pre-empt CC&Rs for Hams. However, the FCC HAS pre-empted local zoning rules and laws for hams as well as OTARD antennas.
So city council cannot keep you from building that antenna, but the HOA can, and many do (including mine which I know from personal experience.)
Exactly. If you call something autopilot, then people expect it to be an... autopilot.
The problem though is actual "autopilots" are in airplanes and they range in complexity and features.
Some are simple 2 axis affairs that can maintain heading and altitude, sort of, as long as your DG doesn't drift and the altimeter works. Some are fully automatic, land in a fog bank worthy of a mystery novel affairs that literally do everything but talk on the radios from departure to arrival with little more than a few button pushes. Most fall in between the extremes.
Using an autopilot in an airplane requires the pilots be fully aware of the automation's limitations and be monitoring the flight's progress. It's purpose is two fold, 1. to lower the pilot workload and increase safety at critical phases in flight, by automating the more mundane tasks like controlling altitude, heading and speed, and 2. Increase efficiency by keeping the aircraft operating in its most efficient way possible.
Tesla's "autopilot" is something totally different. It's not about efficiency, and it's not about safety, it's about convenience. Though they call it an autopilot, it's most certainly isn't one. It's built for a totally different reason.
Seriously, 50% chance this is all just a high powered simulation? I guess a whole bunch of somebodies believe everything they see on a screen and read on the internet and they happen to work for BofA? How sad, that somehow, anybody could come to the conclusion that this is all just make believe... However, what's frightening are the logical conclusions being reached if that's a possibility. What is a life worth if it's just simulation? Nothing, just toss that one into the bit bucket if you like. The holocaust didn't even make a dent in the effort to fill up/dev/null even if it did fill up a lot of graves.
Bankruptcy only lasts 7 years on your credit record doesn't it? And although it ruins your credit for awhile, you can still live as you please (and can afford to pay cash for).
Sarcasm runs deep with that one...Deeper than the English Chanel at least.
The UK won't look back once the unsavory business of splitting up is over. The EU is on borrowed time as well as on borrowed money and unless something happens, more members will be taking the exit path from the roundabout and re-asserting the authority of their own countries and courts.
Trump is getting smarter about holding his mouth in check
If elected, then what remains to hold his unforced errors in check?
Totally different subject.. Folks need to understand that winning elections and being president are by and large separate functions, especially in an election year where none of the candidates are incumbents.
It is sure her race to loose by electoral college.
However, if the last two weeks are any indicator, Trump is getting smarter about holding his mouth in check and committing all these unforced political errors and Hillary is loosing ground to the independent candidates nationally. Trump is late getting his campaign going, buying ads and setting up operations in these states, but that effort is now hitting it's stride and I expect him to make the necessary states more competitive over time. Hillary though, continues to face strong headwinds with these E-mail stories and how her story has changed multiple times, how she's not trustworthy and corrupted though that "Clinton Foundation" link during her stint as Secretary of State. I don't think there is any fire behind that smoke, but a wise one said "when you are explaining, you are losing" and she's explaining a bunch right now and the national polls show this.
I don't think we've seen much recent polling in the battle ground states that reflects all this activity and really it is pretty close in most of them. We haven't seen the debates yet, but if Trump can keep from putting his foot in his mouth and stick to his talking points, I dare say Hillary will have trouble. Trump just has to seem "presidential" and he wins sans saying something stupid, Hillary has to somehow keep from having to explain and re-explain all this E-mail, Clinton Foundation, lying business while not letting Trump under her skin, and she's not real good at this debate thing...
No, it's way to early to know how this will play out..
He just can afford a lot more free speech than most.. Only in America! (well, maybe not just here.. )
You liberals should be up in arms over this... Remember the evil Koch brother's donations during the last election cycle and how you all went ballistic about how much $$ they put into their PAC? Where's that outrage now? (crickets)
Yea, I don't care if he wants to spend his money this way. Just make sure everybody knows where the money comes from and where it goes. We don't want anybody getting special favors though making donations or anything....
Qualified? Dang it man, they are BOTH qualified. I am tired of this canard born of partisan rhetoric.
There are only TWO qualifications listed in the constitution. You must be 35 years old and a "natural born citizen" and they BOTH meet those.
One could argue that you have to be elected too, but that's not absolutely true. A Vice President is/can be appointed and not elected and become president should the sitting president fail to serve their full term.
So I'm QUALIFIED to be president..... Just as much as Clinton or Trump are, being more than 35 years old born in the USA....
Now if you want to argue who's better suited for the job, say so, but stop claiming one is qualified and the other isn't.
Hillary is a criminal, breaking the law sending classified information from her personal email server. I wouldn't recommend him or the Democrats endorsing that lying criminal. They need to pick a candidate that believes in upholding the law.
Too late for that. They have picked their horse in this race a month ago. Not to mention that the horses are already on the track having left the starting gate about a month ago. There is no going back no matter how much one wishes it.
Good point, neither of the leading options have 50% in the polls and I have a feeling this election will see the winner without a majority of the popular vote as the third party folks are going to soak up more than the margin of victory nationally.
No, I don't have a clue which one of the two will get the Whitehouse.... But it sure looks to be a close horse race this time around.
And how's that different than what we have now? Oh, they pay more if they lose.... You are missing my point. I'm not saying it's going to be a determining factor in all cases, but if you increase the costs of the standard "tie them in legal knots" tactics, you discourage it's use. You readily admit that this idea of mine will cost them more after all, doesn't increased costs discourage them from such behavior? Obviously it does... Does it fix everything in every case? No, but it helps in my view.
Personally, I was thinking that there did need to be a cap too. My thought was to make the legal fees awarded if you lose to no more than what you've already paid. If your lawyer took the case for $100 start to finish and you lost, the winner would collect $100 regardless of what they paid their lawyer(s). However, if the evil daddy war bucks spend $2,000 on his lawyer and he lost, he'd be out $2,000, regardless of what the other side paid.
Now that is an option, if you want to make trouble.... Problem is, these days, a lot of this stuff is electronic signatures anyway. It's hard to make hand written changes to contracts....
Next time you get a new job, try that on your first day.... Let me know how that goes.
if loser pays was the rule and the case had merit, the smart thing for companies to do is to settle quickly and not draw it out.
The companies are already paying the bulk of the legal costs in their own lawyers. The only difference would be that they would sometimes get to dump those hefty fees on a consumer.
AND incur the additional costs of the other side's lawyers. Don't forget that difference Their legal bill will double if they lose.... They still may not care, but it will cost them more to lose, so settlement becomes more attractive, for cases with merit. You see, loser pays discourages marginal claims from hitting the courts, Plus it encourages settlement, keeping a lot of cases out of court.
BTW, you know who is dead set angst this idea in the USA? You guessed it, Lawyers... Think about what that means..
A bit idealistic to assume the correct person always wins. Especially when high-paid corporate lawyers are brought into the story.
And you assume that bad decisions always go in favor of the guy with high priced lawyers. I dare say that's not true. Sure, a good lawyer can tie a case up in knots and outwait or outspend the competition, but remember this knife I suggest cuts both ways. Such tactics would only serve to increase the liability of the person causing the delay and increased legal costs. So, if loser pays was the rule and the case had merit, the smart thing for companies to do is to settle quickly and not draw it out. Delay just costs money now, and if the case has merit, more in the future too with loser pays.
but not prevent the really important ones with merit from moving forward.
Big company hires big lawyers. You lose. AND you get to pay for their lawyers. Great plan.
Don't lose by not filing cases which lose.
You still have the right to sue, whomever for whatever you wish, only now there are consequences if you file suit on a wing and a prayer and lose. Cuts down on the "Let's throw this towards the wall and see if it sticks" stuff. Besides, this is how it's done in other countries...Loser pays everybody's legal fees is actually quite common in the developed world.
What you describe is "taking the case on contingency" and is often done by ambulance chasing "Personal Injury" attorneys who, for mealy 2/3rds of the money collected in the claim, will happily "represent" you while they shakedown the target.
Personally, I think we should have "loser pays" rules, which means the loser of a lawsuit is liable for the winner's legal fees, in addition to any awards. That would stop a lot of garbage lawsuits but not prevent the really important ones with merit from moving forward. It would also encourage out of court settlements because the quicker the issue is resolved, the lower the legal fee liability becomes.
" require legal disputes be settled by a private arbiter"
The company has a relationship with the arbiter. They get repeat business. You are expendable. Common law has its problems, but when you sign an arbitration clause you strip yourself of your common law rights. You give up transparency and appeal rights. https://www.google.com/search?...https://www.google.com/search?...
Well, it depends on the contract I guess. I've signed a number of contracts that stipulated arbitration first. The last one was for the loan on my vehicle and the one before that was a non-disclosure contract which was a condition of my current employment.
Where I always recommend you obtain legal advice (from an attorney) before signing any contract, I'm not so quick to dismiss binding arbitration. There are times it can be helpful and avoid costly legal fees if there is a dispute. Paying a lawyer is usually beyond expensive, even for a simple lawsuit. I paid nearly 7K getting a dispute over a Non compete contract resolved. We settled out of court before we even got halfway way though discovery. In that case, I believe arbitration would have been a whole lot cheaper and had exactly the same result.
Slashdot Mirror
At the end of each one of these "voluntary association" contracts, the vast majority of which are non-negotiable
Yes they are, you had the option to NOT buy the property...
Actually, the argument I've heard goes this way. There are not really any houses available which are of similar age, cost and location that don't have CC&R's. I know in my area, nearly ALL the builders have boiler plate CC&R's that prohibit ALL antennas, and good luck finding a new house that doesn't. So in a way, hams don't really have a choice. Sure, they can incur a longer commute, spend more, or buy an older home that's not subject to CC&R's, but in many cases economics and location pretty much lock you in. It did me. I purchased my home 15 years ago, full knowing it had CC&R's and likely didn't allow antenna structures. I'm not kicking or grousing about it, but if the FCC saw their way clear to pre-empt local land use (zoning laws) regulations, I didn't see the logic in refusing to pre-empt CC&R's too.
After all, hams are literally 0.2% of the population. The likely hood that one lives close enough that you could see his/her antenna from your house is pretty small... But that didn't stop my HOA from putting the k-bosh on my attempts to get even a modest 63' vertical tower (no guy wires or added structures, just a plain tower 43' with 20' of pipe on the top approved. I doubt anybody would have noticed the thing except my nearest backyard neighbors.
Is that deed restricted properties are even allowed under law.
I almost agree with you. Think about the long term affects of CC&R's and I shudder to think what's going to happen in 40 or 60 years. It's going to be a mess to clean up all this legally when we want to redevelop the all these lots with the ramshackle old shacks which need to be leveled.
Personally, I believe that CC&R's should have a sunset provision, where the HOA and the CC&R's should be required to demonstrate that the majority of lot owners still want the covenants every decade or so, or they cease to exist. So they will exist as long as a majority of lot owners still want them, and eventually terminate once their usefulness is gone.
I was under the impression that those covenants were unenforceable, as the FCC has direct jurisdiction over all consumer communications equipment and ordinances.
The FCC has only pre-empted antenna structures for Over the Air TV and Data services OTARD for private land use contracts (CC&Rs) (i.e. HOAs) since 1970 or so. They have specifically and steadfastly refused to pre-empt CC&Rs for Hams. However, the FCC HAS pre-empted local zoning rules and laws for hams as well as OTARD antennas.
So city council cannot keep you from building that antenna, but the HOA can, and many do (including mine which I know from personal experience.)
Exactly. If you call something autopilot, then people expect it to be an... autopilot.
The problem though is actual "autopilots" are in airplanes and they range in complexity and features.
Some are simple 2 axis affairs that can maintain heading and altitude, sort of, as long as your DG doesn't drift and the altimeter works. Some are fully automatic, land in a fog bank worthy of a mystery novel affairs that literally do everything but talk on the radios from departure to arrival with little more than a few button pushes. Most fall in between the extremes.
Using an autopilot in an airplane requires the pilots be fully aware of the automation's limitations and be monitoring the flight's progress. It's purpose is two fold, 1. to lower the pilot workload and increase safety at critical phases in flight, by automating the more mundane tasks like controlling altitude, heading and speed, and 2. Increase efficiency by keeping the aircraft operating in its most efficient way possible.
Tesla's "autopilot" is something totally different. It's not about efficiency, and it's not about safety, it's about convenience. Though they call it an autopilot, it's most certainly isn't one. It's built for a totally different reason.
Then Tesla has obviously been lying to everyone about Autopilot. From the way they described it, it was practically a self driving car.
Well... It IS a self driving car... Until it crashes into something...
How's that different from and airplane which flies... Until it hits the ground?
How practical this all is, is left up to the reader to decide.
Somebody took the wrong pill...
Seriously, 50% chance this is all just a high powered simulation? I guess a whole bunch of somebodies believe everything they see on a screen and read on the internet and they happen to work for BofA? How sad, that somehow, anybody could come to the conclusion that this is all just make believe... However, what's frightening are the logical conclusions being reached if that's a possibility. What is a life worth if it's just simulation? Nothing, just toss that one into the bit bucket if you like. The holocaust didn't even make a dent in the effort to fill up /dev/null even if it did fill up a lot of graves.
Is it no wonder society is coming apart?
Good point... But your license says you cannot copy the work onto a different media, and make only a single backup copy.
Bankruptcy only lasts 7 years on your credit record doesn't it? And although it ruins your credit for awhile, you can still live as you please (and can afford to pay cash for).
Prisoner A: I got 10 years for assault and manslaughter, you? Prisoner B: I shared a movie.
I guess that Prisoner B will have a huge butthole or change to violent crimes instead when he comes out.
Just shoplift the Blu-Ray, less punishment for that.
The law will be abused.
Ya think?
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it... While those of us who do are doomed to helplessly watch.
Will be missed
Sarcasm runs deep with that one...Deeper than the English Chanel at least.
The UK won't look back once the unsavory business of splitting up is over. The EU is on borrowed time as well as on borrowed money and unless something happens, more members will be taking the exit path from the roundabout and re-asserting the authority of their own countries and courts.
Trump is getting smarter about holding his mouth in check
If elected, then what remains to hold his unforced errors in check?
Totally different subject.. Folks need to understand that winning elections and being president are by and large separate functions, especially in an election year where none of the candidates are incumbents.
It is sure her race to loose by electoral college.
However, if the last two weeks are any indicator, Trump is getting smarter about holding his mouth in check and committing all these unforced political errors and Hillary is loosing ground to the independent candidates nationally. Trump is late getting his campaign going, buying ads and setting up operations in these states, but that effort is now hitting it's stride and I expect him to make the necessary states more competitive over time. Hillary though, continues to face strong headwinds with these E-mail stories and how her story has changed multiple times, how she's not trustworthy and corrupted though that "Clinton Foundation" link during her stint as Secretary of State. I don't think there is any fire behind that smoke, but a wise one said "when you are explaining, you are losing" and she's explaining a bunch right now and the national polls show this.
I don't think we've seen much recent polling in the battle ground states that reflects all this activity and really it is pretty close in most of them. We haven't seen the debates yet, but if Trump can keep from putting his foot in his mouth and stick to his talking points, I dare say Hillary will have trouble. Trump just has to seem "presidential" and he wins sans saying something stupid, Hillary has to somehow keep from having to explain and re-explain all this E-mail, Clinton Foundation, lying business while not letting Trump under her skin, and she's not real good at this debate thing...
No, it's way to early to know how this will play out..
He just can afford a lot more free speech than most.. Only in America! (well, maybe not just here.. )
You liberals should be up in arms over this... Remember the evil Koch brother's donations during the last election cycle and how you all went ballistic about how much $$ they put into their PAC? Where's that outrage now? (crickets)
Yea, I don't care if he wants to spend his money this way. Just make sure everybody knows where the money comes from and where it goes. We don't want anybody getting special favors though making donations or anything....
Qualified? Dang it man, they are BOTH qualified. I am tired of this canard born of partisan rhetoric.
There are only TWO qualifications listed in the constitution. You must be 35 years old and a "natural born citizen" and they BOTH meet those.
One could argue that you have to be elected too, but that's not absolutely true. A Vice President is/can be appointed and not elected and become president should the sitting president fail to serve their full term.
So I'm QUALIFIED to be president..... Just as much as Clinton or Trump are, being more than 35 years old born in the USA....
Now if you want to argue who's better suited for the job, say so, but stop claiming one is qualified and the other isn't.
Hillary is a criminal, breaking the law sending classified information from her personal email server. I wouldn't recommend him or the Democrats endorsing that lying criminal. They need to pick a candidate that believes in upholding the law.
Too late for that. They have picked their horse in this race a month ago. Not to mention that the horses are already on the track having left the starting gate about a month ago. There is no going back no matter how much one wishes it.
Good point, neither of the leading options have 50% in the polls and I have a feeling this election will see the winner without a majority of the popular vote as the third party folks are going to soak up more than the margin of victory nationally.
No, I don't have a clue which one of the two will get the Whitehouse.... But it sure looks to be a close horse race this time around.
And how's that different than what we have now? Oh, they pay more if they lose.... You are missing my point. I'm not saying it's going to be a determining factor in all cases, but if you increase the costs of the standard "tie them in legal knots" tactics, you discourage it's use. You readily admit that this idea of mine will cost them more after all, doesn't increased costs discourage them from such behavior? Obviously it does... Does it fix everything in every case? No, but it helps in my view.
Personally, I was thinking that there did need to be a cap too. My thought was to make the legal fees awarded if you lose to no more than what you've already paid. If your lawyer took the case for $100 start to finish and you lost, the winner would collect $100 regardless of what they paid their lawyer(s). However, if the evil daddy war bucks spend $2,000 on his lawyer and he lost, he'd be out $2,000, regardless of what the other side paid.
Now that is an option, if you want to make trouble.... Problem is, these days, a lot of this stuff is electronic signatures anyway. It's hard to make hand written changes to contracts....
Next time you get a new job, try that on your first day.... Let me know how that goes.
if loser pays was the rule and the case had merit, the smart thing for companies to do is to settle quickly and not draw it out.
The companies are already paying the bulk of the legal costs in their own lawyers. The only difference would be that they would sometimes get to dump those hefty fees on a consumer.
AND incur the additional costs of the other side's lawyers. Don't forget that difference Their legal bill will double if they lose.... They still may not care, but it will cost them more to lose, so settlement becomes more attractive, for cases with merit. You see, loser pays discourages marginal claims from hitting the courts, Plus it encourages settlement, keeping a lot of cases out of court.
BTW, you know who is dead set angst this idea in the USA? You guessed it, Lawyers... Think about what that means..
Don't lose by not filing cases which lose.
A bit idealistic to assume the correct person always wins. Especially when high-paid corporate lawyers are brought into the story.
And you assume that bad decisions always go in favor of the guy with high priced lawyers. I dare say that's not true. Sure, a good lawyer can tie a case up in knots and outwait or outspend the competition, but remember this knife I suggest cuts both ways. Such tactics would only serve to increase the liability of the person causing the delay and increased legal costs. So, if loser pays was the rule and the case had merit, the smart thing for companies to do is to settle quickly and not draw it out. Delay just costs money now, and if the case has merit, more in the future too with loser pays.
but not prevent the really important ones with merit from moving forward.
Big company hires big lawyers. You lose. AND you get to pay for their lawyers. Great plan.
Don't lose by not filing cases which lose.
You still have the right to sue, whomever for whatever you wish, only now there are consequences if you file suit on a wing and a prayer and lose. Cuts down on the "Let's throw this towards the wall and see if it sticks" stuff. Besides, this is how it's done in other countries...Loser pays everybody's legal fees is actually quite common in the developed world.
What you describe is "taking the case on contingency" and is often done by ambulance chasing "Personal Injury" attorneys who, for mealy 2/3rds of the money collected in the claim, will happily "represent" you while they shakedown the target.
Personally, I think we should have "loser pays" rules, which means the loser of a lawsuit is liable for the winner's legal fees, in addition to any awards. That would stop a lot of garbage lawsuits but not prevent the really important ones with merit from moving forward. It would also encourage out of court settlements because the quicker the issue is resolved, the lower the legal fee liability becomes.
" require legal disputes be settled by a private arbiter"
The company has a relationship with the arbiter. They get repeat business. You are expendable. Common law has its problems, but when you sign an arbitration clause you strip yourself of your common law rights. You give up transparency and appeal rights. https://www.google.com/search?... https://www.google.com/search?...
Also a highly recommended read for anyone going to court or crossing paths with a lawyer: http://netk.net.au/whitton/ocl...
Well, it depends on the contract I guess. I've signed a number of contracts that stipulated arbitration first. The last one was for the loan on my vehicle and the one before that was a non-disclosure contract which was a condition of my current employment.
Where I always recommend you obtain legal advice (from an attorney) before signing any contract, I'm not so quick to dismiss binding arbitration. There are times it can be helpful and avoid costly legal fees if there is a dispute. Paying a lawyer is usually beyond expensive, even for a simple lawsuit. I paid nearly 7K getting a dispute over a Non compete contract resolved. We settled out of court before we even got halfway way though discovery. In that case, I believe arbitration would have been a whole lot cheaper and had exactly the same result.