Jerkhood of the Year Nominations

[_Gordon]

I must have missed that part. Have you spoken with them about their circumstances? Or are you simply drawing an inference?

This is based on the fact that they were staying at the Ogden Lodge...which means that they had to have been paying for their stay. Nobody has shown, nor have I seen the residents of the OL state, that they paid a reduced rate from the other similarly rated motels in the area.

[_Gordon]

I guess Darth was correct concerning your ability to argue case law.

Are simple baseless implications your way of having discussions?

[_Jersey Girl]

I must have missed that part. Have you spoken with them about their circumstances? Or are you simply drawing an inference?

This is based on the fact that they were staying at the Ogden Lodge...which means that they had to have been paying for their stay. Nobody has shown, nor have I seen the residents of the OL state, that they paid a reduced rate from the other similarly rated motels in the area.

For pity sakes, Gordon. The Church tossed the people out on their collective ears within a week of Christmas.

[_Darth J]

I must have missed that part. Have you spoken with them about their circumstances? Or are you simply drawing an inference?

This is based on the fact that they were staying at the Ogden Lodge...which means that they had to have been paying for their stay. Nobody has shown, nor have I seen the residents of the OL state, that they paid a reduced rate from the other similarly rated motels in the area.

I remember when the multitudes came to Jesus, and there was only a few loaves and a few fishes to feed them, and Jesus told everyone to go find their own food, since by virtue of not having starved to death already they clearly had enough to eat. That's one of my favorite New Testament stories.

[_Darth J]

So did Jeff K. name his sock puppet "Gordon" after President Hinckley, or was there another reason?

[_Darth J]

Speaking of the incessant mantra that a motel is not housing and people who live long-term at a motel are not tenants, here's the U.S. Department of Justice in an essay discussing crime at budget motels:

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Pub ... 042574.txt

A number of motels cater predominantly to local clients
with a wide variety of reasons for renting budget rooms.
Low-income workers sometimes seek long-term housing at
motels rather than apartments, because motels do not
require a first and last month's deposit and let guests "pay
as they go." People living day-to-day may be able to pay $38
a night for a motel room (with an average monthly total of
more than $1,100), but unable to pay $500 all at once for
an apartment. Motels also offer free furnishings, as well as
cable television, electricity, and a telephone. People lacking
steady jobs also rent motel rooms nightly, short term, or
long term, for the same reasons.

Seasonal or short-term laborers, such as migrant and
construction workers, also rent budget motel rooms, for
anywhere from several weeks to several months. In some
cases, government agencies that subsidize housing refer
specific groups of people to motels. For example, the
agencies sometimes provide public-assistance recipients and
parolees with housing vouchers they can use at motels......

Long-term guests also pose risks for motels. The CSUSB
study found that the average length of stay at a motel was
strongly correlated with citizen-initiated CFS/room ratios:
the longer the average stay, the higher the citizen-initiated
CFS/room ratio. Because they are designed to
accommodate short-term guests, motel rooms are not
typically stocked with cleaning products such as
disinfectants, rags, dusters, mops, and vacuum cleaners,
and can quickly deteriorate without frequent housekeeping
and maintenance–services that low-end motels do not
generally provide. Problem long-term guests are also
difficult to remove from motels. In many jurisdictions,
motel guests are considered legal tenants after 28 days of
renting, and managers must have them evicted if they
want them to leave.

A person who stays seven or more
days at a motel can be considered a
long-term guest. In some
jurisdictions, making weekly
payments for motel rooms
constitutes tenancy (Campbell
DeLong Resources Inc. and
Portland Police Bureau 1999).

[_Darth J]

Another agency that contradicts Gordon---and therefore has no idea what it is talking about---is the Utah Housing Coalition, which evidently sees the Ogden Lodge situation as a housing issue, since it links to the story on its website:

http://www.utahhousing.org/

[_Gordon]

That was never the point.

The point, was that you claimed I had stated that they had no rights.

You are trying to limit Lambert only to its specific facts, and that is not how case law works.

I'm arguing that Lambert deals with forcible entry and detainer, and that does not apply in the Odgen Lodge closing.

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.

Come again? I think you're confusing yourself. I'm not doing as you assert.

Since I am dealing with someone who uses "you're" as a possessive and "your" as a contraction of "you are"

Forgive me...professor...for omitting an apostrophe. However, I don't see where I did the former.

and then implies that people who disagree with him are illiterate

Not illiterate, just having trouble with comprehension.

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.

But you seem to be using those as proof that torts were committed in the incident of the Odgen Motel...i.e. they were "evicted".

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.

No. You're trying to argue that the people on the Mayflower ultimately suffered the same as those on the Titanic because they were both on boats.

These people who lived at the Ogden Lodge have plenty of food and money

Never said anything about plenty.

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

No, we should not presume that that was her only option, seeing as the facts suggest otherwise.

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

I addressed the statements and citations that you gave...deal with them.

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

Again, do you consider a car "housing"? How about a treehouse? Under my porch?

Case law only applies to the specific facts of a given case

Case law must apply to similar situations. Case law for computer hacking does not apply to case law for child porn simply because computers were involved in both cases.

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

I'm not arguing residency, I'm arguing the "eviction" claim.

Now, where again did my posts contain your "Nuh uh," and "You're stupid" innuendos?

[_Gordon]

For pity sakes, Gordon. The Church tossed the people out on their collective ears within a week of Christmas.

A motel closed a week or so before Christmas, period.

[_Gordon]

I remember when the multitudes came to Jesus, and there was only a few loaves and a few fishes to feed them, and Jesus told everyone to go find their own food, since by virtue of not having starved to death already they clearly had enough to eat. That's one of my favorite New Testament stories.

They didn't come to Him for physical food, they came for spiritual food.