Proposed Amended BP-16

If for one minute you think I would want to put a target on my back, and name names and Clubs and you're crazy!

Besides, it's not my place to do that. It's the responsibility of the RCSC to police the Clubs that they authorized to exist.

If you want transparency, then ask the RCSC what they know and when did they know it.

 

There is no transparency in this board. This is one more thing I am hoping will get residents fired up enough to take some action. Geeze! Target on your back? Are you actually afraid someone or several people in charge would do physical harm to you?? If it's that bad this needs to be shared with the residents. Maybe the Independent. No names, just statements. What a bunch of whiners and sissies. Illegal goings on in our clubs? That's ok! Just look the other way.

 

Tom if my recollection serves me correct, you have been calling for more transparency regarding various issues. What happened?
And what should I question the board about? I have no knowledge of any shady doings by the clubs, etc.
Curious you started this thread about audits and implied some clubs are breaking the law. Have any of you reported these unlawful actions? If not, why not? Just curious of course. No harm, no foul!

 

Perhaps if someone can't divulge information, then it shouldn't be mentioned in the first place.

 

Well it sure is out there now, isn't it? And evidentially scary enough to make someone feel if any info was divulged there would be a target on his/her back. Nice community Eh?

 

Perhaps? But it's not my problem. It's the Clubs problems who are only screwing themselves by not collecting the Clubs percentage of their sales which helps them survive and purchase supplies.

Perhaps some Clubs wouldn't be asking the RCSC for things that they could have purchased on their own if they only collected their fair share on the sale of their items?

 

Yes, it seems counterintuitive but what constitutes an assembly, is there a minimum of people required and do they all have to have a common purpose or just a gathering? Each one of those statements is broad and subject to interpretation. What is free speech and if so why do we have laws for defamation or laws on libel? What constitutes freedom of religion and can I have the laws of my religion, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, posted next to the 10 Commandments or The Twelve Tables of ancient Roman law or the laws of Solon from Mesopotamia which predate the 10 Commandments or anything involving Satan? What violates the Establishment Clause?

 

I believe that Solon was Greek and it was Hammurabi who was from Mesopotamia. Just a bit more carping.

 

CT, you are correct. My ancient Mideast history is a little light or I had a serious brain cramp.

 

Yes it is. What constitutes assembly?

 

Or are lawyers and doctors and CPAs considered to be religion?

 

I can hardly wait for the New Supreme Court to answer that question.

 

'Three or more persons who assemble peaceably without violent or tumultuous manner to do lawful act, but who thereafter make attempt or motion to do any act whether lawful or unlawful, in either tumultuous, violent, or unlawful manner to the terror or disturbance of others, become an "unlawful assembly." Koss v. State, 217 Wis. 325, 258 N.W. 860, 862"

 

So, nothing about doctors and lawyers and indian chiefs?

 

FYI, nice citing a Wisconsin case but you forgot the year at the end of the cite. It comes from the appellate court. That said, it doesn’t mean crap outside of Wisconsin.

Being the nice guy I am I will break down what it says, the caption of the case located in volume 217 of Wisconsin Reports on page 325, volume 258 of Northwest Reports (Appellate Court, Wisconsin), pages 860, 862. Did you secure that quote from the abstract of the case (probably) at the beginning of the decision or did you read the entire appellate opinion (not likely) or did you Google it (more likely). I read Northwest Reports, Federal Supplement and Supreme Court Reporter when I was a paralegal in Chicago and similar from all States in the Cook County law library during my career. Happy to help you understand how to read an appellate opinion as it is not that hard once you have the Capt. Midnight Decoder Ring. You learn some very interesting things reading these opinions.

 

gdv An excerpt from the journal of accountancy 1977 article should put the question to rest. THE LANDMARK KOVEL DECISION

• BOTH COMMON AND FEDERAL LAW reject the idea of an accountant-client privilege like that which exists between attorneys and their clients. However, accountant-related communications still may be shielded from disclosure when an accountant acts as an agent for an attorney providing legal services.

In United States v. Kovel (296 F. 2d 918 [2d Cir. (1961)]), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals extended the attorney-client privilege to communications between a client and someone an attorney retains to provide accounting-related services. The case concerned Kovel, a former Internal Revenue Service agent who had accounting skills.

 

Ouch! FYI the master snarker appears to be after you now! Wonder if he goes fishing?

 

Funny! I actually found that in a copy of his beloved Black's Law Dictionary!

 

Dang! Can't remember the whole joke! Only gardener and fisherman!!