Anyone In Israel Want This Ski Suit For A 2.5 Year Old?
39 minutes ago
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
They're Missing The Point
If you have a notice from any of my previous posts, I really, really do not like this whole Occupy movement. From where I sit, with having to drive by and walk by these protesters, the sense I get is that they're a bunch of Americans who forgotten that there Americans have decided to act like Frenchmen and whine about the inequities of the system. I understand that some people believe that visible protests like this can somehow solve the situation, but I think that they're more effective ways of moving the ball forward them by throwing what is in effect a temper tantrum by adults.
That being said, my opinion was starting to change about the Occupy people when it was announced that they were intending to form a credit union. I thought, finally they want to do something constructive. Instead of whining about the problem, they decided to use the system to fix the problem.
It remains to be seen if the intent is followed through by the Occupy people who are trying to get the credit union plan off the ground.
Here in San Francisco, city leaders have been alternating between joining the protesters and trying to gently guide them to a less touristy visible location. The one that's been proposed is somewhere in the Mission. And although it sounded like some of the Occupy lunatics were in favor of moving to a new location, they couldn't get a consensus so nothing really came of that.
Finally, Da Mayor decided that the eyesore and public-health problem needed to be dealt with. So we sent in the police and the fire department to evict the Occupiers. (I'm wondering if any of my tenants rights friends are gonna get calls from these people wanting to sue for wrongful action. I can just see this happening.) Predictably, Occupy nuts have vowed to "retake" their campsite at Justin Herman Plaza.
These people don't seem to get the whole idea. It's like they want to occupy just to occupy and that the grounds that they occupy is more important than getting their goals met. Whether it be Zuccotti Park in New York or Justin Herman Plaza in San Francisco, the idiots of Occupy seem to believe that sitting tenants doing nothing but chanting, drumming, protesting will bring about a better situation.
It won't.
Simply occupying a piece of real estate does not bring about the change in the system that seems to be needed (what the change needed is up to is up for debate). It's not about the real estate, it's about people and the opinions that those people have. Unfortunately, the occupying nuts think that street theater is more important than substantial change. It seems that in their mind, it's either arrival wish and or nothing. And does anyone think that revolution is the right way to go or should it be through evolution?
What would call the founding of this country, the American Revolution, was not really revolution. We broke free from the British monarchy. We did not, however, some least create a whole new concept of what the rights of citizens should be. We merely distilled and codified the rights which common people had been asserting against the English crown together with newer ideals coming out of the Enlightenment. Compare that with the French Revolution or the Chinese Cultural Revolution and I think you know which type of revolution you want to be a part of.
Hopefully the cops have to deal with these idiots don't have to suffer too much. They certainly don't need the aggravation for simply the enforcing law.
That being said, my opinion was starting to change about the Occupy people when it was announced that they were intending to form a credit union. I thought, finally they want to do something constructive. Instead of whining about the problem, they decided to use the system to fix the problem.
It remains to be seen if the intent is followed through by the Occupy people who are trying to get the credit union plan off the ground.
Here in San Francisco, city leaders have been alternating between joining the protesters and trying to gently guide them to a less touristy visible location. The one that's been proposed is somewhere in the Mission. And although it sounded like some of the Occupy lunatics were in favor of moving to a new location, they couldn't get a consensus so nothing really came of that.
Finally, Da Mayor decided that the eyesore and public-health problem needed to be dealt with. So we sent in the police and the fire department to evict the Occupiers. (I'm wondering if any of my tenants rights friends are gonna get calls from these people wanting to sue for wrongful action. I can just see this happening.) Predictably, Occupy nuts have vowed to "retake" their campsite at Justin Herman Plaza.
These people don't seem to get the whole idea. It's like they want to occupy just to occupy and that the grounds that they occupy is more important than getting their goals met. Whether it be Zuccotti Park in New York or Justin Herman Plaza in San Francisco, the idiots of Occupy seem to believe that sitting tenants doing nothing but chanting, drumming, protesting will bring about a better situation.
It won't.
Simply occupying a piece of real estate does not bring about the change in the system that seems to be needed (what the change needed is up to is up for debate). It's not about the real estate, it's about people and the opinions that those people have. Unfortunately, the occupying nuts think that street theater is more important than substantial change. It seems that in their mind, it's either arrival wish and or nothing. And does anyone think that revolution is the right way to go or should it be through evolution?
What would call the founding of this country, the American Revolution, was not really revolution. We broke free from the British monarchy. We did not, however, some least create a whole new concept of what the rights of citizens should be. We merely distilled and codified the rights which common people had been asserting against the English crown together with newer ideals coming out of the Enlightenment. Compare that with the French Revolution or the Chinese Cultural Revolution and I think you know which type of revolution you want to be a part of.
Hopefully the cops have to deal with these idiots don't have to suffer too much. They certainly don't need the aggravation for simply the enforcing law.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Wow, that last post....
Was my 1000th?
I wonder if anyone ever read it who wasn't related to me? Oh well.
I wonder if anyone ever read it who wasn't related to me? Oh well.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Evictions Are Serious People
So you are a renter. And for some inexplicable reason bad stuff starts to happen. You lose your job. Your roommate bails on you. You get sick. You have a fight with a neighbor that gets loud. And then the notice to quit comes.
Guess what? You have just entered the eviction process. Except in California, legally, we don't call it the eviction process. It is know as an unlawful detainer. And for tenants, it is not a happy place to be.
Why? Part of it has to do with the nature of the unlawful detainer proceeding. Its quick. Its limited in what issues can be brought up. It favors the property owner, but then that is the casse with almost all landlord-tenant rules.
Another part of the problem is because most judges do not like unlawful detainer cases. They're messy. Often times at least one of the parties is representing themselves. They keep judges away from more interesting, or important, cases. Also, in counties where there is rent control, the judges often times do not have a clue about the rent control laws and how they interact with state law. There's a whole analysis that I'm not going to get into in this article about that, but needless to say, judges will bend over backwards to avoid having to make a decision, in some counties, when they can construe the facts in such a way as to make easier decisions. Don't think so? Take a look at some of the unpublished decisions out of San Francisco Superior Court's Appellate Division, especially on the issue of Civil Code section 827. Something else I'll have to write about in the future.
But back to my main point. If you are a tenant, you face an uphill battle if you find yourself in an unlawful detainer. You do not want to find yourself there.
So how do you avoid it? You take steps to protect yourself. First one, act like a grownup. Just because you are not the owner of the property, does not mean you should not just ignore problems. If the heater does not work, send you landlord an email. Don't just call him and leave a message. Grownups leave paper trails. When you were a kid, you could ask your mom for some money to do something (like say buying lemons for your lemonade stand). Your parents, if they wanted something, needed to put it in writing (whether it be a loan, a permit, a business license. Why? Because the paperwork spells out what they can and cannot do. It also spells out what theother side of the agreement can and cannot do. That way, later on when someone is claiming that they have the right to do something, there is actual evidcence of it.
Second, think about your well being. That's right, be a little selfish and think about what is good for you. The landlord is getting something for themselves, its called money. Now, if you want to ensure that you are getting something for that exhorbitant amount of money which you pay in rent each month, you have to look out for yourself. What does this mean? If there is a problem, do something about it. Now, you can't make major repairs or alterations under most leases. But for those types of things, the landlord is responsible. How will they know to act responsibly if you, the renter, do not take steps to make sure they know about it. Furthermore, if you do not keep a file on things, how will you be able to present a defense should things go south in your living situation? With the proliferation of smart phones and cloud drives, how hard is it to image your documents and save them into a file? Not very. But if you ignore it, and lose the information, don't think for an instant that the landlord will save you by giving you a copy. Remember, the landlord is working for his self-interest. You should do the same.
Third, don't be greedy. A little contradiction here? Perhaps. But when I say don't be greedy, understand that the law requires the rental unit to be habitable, not four star certified. If you are paying $1100 a month, do not expect that the landlord will come in and change the carpets every six months and install granite countertops. If you think that way, its going to lead to conflicts. And conflicts between landlords and tenants rarely end well for the tenant.
Four, don't be an ostrich. An ostrich closes its eyes, sticks its head in the sand and hopes tha the predator does not kill it. A tenant who ostriches is one who will soon be looking for a new place to live, more likely than not with an eviction on their record. If the landlord notifies you of a lease violation, do not ignore it. See if its valid. If it is, correct it. If its not, then tell them IN WRITING. Refer to the part of the lease that makes it their problem, or gives you the power to do something. If it is a Notice to Quit (whether it be 3, 30 or 60) take it seriously.
Now, if you have hit the point where the landlord is seeking to do an eviction, do not be ashamed and ASK FOR HELP. Let me say this again: do not be ashamed and ASK FOR HELP. Too many tenants ignore a notice to quit. Its the precurors to an unlawful detainer action. Unless you are an attorney who pracitces landlord-tenant law, the odds are you do not have enough information to represent yourself. If you want to try and keep your home, rented as it may be, then you should seek out a lawyer's advice on what to do. Will it cost money? In many cases the answer is yes. Is it worth it? In my experience, having a lawyer represent you significantly increases the chance that the tenant will have a better outcome.
Now for the people who say to themselves, "I can't afford an attorney", and actuallly cannot, there are other options. Many counties have a pro bono program which may be able to assist you. In San Francisco, the San Francisco Bar Association's Volunteer Legal Services Project coordinates pro bono placement for low income people in unlawful detainers and other types of cases. For people who do not meet the eligibility requirements, there are panels of attorneys who have agreed to take cases on at a reduced fee.
While you are looking for an attorney, remember, you are on a ticking clock once you have been served. You have 5 CALENDAR DAYS in which to file and serve an answer. That means, if you get it on a Tuesday, your answer must be on file with the court by the end of Monday. If you get served on a Thursday, your answer is due on Tuesday. They do count the weekend days unless the final day is a weekend or holiday. Then the due date beceoms the next court day. Failure to answer means that the landlord can get a default and then a default judgment against you. That means they can get the sheriff out to physically remove you from the property.
For those of you in rent controlled jurisdiction, do not for a minute believe that your rent board can save you from this by filing a complaint with them. They can consider it, but the unlawful detainer case filed in the superior court will take priority and precedence. State court trumps municipal administrative agency hearings almost every time.
So what should you do while you are looking a lawyer, make sure that an answer gets put in. In some counties, there are organizations which help pro per (self-represented) tenants to file answers. In San Francisco, there is the Eviction Defense Collaborative. They will help you to file the appropriate paperwork. They charge a small fee, on a sliding scale fee, that is more than worth it.
If you do not take an unlawful detainer seriously, no one will for you. Losing an unlawful detainer case, either because you defaulted, by not showing up, or at trial because you did not have any documentation about what was going on between you and the landlord, it will effect you for years. It will be reported on your credit, Furthermore, there are agencies which landlords use to see if a prospective tenant has been evicted before. It will make finding a new place that much harder.
Take it seriously. Protect yourself. Get help.
Guess what? You have just entered the eviction process. Except in California, legally, we don't call it the eviction process. It is know as an unlawful detainer. And for tenants, it is not a happy place to be.
Why? Part of it has to do with the nature of the unlawful detainer proceeding. Its quick. Its limited in what issues can be brought up. It favors the property owner, but then that is the casse with almost all landlord-tenant rules.
Another part of the problem is because most judges do not like unlawful detainer cases. They're messy. Often times at least one of the parties is representing themselves. They keep judges away from more interesting, or important, cases. Also, in counties where there is rent control, the judges often times do not have a clue about the rent control laws and how they interact with state law. There's a whole analysis that I'm not going to get into in this article about that, but needless to say, judges will bend over backwards to avoid having to make a decision, in some counties, when they can construe the facts in such a way as to make easier decisions. Don't think so? Take a look at some of the unpublished decisions out of San Francisco Superior Court's Appellate Division, especially on the issue of Civil Code section 827. Something else I'll have to write about in the future.
But back to my main point. If you are a tenant, you face an uphill battle if you find yourself in an unlawful detainer. You do not want to find yourself there.
So how do you avoid it? You take steps to protect yourself. First one, act like a grownup. Just because you are not the owner of the property, does not mean you should not just ignore problems. If the heater does not work, send you landlord an email. Don't just call him and leave a message. Grownups leave paper trails. When you were a kid, you could ask your mom for some money to do something (like say buying lemons for your lemonade stand). Your parents, if they wanted something, needed to put it in writing (whether it be a loan, a permit, a business license. Why? Because the paperwork spells out what they can and cannot do. It also spells out what theother side of the agreement can and cannot do. That way, later on when someone is claiming that they have the right to do something, there is actual evidcence of it.
Second, think about your well being. That's right, be a little selfish and think about what is good for you. The landlord is getting something for themselves, its called money. Now, if you want to ensure that you are getting something for that exhorbitant amount of money which you pay in rent each month, you have to look out for yourself. What does this mean? If there is a problem, do something about it. Now, you can't make major repairs or alterations under most leases. But for those types of things, the landlord is responsible. How will they know to act responsibly if you, the renter, do not take steps to make sure they know about it. Furthermore, if you do not keep a file on things, how will you be able to present a defense should things go south in your living situation? With the proliferation of smart phones and cloud drives, how hard is it to image your documents and save them into a file? Not very. But if you ignore it, and lose the information, don't think for an instant that the landlord will save you by giving you a copy. Remember, the landlord is working for his self-interest. You should do the same.
Third, don't be greedy. A little contradiction here? Perhaps. But when I say don't be greedy, understand that the law requires the rental unit to be habitable, not four star certified. If you are paying $1100 a month, do not expect that the landlord will come in and change the carpets every six months and install granite countertops. If you think that way, its going to lead to conflicts. And conflicts between landlords and tenants rarely end well for the tenant.
Four, don't be an ostrich. An ostrich closes its eyes, sticks its head in the sand and hopes tha the predator does not kill it. A tenant who ostriches is one who will soon be looking for a new place to live, more likely than not with an eviction on their record. If the landlord notifies you of a lease violation, do not ignore it. See if its valid. If it is, correct it. If its not, then tell them IN WRITING. Refer to the part of the lease that makes it their problem, or gives you the power to do something. If it is a Notice to Quit (whether it be 3, 30 or 60) take it seriously.
Now, if you have hit the point where the landlord is seeking to do an eviction, do not be ashamed and ASK FOR HELP. Let me say this again: do not be ashamed and ASK FOR HELP. Too many tenants ignore a notice to quit. Its the precurors to an unlawful detainer action. Unless you are an attorney who pracitces landlord-tenant law, the odds are you do not have enough information to represent yourself. If you want to try and keep your home, rented as it may be, then you should seek out a lawyer's advice on what to do. Will it cost money? In many cases the answer is yes. Is it worth it? In my experience, having a lawyer represent you significantly increases the chance that the tenant will have a better outcome.
Now for the people who say to themselves, "I can't afford an attorney", and actuallly cannot, there are other options. Many counties have a pro bono program which may be able to assist you. In San Francisco, the San Francisco Bar Association's Volunteer Legal Services Project coordinates pro bono placement for low income people in unlawful detainers and other types of cases. For people who do not meet the eligibility requirements, there are panels of attorneys who have agreed to take cases on at a reduced fee.
While you are looking for an attorney, remember, you are on a ticking clock once you have been served. You have 5 CALENDAR DAYS in which to file and serve an answer. That means, if you get it on a Tuesday, your answer must be on file with the court by the end of Monday. If you get served on a Thursday, your answer is due on Tuesday. They do count the weekend days unless the final day is a weekend or holiday. Then the due date beceoms the next court day. Failure to answer means that the landlord can get a default and then a default judgment against you. That means they can get the sheriff out to physically remove you from the property.
For those of you in rent controlled jurisdiction, do not for a minute believe that your rent board can save you from this by filing a complaint with them. They can consider it, but the unlawful detainer case filed in the superior court will take priority and precedence. State court trumps municipal administrative agency hearings almost every time.
So what should you do while you are looking a lawyer, make sure that an answer gets put in. In some counties, there are organizations which help pro per (self-represented) tenants to file answers. In San Francisco, there is the Eviction Defense Collaborative. They will help you to file the appropriate paperwork. They charge a small fee, on a sliding scale fee, that is more than worth it.
If you do not take an unlawful detainer seriously, no one will for you. Losing an unlawful detainer case, either because you defaulted, by not showing up, or at trial because you did not have any documentation about what was going on between you and the landlord, it will effect you for years. It will be reported on your credit, Furthermore, there are agencies which landlords use to see if a prospective tenant has been evicted before. It will make finding a new place that much harder.
Take it seriously. Protect yourself. Get help.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
My Thoughts On Ten Years Ago
I cannot say what I want to say. So this is what I'll go with for today.
“Remember what Amalek did to you on the road, on your way out of Egypt. That he encountered you on the way and cut off those lagging to your rear, when you were tired and exhausted; he did not fear G‑d. Therefore . . . you must obliterate the memory of Amalek from under the heavens. Do not forget.” (Deuteronomy 25:17–19)
“Remember what Amalek did to you on the road, on your way out of Egypt. That he encountered you on the way and cut off those lagging to your rear, when you were tired and exhausted; he did not fear G‑d. Therefore . . . you must obliterate the memory of Amalek from under the heavens. Do not forget.” (Deuteronomy 25:17–19)
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Dancing With The Stars (Or Is This The Weakest Lineup Ever?)
I know that Dancing With The Stars is never going to be a show filled with A-List people, and that's alright. However, there was some anticipation for this seasons where apparently the producers were told they could do just about anything they want to stop filling the rosters with D-Lister has-beens. There were reports that the idea was to get some high profile celebs, even though Snooki's name kept getting tossed around.
So what did we get? We got.....
So that's the line up. Color me so underwhelmed. At least in the past there were people I was interested in or liked. No Olympians. No champions (though Artest has played for good teams). This one. I mean I'm sort of curious about Hope Solo, but not that much.
With a gun to my head, I have to say Hope Solo is my pre-season pick for the women. I know I have her picked to be the train wreck waiting to happen, but maybe. For the men, I have to go with J.R. Martinez, even though he has a few things going against him (he has burns on his face from serving in Iraq, not a lot of name recognition since he's only had 3 years on a soap). However, he's got Cheryl Burke and she knows how to train competitors who can please the crowd and please the judges.
Whether I tune in to this 13th season remains to be seen.
So what did we get? We got.....
- A D-List Kardashian (I mean really, the brother. Not even one of the sisters who headline the trainwreck that is the Kardashians? Instead we get Robert Kardashian who's most notable act is that he cheated on a Cheetah Girl. Woohoo.) He has been paired with Peta Murgatroyd, who is not a newcomer to Dancing With The Stars. She has been on both the Australian and American versions as one of the professional dancers before being promoted. Although with a promotion like this, maybe she'll be wondering if its not the booby prize.
- A C-List Laker in Ron Artest (yes, an active, striking, NBA player whose greatest moment came when he charged into the stands after a fan he incorrectly believed threw something at him during the Pacers-Pistons brawl back in 2004.) Anna Trebunskaya will have the job of breaking this bronco.
- A D-List soccer player named Hope Solo (alright, its a little mean. She is arguably the best known of the US Women's Soccer team but the way we view soccer in this country, that only gets you to the D-List. Plus, there's her little problem with authority - she was kicked off the team once - and then there's the fact she got scored on to lose the Women's World Cup.) She is paired up with Maksim Chmerkovskiy. Given her history of not being afraid to speak her mind, this could go bad quick.
- Kristin Cavallari who I'm not sure even qualifies as a star. (I mean, really. Her show The Hills is off the air. She's done a couple of guest spots on other shows and had a role in an independent movie that very few people have seen. Her chief claim to fame seems to be that she just got dumped by Jay Cutler.) Mark Ballas ends up with the hot chick again. Perhaps he can make a silk purse of this sow's ear.
- Chaz Bono. Famous for being related to famous people and having a sex change operation. Maybe its the fact that I live in San Francisco but that just doesn't seem that exotic. Karina Smirnoff has the task of teaching Chaz how to dance like a man. (Yeah, that's mean I suppose.)
- David Arquette. Arguably a C-lister. At one time was a B-Lister. Being divorced by a B-Lister. But, he fills their requirement for a recovering addict I guess (see David Hasselhoff and Steve-O). Lacey Schwimmer, rather unsurprisingly, was given this oddball (and I say that in a good way, well sort of). I feel bad for Arquette. He has to deal with Lacey's insanity.
- J.R. Martinez, filling a double quota (Soap Opera Dude and Inspirational Man). Cheryl Burke will be dancing with him.
- Elisabetta Canalis A D-Lister in the U.S. now that she is no longer attached to George Clooney. Derek Hough returns and is given the model. Hmmmmmm. Was that the price for his return?
- Nancy Grace. A D-Lister so inappropriately named (can you really think of anyone with less grace in their makeup?) who seems revel in leading lynch mobs from the safety of her TV studio.
- Chynna Phillips. The D-Lister "Christian" celebrity. Oh joy. I suppose she's famous but since last Wilson Phillips album, when has she really popped up on anyone's radar? And she has Maksim's younger brother, Valentin, as her partner.
- Carson Kressley. I suppose he wants to tell everyone how to look good naked or something. Oy. Kym Johnson, who I'm sure doesn't have a problem looking good naked, will be tasked by him.
- Ricki Lake. Possibly a C-Lister. I can't be too mean. I don't like to be mean. Its just I'm annoyed. Tristan MacManus, another promotion from the ranks of the DWTS professional troupe, has her. Could be interesting to see what these two do since there's so much unknown here.
- Ryan O'Neal apparently is withdrawn. He would have been interesting. But apparently his knee replacement surgery recovery is not far enough along for him to compete. His replacement is Carson Kressley.
So that's the line up. Color me so underwhelmed. At least in the past there were people I was interested in or liked. No Olympians. No champions (though Artest has played for good teams). This one. I mean I'm sort of curious about Hope Solo, but not that much.
With a gun to my head, I have to say Hope Solo is my pre-season pick for the women. I know I have her picked to be the train wreck waiting to happen, but maybe. For the men, I have to go with J.R. Martinez, even though he has a few things going against him (he has burns on his face from serving in Iraq, not a lot of name recognition since he's only had 3 years on a soap). However, he's got Cheryl Burke and she knows how to train competitors who can please the crowd and please the judges.
Whether I tune in to this 13th season remains to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
