More GWB Library News (depositions from Bushes?)
Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
- CalallenStang
- PonyFans.com Super Legend
- Posts: 19359
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:43 pm
- Location: 25 feet from the Hillcrest track
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.mr. pony wrote:How can I post a scanned doc?
Thanks.CalallenStang wrote: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.mr. pony wrote:How can I post a scanned doc?
- PK
- PonyFans.com Super Legend
- Posts: 8805
- Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 3:01 am
- Location: Dallas, Texas 75206
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.jtstang wrote:He alleges that SMU's conduct amounted to a fraudulent takeover of the HOA.
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.
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.
On a side note, anybody need a patent attorney?
Good, Bad...I'm the one with the gun.
Multiple trips to play golf at Augusta National.CalallenStang wrote:Any specifics?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.
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.
More likely a trip to a local Gentlemen's Club on "All Inclusive Night".Dooby wrote:Multiple trips to play golf at Augusta National.CalallenStang wrote:Any specifics?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.
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.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.
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.
- OC Mustang
- Heisman
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2000 3:01 am
- Location: Marshall TX (formerly Laguna Niguel CA)
Please...remove...Bates avatar...hottub...Aaaarrgh!Dooby wrote: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.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.
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.

"Moderation in all things, and especially in Absoluts [vodka]." The Benediction, Doc Breeden, circa 1992