Gordon wrote:Darth J wrote:The existence of any such rights depends on their status as residents of that motel.
The status of any of the residents doesn't apply...the motel closed. Are my individual rights infringed upon when a store closes because I shopped there?
That was never the point. The people living at that motel were tenants. They were residents, not just guests. And that is the whole point of this thread: the LDS Church forced these people to leave their residence to make way for a vacant lot.
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.
You don't seem to know what your talking about. The facts you cite don't apply.
You're arguing with me about whether you can take a general principle of law from a specific case. You are trying to limit
Lambert only to its specific facts, and that is not how case law works. As a matter of law and as a matter of practical reality, that motel was home for these people. The fact that this was not home in any permanent sense is part of what is pitiful about their situation---and I mean "pitiful" in its literal sense of having pity.
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).
Yes, I am on other threads. However, for this topic, I was not posting to do so.
So you are defending the actions of the LDS Church, and suggesting that anyone troubled by same is anti-Mormon, and yet you are not defending the LDS Church. Yes, that makes perfect sense.
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.
Wow. For somebody trying to sound like an expert in law, you sure seem ignorant. The precedent, as you state, does not involve a place of business shutting down...it involves forcible entry and detainer of specific individuals.
Since I am dealing with someone who uses "you're" as a possessive and "your" as a contraction of "you are", and then implies that people who disagree with him are illiterate, I will just say for the benefit of other viewers that I was talking about how Utah law treats long-term motel residents, which is a separate issue from the torts committed in
Lambert. So tell me again about how Lambert only applies to the specific facts of that case.
Because forcible entry and detainer does not apply to the Ogden Lodge closing it's doors. What don't you understand about that?...The only facts that you have presented do not apply.
Trying to argue about whether someone is a tenant by saying that
Lambert involved torts not present in the Ogden Lodge closing is like arguing that the Mayflower and the Titanic were not both boats because the Titanic ran into an iceberg, while the Mayflower did not.
and to tell me I haven't responded to your "remarks" that consist entirely of ipse dixit, "Nuh uh," and "You're stupid."
And you can show my posts to be so, yes?
1. These people who lived at the Ogden Lodge have plenty of food and money......because Gordon says so.
2. If a woman is going to stay at a homeless shelter with her young daughter instead of finding another motel, we should not presume that she is doing so as a last resort......because Gordon says so.
3. Despite the plain statements of Doctrine and Covenants and three General Authorities, the LDS Church does not teach that those who fail to pay tithing will be burned at the Second Coming.....because Gordon says so.
4. The dictionary defines housing as any place of lodging, and defines lodging as a place of temporary shelter, but this motel was not housing for these people......because Gordon says so.
5. Case law only applies to the specific facts of a given case.....because Gordon says so. When that premise is shown to be clearly wrong, then the people living at the Ogden Lodge are not residents because they were not wrongfully evicted......because Gordon says so. And by the same reasoning, the Goodyear blimp and the Hindenburg were not both airships, because the Goodyear blimp has not exploded.