"preventive insurance"
 

In article ,
Wes Groleau wrote:

On 08-11-2013 00:25, Robert Green wrote:
"Wes Groleau" wrote in message

stuff snipped

There's an oak in my side yard that is contstantly dropping large
things. It's only a matter of time before it severely damages my house
or the neighbor's.

I find myself wondering whether a "reputable" company like MetLife would
pay the five grand to have it removed to avoid the damage claim that
seems inevitable. ($5K is not farfetched due to a not very accessible
location.)

That's an interesting question. Subrogation means that MetLife (who I
presume insures you) would go after your neighbor's insurance company to
recover any monies they paid out on your behalf. It's your neighbor's
insurer that has the financial interest in not whacking your home, car or
loved ones with a huge (and very heavy) oak branch.

While your analysis is informative, I did type "in _my_ side yard."

I would guess not. This is the Property/casualty equivalent of paying
for preventive care in health insurance. (Many insurance companies
refused to pay for preventive care because PC usually doesn't have an
effect until later in life when you most likely will be someone else
s problem and why should BC/BS spend money that will be saved by Aetna?)
In your case, they would probably look at it, see the average turnover
in insurance and decide it isn't all that likely that THEY will be on
they hook for damages.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

"preventive insurance"
 

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Wes Groleau wrote:

On 08-11-2013 00:25, Robert Green wrote:
"Wes Groleau" wrote in
message

stuff snipped

There's an oak in my side yard that is contstantly
dropping large
things. It's only a matter of time before it severely
damages my
house or the neighbor's.

I find myself wondering whether a "reputable" company
like MetLife
would pay the five grand to have it removed to avoid
the damage
claim that seems inevitable. ($5K is not farfetched
due to a not
very accessible location.)

That's an interesting question. Subrogation means that
MetLife
(who I presume insures you) would go after your
neighbor's
insurance company to recover any monies they paid out on
your
behalf. It's your neighbor's insurer that has the
financial
interest in not whacking your home, car or loved ones
with a huge
(and very heavy) oak branch.

While your analysis is informative, I did type "in _my_
side yard."

I would guess not. This is the Property/casualty
equivalent of paying
for preventive care in health insurance. (Many insurance
companies
refused to pay for preventive care because PC usually
doesn't have an
effect until later in life when you most likely will be
someone else
s problem and why should BC/BS spend money that will be
saved by
Aetna?) In your case, they would probably look at it, see
the average
turnover in insurance and decide it isn't all that likely
that THEY
will be on they hook for damages.

Not only that, but insurance is not a maintenance policy.
This is clearly maintenace. It's the responsibility of the
HO to remove a tree , not the insurance company.
I could see where if they could prove that the HO knew that
the tree was dead and could fall and do damage and did
nothing, they could even deny the claim.
jmo

fence issue with neighbor
 

wrote in message news:55e36186-b05c-44d1-9acf-

The problem is there is already a bad outcome. She has a neighbor
that doesn't give a damn about her or her property rights. The
neighbor has trespassed and piled debris on her property after
specifically being told not to do so. They even threw it right against
the house. They lied about putting a tarp down to keep it neat. No way I
would ignore that and let some skunk walk all over me.

To me, it's still a *seemingly* bad outcome until it's all over and they
haven't restored my property to the pre-work state. My late mom, whom I
loved dearly, was of the same mind as you. She had the best-maintained
property in the neighborhood and didn't tolerate anyone even letting leaves
blow onto the lawn. Life was hell, culminating in the great "Dead Squirrel
in the Road" incident.

I agree that someone blew her off and dissed her. Was it deliberate or a
communications error or even a worker being told what to do precisely and
doing something else? My experience is that until you're absolutely sure,
you should assume error and not malice.

stuff snipped
Not in any jurisdiction I've ever lived in, anyway. If my current
experience is relevant, when either neighbor "calls in the county" the
authorities are going to look for other violations/problems and the
result
could be expensive for *everyone.*

Yeah, I suppose if you have a toxic waste dump on your property.
Or you're parking your car on the neighbor's property without
permission. But if you call the police to get the skunk neighbor to stop
trespassing, they aren't going to search your house.

No toxic waste dump but it turns out nearly everyone around me got cited for
something. Trash cans not properly secured, parking violations and a number
of things no one really cared about until the "Great Parking War" began.
Now cars are getting keyed and the animosity rate is through the roof. This
stuff only feeds on itself which is why I tend to make damn sure I am the
victim of a malicious act before I go off and start making serious trouble.
As I believe Wes noted, don't attribute to malice what can be explained by
stupidity or alcohol.

Yes. This is a situation requiring monitoring and patience, not
escalation.

Sure, be a pussy and let a neighbor trespass and use your
property to store construction debris on, instead of their own.
Not in my world.

I've seen the pictures of Leza's home - there's not much room to store
anything. I think you said it a while back about tree removal. This is not
quite - but almost - a case of exigent circumstances. Not enough room to
maneuver. Besides, I grew up watching the 50's westerns where the guys in
the white hats always made sure the bad guys deserved what they got. Maybe
it means turning the other cheek while you're unlocking the safety on your
Glock, but if I have to lower the hammer on someone, I want to be absolutely
sure they deserve it. *especially* a family member or a neighbor. This
case doesn't rise to what I would consider "deserving of a dropped
ammer" - yet.

stuff snipped

The problem of course is that she doesn't have a "good" neighbor.

I submit that you can't tell that from a single incident. You can lean
strongly in that direction based on what's been reported here. As a former
reporter I can assure you that the other side will probably present a very
logical, non-malicious reason why they did what they did. Even if this
intrusion went to a *real* court, and not Judge Joe Brown, you would *have*
to have given them a reasonable chance to restore your property before you
could collect on the cost of having it done yourself. When the judge asks
Leza "What did it say in your written agreement about the work?" where will
she be? She'll be in the capital city of the land of "very reasonable
doubt." It's already a case of "he said/she said" and we only have the "she
said" said as no one wrote anything down, with a "writing" being the gold
standard of deciding who breached the agreement.

This is only a burned potato, not a tragedy, and the workers and the
neighbor still have an opportunity to set things right. More importantly,
Leza's learned it might not be a bad idea to hammer out some sort of written
memorandum any time "cross-border" work needs to be done even though I think
that's a bit much.

While I wouldn't escalate, nor call the cops (they *really* don't like being
the heavies in neighbor fights) I would make sure to bake that cake Vic
suggested and deliver it along with a conversation about how concerned I was
that they didn't do what they told me. I would find out why what happened,
happened as it did. If the neighbor wasn't malicious, he'll apologize, if
not, well revenge is a dish best served cold and if you know me, I've said
repeatedly "If you want real justice, don't call the cops, just take care of
business."

A "good" neighbor would not have done what this one just did. So,
the problem already exists. The only remaining issue is whether you
want to be someone who lets someone walk all over you or if you are
going to stand up for your rights.

No one has ever "walked all over me" but I learned from some pretty smart
people to "pick my battles." I also learned that like family fights, spats
with neighbors have a much greater downside at almost every turn than they
have an upside. I get the feeling a lot of other posters here have made
that same discovery.

This was a screw-up that needs resolution, I will agree to that much, but I
think the investigation's incomplete and if this guy's an ass, there will be
no shortage of opportunities to draw down on him for *something* because it
will happen again. I always like to reconnoiter before striking at an
enemy. Unless it's a drunken neighbor babbling incoherently and pointing a
high-powered rifle around in a threatening manner. That's a scenario I hope
never to have to face but if I have a clean shot and he's already fired off
a round, he's getting all 14 from me.

She has a questionable neighbor at this point. If he's really a bad one he
will not clean up satisfactorily. *That's* when I would start the hard line
approach because I've lived with angry neighbors and happy neighbors and I
prefer the latter. I believe that's particularly important when your
neighbors are so close you can spit on them.

I want a neighbor that can phone me if the van interior light's stuck on,
who will share their generator with me during outages, who occasionally
borrows my Sawzall but always returns it with a package of new blades, who
keeps an eye on my house when I am away and whom I can trust to pick up my
mail or even hold a spare key. I'll agree, this neighbor doesn't sound like
one of those, but one incident does not a profile make. He could be a good
guy with a bad crew.

I am guessing that unbeknownst to Leza, she was communicating in sign
language and even if she said "should we attack Mexico with nuclear
weapons?" they would have said "Yes, yes!"

Part of any binding contract is a "meeting of the minds" and I am just not
certain that's occurred here.

--
Bobby G.

"preventive insurance"
 

"Wes Groleau" wrote in message
...
On 08-11-2013 00:25, Robert Green wrote:
"Wes Groleau" wrote in message

stuff snipped

There's an oak in my side yard that is contstantly dropping large
things. It's only a matter of time before it severely damages my house
or the neighbor's.

I find myself wondering whether a "reputable" company like MetLife
would
pay the five grand to have it removed to avoid the damage claim that
seems inevitable. ($5K is not farfetched due to a not very accessible
location.)

That's an interesting question. Subrogation means that MetLife (who I
presume insures you) would go after your neighbor's insurance company to
recover any monies they paid out on your behalf. It's your neighbor's
insurer that has the financial interest in not whacking your home, car
or
loved ones with a huge (and very heavy) oak branch.

While your analysis is informative, I did type "in _my_ side yard."

If I had seen that and understood clearly that it was YOUR tree I would have
said "Well, cut it fu&ing down! Are you waiting for it kill someone!!!??"
(-: And no, no insurer I know would pay you for doing your own maintenance.

But you do raise an interesting legal question because I am sure there have
been instances where insurers have demanded and gotten action on potential
threats, from both the insured and third parties who represent a threat to
their financial interests.

My guess is that if you call your insurer and ask them about the tree, they
will send someone around who will inspect it and then tell you that you will
be cancelled if you do not remove it.

--
Bobby G.

"preventive insurance"
 

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

stuff snipped

This is the Property/casualty equivalent of paying
for preventive care in health insurance. (Many insurance companies
refused to pay for preventive care because PC usually doesn't have an
effect until later in life when you most likely will be someone else
s problem and why should BC/BS spend money that will be saved by Aetna?)

I never thought I would see you explain one of the great benefits of a
single payer system. In such a system, preventative care DOES have a
payback. Well done, sir!

--
Bobby G.

"preventive insurance"
 

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

stuff snipped

This is the Property/casualty equivalent of paying
for preventive care in health insurance. (Many insurance companies
refused to pay for preventive care because PC usually doesn't have an
effect until later in life when you most likely will be someone else
s problem and why should BC/BS spend money that will be saved by Aetna?)

I never thought I would see you explain one of the great benefits of a
single payer system. In such a system, preventative care DOES have a
payback. Well done, sir!

--
Bobby G.

I pretty much expected you to take this out of context and blow it up
all out of proportion for some preconceived notion that you feel is good
with little or no look at the overall picture. While some preventive
medicine indicators generally show some promise (say losing weight and
obesity), there is considerably less documentation showing that any
particular weight loss intervention actually works.
When looked at in greater detail many "preventive" indications have
been shown to useless at best (see the most recent work on PSA tests
where the guidelines now discourage use) and actually cause harm at
worst (again being shown that many people go through invasive-- and
costly-- procedures for false positive readings).
Also, those few that have shown to have very good returns, such as
cholesterol screening, have long been included in the regular coverage.

Cherry picking at its finest. Well done, sir.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

fence "boundary" issue with neighbor
 

"micky" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Can't you make mulberry pie?

Don't know, never tried. The purple, car staining, drag them into the house
smashed into the soles of your shoes mulberries are just a memory for now.
It's the damn vampire stump that keeps coming back to life. Oh, and gone
are the flocks of birds that ate the mulberries and pooped out corrosive
purple guano that stained everything in sight. The sugar ants that lived
off the constant mulberry mush on the ground stayed and have been trying to
take over my kitchen now that their food source, the giving tree, ain't
giving anymore. Such is life.

I just hope trees don't feel pain and won't be screaming in treespeak "He's
pouring SALT into the wounds he just drilled into me" but then again, I
watch too much Robot Chicken. (-:

--
Bobby G.

"preventive insurance"
 

On 08-12-2013 11:31, Robert Green wrote:
If I had seen that and understood clearly that it was YOUR tree I would have
said "Well, cut it fu&ing down! Are you waiting for it kill someone!!!??"

Easy for you to say. I have an interesting set of choices:

1. Scrape up five grand for an insured professional to remove it.

2. Scrape up four grand for someone uninsured who could easily
CAUSE the damage I want to prevent.

3. Get my sixty-yer-old butt up the tree with chain saw,
pulleys, ropes, etc. and lower little bits at a time,
trying to avoid the power lines that run _under_ all
the branches.

Trunk diameter is about three feet. Lowest branch extends
_over_ his single-story. Higher ones go over my two-story.
My outer wall is three feet from the trunk. His is probably
fifteen feet away. Tree looks healthy, but if I stand in one particular
spot, I can see a scar that was probably caused
by lightning.

My house is a hundred years old. His, probably only fifty,
even though the lot was platted and first sold in 1910.

Could be the tree is that old. A recent storm took down
an even bigger tree three blocks away. But that one was
out in the open. This one is shielded from the wind by
the houses--the reason removal is so expensive. But that
doesn't stop large pieces from above the houses from being
blown off.

--
Wes Groleau

ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI

"preventive insurance"
 

Wes Groleau wrote:
On 08-12-2013 11:31, Robert Green wrote:
If I had seen that and understood clearly that it was
YOUR tree I
would have said "Well, cut it fu&ing down! Are you
waiting for it
kill someone!!!??"

Easy for you to say. I have an interesting set of
choices:

1. Scrape up five grand for an insured professional to
remove it.

2. Scrape up four grand for someone uninsured who could
easily
CAUSE the damage I want to prevent.

3. Get my sixty-yer-old butt up the tree with chain saw,
pulleys, ropes, etc. and lower little bits at a time,
trying to avoid the power lines that run _under_ all
the branches.

Trunk diameter is about three feet. Lowest branch extends
_over_ his single-story. Higher ones go over my
two-story.
My outer wall is three feet from the trunk. His is
probably
fifteen feet away. Tree looks healthy, but if I stand in
one
particular spot, I can see a scar that was probably caused
by lightning.


Another choice would be to get an arborist out to look at it
and give profesional opinion of health. Then just have it
professionally trimmed and remove the branches that could
have the most impact. Then slowly have the tree downsized so
that you pay it out overtime.
If you lived where I live the power company would come along
and trim(butcher) your tree back 10 feet from power lines
for free. You might not like the results, but at least it
would eliminate branches near the power lines

"preventive insurance"
 

"Wes Groleau" wrote in message
...
On 08-12-2013 11:31, Robert Green wrote:
If I had seen that and understood clearly that it was YOUR tree I would
have
said "Well, cut it fu&ing down! Are you waiting for it kill
someone!!!??"

Easy for you to say. I have an interesting set of choices:

I faced them all in this last year as I had to have over $5K worth of trees
removed. When it has to be done, it has to be done and all the trees that
were cut down had dead limbs of substantial size and two had arborist
certified "death sentences." Some hung right over my driveway and my
neighbor's driveway. Ask not for whom the bell tolls or the bole falls.
It's a bitch to have to pay to destroy trees that provide both landscaping
"beauty" and nice shade. But my neighbor has two sets of grandkids. A
secretary at the law firm I worked at lost her mother to an oak tree that
fell on her car on a clear, sunny day with no wind. That incident convinced
me to hire the pros and have them take down the questionable trees.

1. Scrape up five grand for an insured professional to remove it.

That's what I did for the difficult trees. Believe me, I would have loved
to have done other things with the $. But my video walk-around and my
neighbor's eyes both showed an extensive amount of non-budding branches.

2. Scrape up four grand for someone uninsured who could easily
CAUSE the damage I want to prevent.

My poor, late landscaper handled the trees that weren't likely to damage
something or kill someone if he got it wrong. I had worked with him for a
dozen years and knew his capabilities but these big trees were too close to
the building and were out his skill set. It took a crew of 8 with a little
French-Canadian (4'11"!) lumberjack who could climb tries toting a chainsaw
as buig as he was like a chimpanzee. He was remarkable to watch. He
climbed, secured ropes, trimmed the large branches and his helpers made sure
the branches landed safely.

3. Get my sixty-yer-old butt up the tree with chain saw,
pulleys, ropes, etc. and lower little bits at a time,
trying to avoid the power lines that run _under_ all
the branches.

Yikes. There's a bad idea. A VERY bad idea.

Trunk diameter is about three feet. Lowest branch extends
_over_ his single-story. Higher ones go over my two-story.
My outer wall is three feet from the trunk. His is probably
fifteen feet away. Tree looks healthy, but if I stand in one particular
spot, I can see a scar that was probably caused
by lightning.

I am surprised that you don't have root problems from a tree that large
being so close to the house. I did. I bought a house where the previous
occupants of a well-known religious persuasion believed that a home should
be surrounded by lots of fruit-bearing trees, all planted WAY too close to
the building line. Been paying for their mistakes ever since.

My house is a hundred years old. His, probably only fifty,
even though the lot was platted and first sold in 1910.

Mine's 75 years old. At least two of the trees that had to be cut down
could have done severe structural damage but my main concern was the large,
three boled tree with the fence growing through it that had already dropped
a huge branch on my shed, denting it enough to make me certain it would have
killed someone had it struck them. I didn't count the rings, but I suppose
I still can as the stump remains. The front maple was 60 some odd years
old, so I believe that they were all planted in the '40s except for the
*)&6& mulberry trees which were gifts from the owners that bought the place
in the 60's.

Could be the tree is that old. A recent storm took down
an even bigger tree three blocks away. But that one was
out in the open. This one is shielded from the wind by
the houses--the reason removal is so expensive. But that
doesn't stop large pieces from above the houses from being
blown off.

We both know what you have to do. (-: I took the money out in cash the day
before and got a "cash" discount that lessened the sting. A little. I
figured once the trees were down and nothing was damaged, paying them with
cash wasn't a big risk. It hurt like hell to count out all those Ben
Franklins but a serious storm two weeks later that dropped a LOT of branches
in the area convinced me I had done the right thing and probably just in
time.

Bite the bullet, Wes. What will it feel like if you don't and someone gets
hurt? It's only the cost of a nice little vacation somewhere or a huge, new
flatscreen 3D TV. (-: It is possible that a storm knocks it down and you
get your insurance company to pay for it, but you're already on record here
saying you know it's a potential problem and PRISM has likely already turned
you it.

The one advantage of taking down trees close to the structure is that if
there's a slipup they'll slide against the structure instead of falling from
a distance and developing a lot of kinetic injury (um, that's energy,
actually, but it sort of fits) before they hit.

--
Bobby G.

"preventive insurance"
 

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

stuff snipped

I never thought I would see you explain one of the great benefits of a
single payer system. In such a system, preventative care DOES have a
payback. Well done, sir!

I pretty much expected you to take this out of context and blow it up
all out of proportion for some preconceived notion that you feel is good
with little or no look at the overall picture.

Jeez, dude, if you really "expected this" you should have kept it to
yourself and not let your guard down. (-: Don't blame me for pointing out
that your comment supports single payer healthcare.

I made what I thought was a very gentle jab at your rather entrenched
anti-ACA position. You *are* rather entrenched on that, aren't you? If
not, please correct me. Right now I have you rated as a 10 on the "Hates
meeces to pieces* and the ACA, too" scale. Anyway, I didn't expect the
Spanish Inquisition over a fairly mundane observation.

Kurt, you must realize there's an *awful* lot of error AND projection in
your paragraph. There wasn't much context to start with, so it's hard to
see how you can support your an "out of context" charge. You're sounding
perilously like the people who say "that's what I said but it's not what I
meant."

As for the claim that I was the one to "blow it up?" A simple single
paragraph that says "odd to see you support single payer" is hardly what I
would consider a "blow up." Your somewhat inflammatory, accusatory response
would seem to be a better fit for "blow up." *This* response is a "blow up"
but the original post? Not very much.

And how can anyone cherry pick broad concepts? I've always seen that word
used in reference to pulling statistics together that ignore broader or
conflicting trends.

A much better example of "cherry picking" would be how you first freely
admitted "PC (preventive care) usually doesn't have an effect until later in
life" and that "money ... will be saved." Then, when you realized you had
inadvertently posted a reason why single payer health care has an advantage,
you decimated your own claim by picking it apart. You reversed gears to
show PC results are poor, especially if you look at certain, particular
areas. Who's cherry picking *what* here?

What I find far more interesting is how well you seem to know my precise
motives (you're incorrect, BTW). I've been taught in several evidence
classes that knowing *why* a person did something calls for an uncanny (and
impossible) understanding of their thought processes. You imply that I have
no understanding of the "overall picture." You somehow seem to know what I
know and don't know about preventive treatment, the PSA flap, the Guardasil
debate, etc. That's not very credible.

Kurt, you've clearly had some legal and/or evidentiary education somewhere.
What does the law say about someone testifying to the operation of another's
mind? It's forbidden by rules of evidence because it's just not credible on
its face that a person is able to get "inside" another's head to read their
thoughts. Objection, you honor. Objection sustained. Next witness. (-:

The simple explanation is the one that works best he I thought it was
funny to see you saying anything that could be remotely construed as
positive concerning single payer health care. As far as I can remember,
it's your belief that the ACA is one of the worst things that's ever
happened to American health care. Or am I mistaken?

I don't see how it's possible to have a logical, dispassionate discussion of
the serious health care issues facing America if one of us is going to
effectively claim to have the ability to read minds. (-: Now I lay no
claim to psychic powers, but I am betting your pulse and respiration rates
are higher than when you started reading.

--
Bobby G.

*Cartoon-based humor alert for the culturally deprived.

Pixie and Dixie and Mr. Jinks is also remembered for Mr. Jinks' rhyming but
ungrammatical lament, "I hate those meeces to pieces!".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixie_a..._and_Mr._Jinks

"preventive insurance"
 

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"K
I pretty much expected you to take this out of context and blow it up
all out of proportion for some preconceived notion that you feel is good
with little or no look at the overall picture.

Jeez, dude, if you really "expected this" you should have kept it to
yourself and not let your guard down. (-: Don't blame me for pointing out
that your comment supports single payer healthcare.

I made what I thought was a very gentle jab at your rather entrenched
anti-ACA position. You *are* rather entrenched on that, aren't you? If
not, please correct me. Right now I have you rated as a 10 on the "Hates
meeces to pieces* and the ACA, too" scale. Anyway, I didn't expect the
Spanish Inquisition over a fairly mundane observation.
Yeah, because I see from past experience and study that it isn't
likely to work and will probably end up making things worse. MCare is
both rife with waste and fraud (which ACA is supposed to suddenly
address), teh VA is famous for not treating vets, etc.



As for the claim that I was the one to "blow it up?" A simple single
paragraph that says "odd to see you support single payer" is hardly what I
would consider a "blow up." Your somewhat inflammatory, accusatory response
would seem to be a better fit for "blow up." *This* response is a "blow up"
but the original post? Not very much.

But it didn't support and there was nothing in there (which you just
admitted BTW) that did.

And how can anyone cherry pick broad concepts? I've always seen that word
used in reference to pulling statistics together that ignore broader or
conflicting trends.

A much better example of "cherry picking" would be how you first freely
admitted "PC (preventive care) usually doesn't have an effect until later in
life" and that "money ... will be saved." Then, when you realized you had
inadvertently posted a reason why single payer health care has an advantage,
you decimated your own claim by picking it apart. You reversed gears to
show PC results are poor, especially if you look at certain, particular
areas. Who's cherry picking *what* here?
Actually I did not. I stated both times that there is money to be
saved. The first was a short statement, the second going on in greater
detail because you decided I was arguing for PC as a reason for single
payer. I did nothing of the sort.

What I find far more interesting is how well you seem to know my precise
motives (you're incorrect, BTW). I've been taught in several evidence
classes that knowing *why* a person did something calls for an uncanny (and
impossible) understanding of their thought processes. You imply that I have
no understanding of the "overall picture." You somehow seem to know what I
know and don't know about preventive treatment, the PSA flap, the Guardasil
debate, etc. That's not very credible.
Yet you are more than happy to know MY precise motives and to take a
small statement and turn it into something I most certainly do NOT think
is correct.


Kurt, you've clearly had some legal and/or evidentiary education somewhere.
What does the law say about someone testifying to the operation of another's
mind? It's forbidden by rules of evidence because it's just not credible on
its face that a person is able to get "inside" another's head to read their
thoughts. Objection, you honor. Objection sustained. Next witness. (-:
Again, you are more than happy to tell me what MY opinion is.


The simple explanation is the one that works best he I thought it was
funny to see you saying anything that could be remotely construed as
positive concerning single payer health care. As far as I can remember,
it's your belief that the ACA is one of the worst things that's ever
happened to American health care. Or am I mistaken?

One of them certainly. It takes all the bad things in American
healthcare and builds up them. Plus, the overall scope of the operation
is going to be rife with implementations of the laws of unintended
consequenses (which we see already. I don't think it is just
happenstance that the number of doctors opting out of MCare has gone
up--albeit from very low numbers to merely low numbers, but still there
is a trend that needs to be watched closely). The proportion of docs
accepting new MCare patients is falling--especially among the primary
care docs).


I don't see how it's possible to have a logical, dispassionate discussion of
the serious health care issues facing America if one of us is going to
effectively claim to have the ability to read minds. (-: Now I lay no
claim to psychic powers, but I am betting your pulse and respiration rates
are higher than when you started reading.
Gee you not only can read my mind, but also my vital signs from a
distance. I shall now bow to your obvious greatness (grin).


--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

"preventive insurance"
 

On 08-13-2013 20:36, Robert Green wrote:
What does the law say about someone testifying to the operation of another's
mind? It's forbidden by rules of evidence because it's just not credible on
its face that a person is able to get "inside" another's head to read their
thoughts. Objection, you honor. Objection sustained. Next witness. (-:

Unless it's a "hate crime"

--
Wes Groleau

€œA miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a
firm and unalterable experience has established these laws,
the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact,
is as entire as could possibly be imagined.€�
€” David Hume, age 37
€œThere's no such thing of that, 'cause I never heard of it.€�
€” Becky Groleau, age 4

"preventive insurance"
 

"Wes Groleau" wrote in message
...
On 08-13-2013 20:36, Robert Green wrote:
What does the law say about someone testifying to the operation of
another's
mind? It's forbidden by rules of evidence because it's just not
credible on
its face that a person is able to get "inside" another's head to read
their
thoughts. Objection, you honor. Objection sustained. Next witness.
(-:

Unless it's a "hate crime"

Or a conspiracy charge. There's no accounting for Congress and state
legislatures and their poor understanding of centuries of legal reasoning.
But you do bring up an interesting point. I believe the rules of evidence
still prevent a living witness from saying something like "It's obvious
Robert Green hates all (insert "protected" minority here)" without any
reference to a tangible action on my part.

Now if these witnesses were reporting that they had seen me cutting the
heads of cigar store Indians (are there any left outside of Seinfeld?)
shouting "Death to all Indians" or *saying* in a bar that "the only good
Indian is a dead one" while stabbing a picture of Geronimo with a steak
knife, it's a slightly different story than implying I hated Indians based
on someone's opinion or conjecture. Still, it's a very tricky proposition
and although many hate crime charges are brought, very few convictions
result primarily because of the rules of evidence and the prohibitions
concerning testifying as to the "operation of another person's mind."

Many noted legal theorists are unhappy with "hate crime" laws and well as
conspiracy laws precisely because they get so close to the dividing line
between observable facts and opinions as to what the defendant was thinking.

http://www.dogguide.net/blog/2007/12...-dogs-stomach/

No, wait, that's the wrong URL, but interesting anyway. Here's the right
one:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...ly-prosecuted/

Nationwide, hate crimes are not reported as often as one might think, and
they are rarely prosecuted. Although some say this reflects a racial bias,
it can also be difficult to prove hate crimes. The number of reported cases
can vary widely. Louisiana and Mississippi, for instance, reported three and
zero hate crimes, respectively, in one recent year, writes the Chicago
Tribune. In Wisconsin, by contrast, about 15 convicted defendants annually
are given so-called hate crime sentencing enhancers. And in California 1,691
hate crimes were reported in 2005 and 330 were prosecuted. Of the 274 cases
in which the prosecution has been completed, 137 resulted in convictions . .
.. Community members are understandably unhappy when an apparently race-,
gender- or religion-based crime against someone they perceive as one of
their own isn't prosecuted as a hate crime. But this isn't necessarily
because of prosecutorial bias: It may simply be a function of how difficult
it is to prove such cases, experts say.
They are difficult to prove precisely because they can't be legally proved
by someone testifying to the operation of the defendant's mind.
Unfortunately, if the defendant is unlucky enough to get a bad lawyer that
doesn't object to that kind of prohibited testimony and get an equally bad
judge that allows it, a conviction may result. It should be easily
overturned on appeal but if the defendant couldn't afford a decent lawyer to
start with, his chances at the appellate level will likely be just as bad
unless Alan Dershowitz or someone like him decides to take the case pro
bono.

http://www.centralkitsapreporter.com/news/19768654.html

"Although Kitsap County residents regularly file complaints with the
Sheriff’s Department alleging hate crimes, few claims make their way to
convictions. A hate crime is defined as an offense committed against a
person or property motivated in whole or in part by the offender’s bias
against race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity or gender.
Convictions rely on proving offenders acted on their bias when they
committed their crimes. To prove that, prosecutors and police officers must
'get into the heads' of the criminals, said Kitsap County Sheriff Department
Chief of Detectives Mike Davis

They go on to state that if someone's chasing a half-black kid with a
baseball bat shouting "We're going to kill you, n!gger!" it's pretty clear
that there's a "hate" element to the crime. Just like arson cases,
investigators much prefer in hate crime cases to wiretap suspect out on bail
with the hopes that they incriminate themselves on tape.

I think that's what the Feds hope/hoped to do with GZ but all they got was
evidence that his wife perjured herself. I would bet the Feds still have
him wiretapped hoping for a serious "admission against interest" but it may
not be forthcoming unless GZ really screws up. I suspect that's what's
taking so long to close out the investigation.

IIRC, the physical evidence in the Indianapolis gas arson case appears to be
heavily bolstered by wiretaps of the suspects bragging about their crime
after getting drunk/stoned on an advance the police arranged the insurers to
pay out. I can't find the article I read about that now, but these two
cites indicate that wiretaps and observation was occurring when the suspects
were out on bail. I assume they were arrested as soon as investigators got
an admission of guilt on tape.

http://fox59.com/2012/12/24/contradi...xplosion-case/

In the weeks after the explosion, Shirley and Mark Leonard moved to at
least two residences in Greenwood, landing finally at Devonshire Luxury
Apartments. Friday morning, tailed by investigators, Shirley and Mark
Leonard dropped her daughter off at Our Lady of Greenwood school. According
to the probable cause, the couple had been followed by investigators for
several weeks, observed taking meetings and parking in secluded places to
conduct conversations and make phone calls from inside their car.

We can be assured that just like PRISM, they didn't actually *listen* to any
of those calls. Uh huh. (-:

They definitely had jailhouse wiretaps on one suspect, but I believe those
tapes are still sealed:

http://www.wthitv.com/news/crime/bla...without-parole

Additional motions filed earlier, including a request for all phone calls
and wiretaps performed on Shirley while she's been incarcerated in the
Marion County Jail, and a belated alibi motion alleging that Mark Leonard
was at a casino at the time of the explosion, have also been taken under
advisement by the judge.

Wiretapping defendants in cases like this is SOP because sadly most
criminals aren't smart enough to keep from incriminating themselves. More
importantly, prosecutors like nothing better than defendants "convicting"
themselves in their own words and voices because it avoids juries being
hopelessly confused by complex physical evidence and conflicting
interpretations by expert witnesses.

It also tends to reduce moments like OJ trying on the blood-soaked gloves
and proclaiming "it couldn't have been him." I have some leather gloves that
got wet and *they* don't fit anymore either. How Darden, Garcetti and Clark
could have lived their lives without ever encountering wet gloves and
leather shrinkage is a mystery for the ages.

--
Bobby G.

"preventive insurance"
 

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



It also tends to reduce moments like OJ trying on the blood-soaked gloves
and proclaiming "it couldn't have been him." I have some leather gloves that
got wet and *they* don't fit anymore either. How Darden, Garcetti and Clark
could have lived their lives without ever encountering wet gloves and
leather shrinkage is a mystery for the ages.
Heck how they couldn't figure that putting latex gloves on under the
gloves wouldn't make a difference is beyond my comprehension.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

"preventive insurance"
 

On 08-15-2013 15:43, Robert Green wrote:
They go on to state that if someone's chasing a half-black kid with a
baseball bat shouting "We're going to kill you, n!gger!" it's pretty clear
that there's a "hate" element to the crime. Just like arson cases,

"We're going to kill you!" is pretty clearly an expression of hate even
if the victim and pursuers look alike. There's no such thing as a
"friendly" murder.

I disapprove of increasing or decreasing the punishment for killing Joe
on the basis of murderer's attitudes are about people similar to Joe.

But if we're going to punish evil thoughts, let's be honest and call it
the crime of racism or sexism or whatever instead of twisting the
definition of "hate" into something different.

fence issue with neighbor
 

leza wang wrote:
Hi
I just would love to hear your opinion about this. . . . ,

http://tinypic.com/r/25t7wy8/5 (my house is to the Left)
http://tinypic.com/r/25g9bol/5 (my house is to the Right)
http://tinypic.com/r/2432smq/5 (my house is to the Right)

Leza,

So-o-o-o...., what was the outcome?

fence issue with neighbor
 

On Friday, August 9, 2013 2:42:55 PM UTC-5, leza wang wrote:
Hi I just would love to hear your opinion about this. There is a fence between our house and neighbor. None of us build the fence. We bought the houses and the fence was/is there. The neighbor are now doing waterproof the basement. So they are digging the area close to fence. They asked me if I will allow them to move the dirt to my place (just easier than moving to the front of their house). I said no (I do not want to get all the mess, they are hiring unprofessional workers and this has been going for 4 weeks. These workers do not have even the right tools to do the job). Anyway, yesterday we were away when we came back we saw the fence boards are removed except the frame and the dirt moved to our backyard! (see pictures below please). I expressed my disapproval strongly to the workers because the owner/neighbor was not there. The workers said you are neighbor and you should help etc and they promise to removed it today and said they put blue tar underneath so my backyard will be clean after. I was angry with them because they did not take my permission but then I said OK fine because I want to keep good term between us. Today they said they can not remove the dirt and need another day. They asked kindly so I said that is ok but I want it to be removed tomorrow. I have the back of the fence (if you can see from the picture). It seems the person who lived before my current neighbor built the fence but not sure. Who really own the fence now? can each of us do anything with the fence without telling the other if they can do this or that? Thanks a lot. http://tinypic.com/r/25t7wy8/5 (my house is to the Left) http://tinypic..com/r/25g9bol/5 (my house is to the Right) http://tinypic.com/r/2432smq/5 (my house is to the Right)

Leza,

You have had many responses, how about updating things?????

"preventive insurance"
 

On Friday, August 16, 2013 12:36:38 AM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 08-15-2013 15:43, Robert Green wrote:

They go on to state that if someone's chasing a half-black kid with a

baseball bat shouting "We're going to kill you, n!gger!" it's pretty clear

that there's a "hate" element to the crime. Just like arson cases,



"We're going to kill you!" is pretty clearly an expression of hate even

if the victim and pursuers look alike. There's no such thing as a

"friendly" murder.



I disapprove of increasing or decreasing the punishment for killing Joe

on the basis of murderer's attitudes are about people similar to Joe.



I have no problem with a judge taking that into account when
coming up with the sentence for the crime. Lets say you have
two cases. Both are assault cases, one was purely over an argument
and the other was at least partly because of race, being gay, etc.
There should be enough discretion under the law so that the
judge can take the situation into account at sentencing.

I think the current hate crime laws are dangerously close to
what amounts to an infringement on free speech and thought.
Let's say you're at rally protesting against gay marriage.
You wind up in a fight with someone gay from the other side.
You could very easily be charged with a hate crime that carries
a sentence 10X what you would get if it were a simple street
fight over something else. All they pretty much have to do
is show that
in the heat of the moment, you called your opponent a fag.
Something about that just doesn't
sit right with me. Funny, you never hear the libs worrying
about any of that....





But if we're going to punish evil thoughts, let's be honest and call it

the crime of racism or sexism or whatever instead of twisting the

definition of "hate" into something different.