|
PonyFans.com •
Board Index •
Around the Hilltop •
Football •
Recruiting •
Basketball •
Other Sports
General discussion: anything you want to talk about!
Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
by mr. pony » Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:34 pm
How can I post a scanned doc?
-
mr. pony

-
- Posts: 4550
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:24 pm
by CalallenStang » Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:37 pm
mr. pony wrote:How can I post a scanned doc?
Upload it to http://www.imageshack.us/ by pushing the browse button and finding the file on your computer, then post the code it generates onto Ponyfans.
-

CalallenStang

-
- Posts: 19359
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:43 pm
- Location: 25 feet from the Hillcrest track
by jtstang » Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:50 pm
Keep in mind that Vodicka's lawsuit is not about SMU's acquisition of the property,but HOW it was acquired. He alleges that SMU's conduct amounted to a fraudulent takeover of the HOA.
(cue the potential jury pool members who already know that Vodicka "has no case")
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
-

jtstang

-
- Posts: 11161
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:21 am
- Location: Dallas, TX
by smupony94 » Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:21 pm
jtstang wrote:Keep in mind that Vodicka's lawsuit is not about SMU's acquisition of the property,but HOW it was acquired. He alleges that SMU's conduct amounted to a fraudulent takeover of the HOA.
(cue the potential jury pool members who already know that Vodicka "has no case")
I pee in pools
-

smupony94

-
- Posts: 25665
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:34 am
- Location: Bee Cave, Texas
by jtstang » Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:01 pm
smupony94 wrote:I pee in pools
Jury pools?
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
-

jtstang

-
- Posts: 11161
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:21 am
- Location: Dallas, TX
by mr. pony » Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:38 pm
CalallenStang wrote:mr. pony wrote:How can I post a scanned doc?
Upload it to http://www.imageshack.us/ by pushing the browse button and finding the file on your computer, then post the code it generates onto Ponyfans.
Thanks.
-
mr. pony

-
- Posts: 4550
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:24 pm
by PK » Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:38 am
jtstang wrote:He alleges that SMU's conduct amounted to a fraudulent takeover of the HOA.
Fraudulent? Interesting. Granted we don't know all the facts...but it seems pretty staight forward to me. They purchased a controlling interest in the condos then used their controlling interest to shut it down. Their reason for doing so makes no difference. A library or a parking lot...they made an offer to the individual owners and the owners sold their condos for an agreed amount. SMU is not flipping the land so it's not like they bought a Mercedes for $200 dollars and turned around and sold it for $200,000. Would have someone else offered the owners more for their condos? Evidently no one did. Guess we will see what a judge thinks.
SMU's first president, Robert S. Hyer, selected Harvard Crimson and Yale Blue as SMU's colors to symbolize SMU's high academic standards. We are one of the few Universities to have school colors with real meaning...and we just blow them off.
-

PK

-
- Posts: 8805
- Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 3:01 am
- Location: Dallas, Texas 75206
by abezontar » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:39 am
I haven't been following the case, but I think the original allegation was that the HOA agreement stipulated that no one owner could own more than 10% of the units, the only way then for SMU to get a controlling interest was to commit some sort of fraud to bypass the HOA agreement.
The donkey's name is Kiki.
On a side note, anybody need a patent attorney?
Good, Bad...I'm the one with the gun.
-

abezontar

-
- Posts: 3888
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 4:01 am
- Location: Mustang, TX
by Dooby » Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:12 pm
CalallenStang wrote:Dooby wrote:I have heard stories of the settlement discussions as well. Money is only part of what he wants. Vodicka is off his rocker.
Any specifics?
Multiple trips to play golf at Augusta National.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
-

Dooby

-
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 4:01 am
- Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
by smupony94 » Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:07 pm
jtstang wrote:smupony94 wrote:I pee in pools
Jury pools?
I never get picked when I am in a jury pool.
-

smupony94

-
- Posts: 25665
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:34 am
- Location: Bee Cave, Texas
by EastStang » Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:50 pm
Dooby wrote:CalallenStang wrote:Dooby wrote:I have heard stories of the settlement discussions as well. Money is only part of what he wants. Vodicka is off his rocker.
Any specifics?
Multiple trips to play golf at Augusta National.
More likely a trip to a local Gentlemen's Club on "All Inclusive Night".
-
EastStang

-
- Posts: 12657
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 4:01 am
by Dooby » Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:19 pm
abezontar wrote:I haven't been following the case, but I think the original allegation was that the HOA agreement stipulated that no one owner could own more than 10% of the units, the only way then for SMU to get a controlling interest was to commit some sort of fraud to bypass the HOA agreement.
I read the complaint and the argument was more tortured than that. His basic argument was that the Association rules provided that each condo unit owner had a vote, but according to Vodicka, SMU only counted as one condo owner, even though it owned 90% of the units. I read the condo rules he referenced and attached and I didn't read them that way, while I suppose if you really tortured yourself, you could read it that way. Also, if I recall, multiple SMU entities owned units so his argument isn't even technically accurate. I also recall that even by his reading, there was still a majority of votes to sell the thing to SMU, just not the 75% or whatever was needed to dissolve the thing.
His really big F'ing problem is that he only represents himself and not the other owners. His damages are really nominal, even if they exist. He also never raised his clever voting argument at the time of the vote. After all , if he had, SMU would have just put each unit in its own LLC and had them vote "independently."
The guy is a con-man with a law degree and this is just a shakedown. He has no credibility. Anyone that followed his forum hopping and the repeated bk filings he engineered to keep the thing going as long as he has will recognize this.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
-

Dooby

-
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 4:01 am
- Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
by OC Mustang » Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:10 am
Dooby wrote:abezontar wrote:I haven't been following the case, but I think the original allegation was that the HOA agreement stipulated that no one owner could own more than 10% of the units, the only way then for SMU to get a controlling interest was to commit some sort of fraud to bypass the HOA agreement.
I read the complaint and the argument was more tortured than that. His basic argument was that the Association rules provided that each condo unit owner had a vote, but according to Vodicka, SMU only counted as one condo owner, even though it owned 90% of the units. I read the condo rules he referenced and attached and I didn't read them that way, while I suppose if you really tortured yourself, you could read it that way. Also, if I recall, multiple SMU entities owned units so his argument isn't even technically accurate. I also recall that even by his reading, there was still a majority of votes to sell the thing to SMU, just not the 75% or whatever was needed to dissolve the thing. His really big F'ing problem is that he only represents himself and not the other owners. His damages are really nominal, even if they exist. He also never raised his clever voting argument at the time of the vote. After all , if he had, SMU would have just put each unit in its own LLC and had them vote "independently." The guy is a con-man with a law degree and this is just a shakedown. He has no credibility. Anyone that followed his forum hopping and the repeated bk filings he engineered to keep the thing going as long as he has will recognize this.
Please...remove...Bates avatar...hottub...Aaaarrgh! 
"Moderation in all things, and especially in Absoluts [vodka]." The Benediction, Doc Breeden, circa 1992
-

OC Mustang

-
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2000 3:01 am
- Location: Marshall TX (formerly Laguna Niguel CA)
by Dooby » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:36 pm
Not until a bowl game, baby!
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
-

Dooby

-
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 4:01 am
- Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
by mrydel » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:44 pm
Dooby wrote:Not until a bowl game, baby!
If those are the terms, what do we get to replace her? It had better be good.
All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand
-

mrydel

-
- Posts: 32035
- Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:01 am
- Location: Sherwood,AR,USA
Return to Around the Hilltop
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests
|
|