Jerkhood of the Year Nominations

[_bcspace]

Okay. Four pages without my name being mentioned for nomination. That means from here on out, any mention of it in that context can't be taken seriously (though I am somewhat disappointed....).

[_Lucinda]

Okay. Four pages without my name being mentioned for nomination. That means from here on out, any mention of it in that context can't be taken seriously (though I am somewhat disappointed....).

I think you try too hard to come across as a jerk. I think you're probably a nice guy.

[_bcspace]

I think you try too hard to come across as a jerk. I think you're probably a nice guy.

Well thank you. But I don't try any such things.

[_Darth J]

A major premise of your "tough s***" argument is that people living in a motel have no rights in particular.

Where did I even come close to stating this?!

It started when you insisted that a motel where people are living is not housing.

Under Utah law, long-term residents of a motel are treated as tenants, not guests.

Which law?

You obviously have no idea about what you're talking about, even though you want to argue about it, so I'll try to explain this without getting overly technical.

The system of common law originated in England. In this system, courts interpreted law and created legal remedies for people who had been damaged by the actions of others. Over time, courts of chancery also developed, where people who did not have an adequate remedy at law could seek what was called "equitable relief." "Equity" in this sense basically means getting justice when the exact letter of the law does not adequately address your problem.

Having its origins as colonies of England, the United States of America is a common law country. The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, for example, guarantees the right to a jury trial for common law actions over a certain dollar amount. Many of the "laws" that people in the United States take for granted did not originate with a legislature, but with judicial decisions. These are things like the elements necessary to form a binding contract, suing someone for negligence (like running into your car), professional malpractice, defamation, battery (unlawful harmful physical contact), intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. (judicially-created causes of action for a legal wrong are called "torts").

Law and equity have merged for the most part in the U.S.; in Utah, courts of general jurisdiction hear causes of action both in law and in equity (that means you can sue someone for a tort or breach of contract and also ask for equitable relief, like an injunction, in the same lawsuit).

In Utah, courts also have a constitutional mandate to provide a remedy for people who have been harmed by another person's actions.

All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, which shall be administered without denial or unnecessary delay; and no person shall be barred from prosecuting or defending before any tribunal in this State, by himself or counsel, any civil cause to which he is a party.

Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 11

In a common law jurisdiction, lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts when dealing with cases about similar issues. This legal doctrine is called stare decisis ("doctrine" is the word that lawyers and judges use for generally applicable legal precepts). The way this operates in practice is called "case law." So, in Utah, because the Utah Supreme Court held in Lambert v. Sine that a long-term motel resident should be treated like a tenant and not just a guest, it is the law in Utah that a long-term motel resident is treated like a tenant and not just a guest.

So just to recap the things you have been arguing about with me and about which you have demonstrated specific ignorance:

1. The plain and accepted meaning of the word "housing."
2. LDS teachings about being burned at the Second Coming for failing to pay tithing.
3. What "law" even is.

[_Gordon]

It started when you insisted that a motel where people are living is not housing.

This does not mean that I think they do not have rights. I'm almost baffled that you have connected the two.

So just to recap the things you have been arguing about with me and about which you have demonstrated specific ignorance

Wow. That was a long-winded post that did not support your claim...seeing as I already pointed out that the case you cited does not apply to the incident at hand. The case does not find that "long-term residents of a motel are treated as tenants, not guests.". It found that under those specific circumstances, the relationship between the brothers were that of tenant/landlord. The people from the Ogden Lodge do not meet those criteria.

Now, as for your other assertions, I find it odd that you would claim me ignorant when you failed to address my remarks on them earlier...

[_Yoda]

I think you try too hard to come across as a jerk. I think you're probably a nice guy.

Well thank you. But I don't try any such things.

It just comes naturally. ;-)

Sorry, though, sweets. I know this is hard for your ego to take, but I just can't nominate you for Jerk of the Year.. You're small potatoes compared to the others listed.

[Guest]

It started when you insisted that a motel where people are living is not housing.

This does not mean that I think they do not have rights. I'm almost baffled that you have connected the two.

The existence of any such rights depends on their status as residents of that motel.

So just to recap the things you have been arguing about with me and about which you have demonstrated specific ignorance

Wow. That was a long-winded post that did not support your claim...seeing as I already pointed out that the case you cited does not apply to the incident at hand. The case does not find that "long-term residents of a motel are treated as tenants, not guests.". It found that under those specific circumstances, the relationship between the brothers were that of tenant/landlord. The people from the Ogden Lodge do not meet those criteria.

Now, as for your other assertions, I find it odd that you would claim me ignorant when you failed to address my remarks on them earlier...

Well of course anyone who disagrees with you and knows whereof they speak is either long-winded or making it up. If fact contradicts your assumptions, the facts must be wrong. That's just to be expected for an internet defender of Mormonism (despite your repeated claim that you aren't defending the LDS Church here, this isn't the only thread in which you are participating).

What you've said above isn't how case law works. If case law were limited to the specific facts of a given case, then precedent wouldn't mean anything. Case law means deriving general legal principles from specific cases. Here is the Utah Supreme Court citing Lambert (and other cases) as authority for general legal principles:

Pentecost v. Harward

Both the statutes and the tort action derived from them require that unless a tenant plainly abandons the premises, a landlord must resort to judicial process if he wishes to be rid of a tenant in peaceable possession. See U.C.A., 1953, §§ 78-36-1, -12 (1977 & Supp. 1983); Frisco Joes, Inc. v. Peay, Utah, 558 P.2d 1327 (1977). This is true even if that tenant's possession is wrongful. Self-help is too likely to lead to a breach of the peace to be permitted, and contractual provisions purporting to authorize it will be void as against public policy. See, e.g., Freeway Park Building, Inc. v. Western States Wholesale Supply,22 Utah.2d 266, 270, 451 P.2d 778, 781 (1969); King v. Firm,3 Utah.2d 419, 425-26, 285 P.2d 1114, 1118 (1955). One who resorts to self-help is liable to the evicted tenant for all damages proximately caused by the eviction, including mental pain and suffering. Cf. Lambert v. Sine,123 Utah. 145, 150, 256 P.2d 241, 244 (1953).

Hackford v. Snow

A lease may also be terminated pursuant to statutory enactment, to wit, the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act. In Lambert v. Sine,123 Utah. 145, 256 P.2d 241 (1953), where there was no written lease, the court held that the tenants at a motel "could only be dispossessed of the apartment by resort to the statutory remedy of unlawful detainer."

Peterson v. Platt

Our previous decisions construing our forcible entry and detainer statute places a duty on a person whether entitled to the real property in question or not, to not use force or stealth or fraud in obtaining possession of such realty. Such forcible entry and detainer statute creates a right in a person who is in actual peaceable possession of such real property to a cause of action against a person who, in his absence, and without legal process, by force, stealth or fraud, takes the possession of such property from him. (See Paxton v. Fisher, 86 Utah. 408, 45 P.2d 903; Woodbury v. Bunker, 98 Utah. 216, 98 P.2d 948; Paxton v. Deardon, 94 Utah. 149, 76 P.2d 561; Buchanan v. Crites, 106 Utah. 428, 150 P.2d 100, 154 A.L.R. 167; King v. Firm, 3 Utah.2d 419, 285 P.2d 1114; Lambert v. Sine, 123 Utah. 145, 256 P.2d 241.) (Notice that the Supreme Court is applying Lambert to a case involving the lease of an Article Circle fast food restaurant.)

And here's the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit applying Lambert to members of the Navajo tribe losing horses and burros---not exactly the same set of facts there:

United States v. Hatahley

While damages for mental pain and suffering, where there has been no physical injury, are allowed only in extreme cases, they may be awarded in some circumstances. Restatement of the Law of Torts, §§ 46, 47; State v. Baltimore Transit Co., 197 Md. 528, 80 A.2d 13, 28 A.L.R.2d 1062, and the cases collected at 28 A.L.R.2d 1070, et seq. See, also, Lambert v. Sine, 123 Utah. 145, 256 P.2d 241.

So tell me again about how Lambert only applies to the specific facts of that case.

Like a good little internet Mormon, you make sure also to keep calling the things I back up with fact mere "assertion," and to tell me I haven't responded to your "remarks" that consist entirely of ipse dixit, "Nuh uh," and "You're stupid."

[_sock puppet]

You obviously have no idea about what you're talking about, even though you want to argue about it, so I'll try to explain this without getting overly technical.

The system of common law originated in England. In this system, courts interpreted law and created legal remedies for people who had been damaged by the actions of others. Over time, courts of chancery also developed, where people who did not have an adequate remedy at law could seek what was called "equitable relief." "Equity" in this sense basically means getting justice when the exact letter of the law does not adequately address your problem.

Having its origins as colonies of England, the United States of America is a common law country. The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, for example, guarantees the right to a jury trial for common law actions over a certain dollar amount. Many of the "laws" that people in the United States take for granted did not originate with a legislature, but with judicial decisions. These are things like the elements necessary to form a binding contract, suing someone for negligence (like running into your car), professional malpractice, defamation, battery (unlawful harmful physical contact), intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. (judicially-created causes of action for a legal wrong are called "torts").

Law and equity have merged for the most part in the U.S.; in Utah, courts of general jurisdiction hear causes of action both in law and in equity (that means you can sue someone for a tort or breach of contract and also ask for equitable relief, like an injunction, in the same lawsuit).

In Utah, courts also have a constitutional mandate to provide a remedy for people who have been harmed by another person's actions.

All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, which shall be administered without denial or unnecessary delay; and no person shall be barred from prosecuting or defending before any tribunal in this State, by himself or counsel, any civil cause to which he is a party.

Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 11

In a common law jurisdiction, lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts when dealing with cases about similar issues. This legal doctrine is called stare decisis ("doctrine" is the word that lawyers and judges use for generally applicable legal precepts). The way this operates in practice is called "case law." So, in Utah, because the Utah Supreme Court held in Lambert v. Sine that a long-term motel resident should be treated like a tenant and not just a guest, it is the law in Utah that a long-term motel resident is treated like a tenant and not just a guest.

So just to recap the things you have been arguing about with me and about which you have demonstrated specific ignorance:

1. The plain and accepted meaning of the word "housing."
2. LDS teachings about being burned at the Second Coming for failing to pay tithing.
3. What "law" even is.

It might really help Yahoo Bot's career if he reads this post.

[_Kishkumen]

I would have gone to the motel down the street...

I guess you had an option they didn't. So what is your point?

[_Some Schmo]

I must be a jerkwannabe, because I would like to be able to emulate Schmo.

If you want to emulate SS then take an ice pick to your frontal lobe.

No one can smack you up-side the head with reality like Schmo can. I love it.

Pull the other leg; it has bells on it.

Back to stalking me again, CC? When will it end?

Don't mind him, Hades. This is just the continuation of the tantrum he's been throwing ever since I spurned his advances. He thinks I'm his, and any compliments people pay me throw him into a jealous rage.

CC, give it up. I'm not having sex with you. I'm flattered you want me, but sorry. I don't hump men or mental patients, so you've got two strikes against you out of the gate. If you want a man, send Nehor a PM. He's likely to go for your backdoor shenanigans. Don't make me get a restraining order.