07-20-2017, 12:06 PM
"This is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest flaws in the OLCA structure. When the fees were voluntary it made sense. If you don’t pay in, then you shouldn’t have a say in how the money is used. But when the fees became mandatory (another story that has a shocking truth), the game changed. It’s no longer a choice."
Your points in this matter are spot on. I would expand on them further by repeating that the current non-Arthur's group's newsletters have threatened repeatedly that they will be collecting from these non-voters using the judicial system including making them pay a stiff penalty/interest.
So in their mind, there will never be any "non payers". Just non-voters, ground up by their collections process, and then spit out with a lien plus interest. Aloha, and class act all the way. Our country was founded fighting a war against the crown to be freed from taxation without representation. I agree wholeheartedly that there should be a collection process in place, even against people who didn't agree with the vote, but certainly not in a situation where people aren't allowed to vote, and subsequently punished / preyed upon for failure to pay the "poll tax". I'm not entirely sure such a scenario would even be legal. The only case I'm aware of where OLCA tried to collect from somebody, they lost their case and ~$40k in legal fees in the process. These are the types of missteps a receivership could protect us from.
ETA: bold drama, minor tweeks
Your points in this matter are spot on. I would expand on them further by repeating that the current non-Arthur's group's newsletters have threatened repeatedly that they will be collecting from these non-voters using the judicial system including making them pay a stiff penalty/interest.
So in their mind, there will never be any "non payers". Just non-voters, ground up by their collections process, and then spit out with a lien plus interest. Aloha, and class act all the way. Our country was founded fighting a war against the crown to be freed from taxation without representation. I agree wholeheartedly that there should be a collection process in place, even against people who didn't agree with the vote, but certainly not in a situation where people aren't allowed to vote, and subsequently punished / preyed upon for failure to pay the "poll tax". I'm not entirely sure such a scenario would even be legal. The only case I'm aware of where OLCA tried to collect from somebody, they lost their case and ~$40k in legal fees in the process. These are the types of missteps a receivership could protect us from.
ETA: bold drama, minor tweeks