07-20-2017, 05:10 PM
"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 totally agree with the sentiment here, but don't think for a minute that the Arthurs group would not be aggressively pursuing collections if they were in a position to do so. Nor would either group even entertain the idea of allowing all property owners to vote. And, while this practice is exactly the same as "Taxation Without Representation", the laws of TWR do not apply to us because we are not a government entity. Discrimination laws would be more aptly applied.
"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."
The price tag was more like $70k, but now I'm nit-picking. For the real point we should look at the HPP receivership. Under that receivership, the HPP bylaws were revised to, among other things, include foreclosure. Foreclosure is specifically forbidden in HPP's own class action judgment that went to the State Supreme Court. I haven't been keeping up with their problems, but at some point someone will fight them on this and take them down the same road that we already traveled. Point is, receivership did not protect them from this exposure, receivership caused it.
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 totally agree with the sentiment here, but don't think for a minute that the Arthurs group would not be aggressively pursuing collections if they were in a position to do so. Nor would either group even entertain the idea of allowing all property owners to vote. And, while this practice is exactly the same as "Taxation Without Representation", the laws of TWR do not apply to us because we are not a government entity. Discrimination laws would be more aptly applied.
"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."
The price tag was more like $70k, but now I'm nit-picking. For the real point we should look at the HPP receivership. Under that receivership, the HPP bylaws were revised to, among other things, include foreclosure. Foreclosure is specifically forbidden in HPP's own class action judgment that went to the State Supreme Court. I haven't been keeping up with their problems, but at some point someone will fight them on this and take them down the same road that we already traveled. Point is, receivership did not protect them from this exposure, receivership caused it.