All writings that have been made under the name of Rational, Craig Maier or Daniel on this venue are the sole property of Craig Maier, Copyright 2003 - 2006. The use of any of these statements in re-released form or in a derivative work is not permitted without prior permission of its author.
Craig, I think you've outstayed your welcome around here. We don't want your help, your insults, or your derogtory statements about others.
I don't think it's come to Karen banning you, but for once be a man; pack up your bags and leave us. We peasants must bore you so, why put yourself thru this?
Go back to Texas to your PU38 Space Modulator and we'll somehow get by without your superior intellect to guide the way.
Nah, RTConcern. I think that I will stick around. The whole RT situation is all very entertaining to my wife and I. We both enjoy watching you folks flounder with the problem at hand and you need me to point out your obvious blunders.
Considering Eminent Domain yet? Nah, would not wanna do that - - - Maier is the one who suggested that.
I'm sure no one in town thought about ED until Craig brought it up......
As long as the property is generating tax revenue, I dont care who owns it. ED is always an option, now or 2 years from now. The law is on the side of municipalities these days...... just have to have a good plan and set of balls. Pesonally, I think the township needs to take some of the land (not all) at 140 GPR for future presevation. One could think of many uses for that land to benefit the town and the law will uphold it. In the meantime...enjoy the tax revenue.
The addage that comes to mind is "you either pay now, or you pay even more later".
You need to remember a little history coupled with the "insider information" that I presented to the board here back around midyear, 2005. I shall recap those events as I recall them.
Remember when the cc contract with Agilent expired in 2005? Everyone was running around saying that there are other potential customers who have expressed interest, etc. I even have another associate that wanted to purchase that property, but he was not even permitted to bid by Agilent.
Remember that my inside source told me that two days after the contract expired, that Ireland made a committment to purchase the property without approvals? If you do not remember that, use the search engine here as I am certain of this.
I told everyone that despite the glee that everyone had when the contract expired that ireland told his real estate agent "I am going to plant my church in RT come Hell or High water". And that is a direct quote via my sources. And he made a signed committment that day to purchase the property.
Subsequently, there was about a six week hiatus before ireland closed on the property. A lot of folks actually thought that new bids were being entertained there forward, but I told you folks otherwise. I STRONGLY recommended at that time, because of my insider infomation, that ED should be exercised immediately, because it would be against Agilent and not cc and that cc had signed an agreement to close on the property in short order.
No body listened. And then, low and behold, everyone was shocked to hear that ireland closed on the property six weeks after the contract expiration without approvals. Everyone was shocked but for those folks who monitor this board and saw my postings.
So, in terms of legal complexity and therefore effort, the cost to take by ED a property from a church will be much tougher than taking it from Corporation. And the longer that the township waits on the use of ED, the tougher will be the legal hurdles to overcome in court.
So, keep playing Russian Roulette with this; it is fun, right? Or take the property now and start to move on with things.
Rational wrote: All writings that have been made under the name of Rational, Craig Maier or Daniel on this venue are the sole property of Craig Maier, Copyright 2003 - 2006. The use of any of these statements in re-released form or in a derivative work is not permitted without prior permission of its author.
Craig Maier-- Edited by Rational at 10:00, 2006-01-13
Craig - Lets be logical here, it is not possible for you to copyright your postings here on this forum especially not retro-actively. This forum and all information on it is free and open to any registered user to use as they wish. Technically, since I am the registered “owner” of this forum, all posts are mine. If you do not wish for your comments to be commented on, quoted or "re-released" you should either A) not make them or B) not post them here.
While I share your frustration with our town’s situation, I feel we need to be constructive. This is the exact reason I created this board; it’s here to facilitate an environment to share ideas and do what is best for our town. This kindergarten squabbling between ourselves (the more vocal residents opposed to business church’s inappropriate location choice) is a complete waste of time, to post and to read. This isn’t a place to bicker with each other, it is a place to join together to conquer the marauding invaders.
While I appreciate the forum that you have provided, I must disagree with your assessment as to intellectual property right ownership of said postings. This is a VERY complicated area of intellectual property right law, and I am merely following the suggestions of my lawyers by staking my claim. And clearly, one can copyright stuff after it is written - - - we do that in our business endeavours all the time; imagine copyrighting something before it is written? Besides, this is a re-statement of my copyright ownership which was posted some time back in time on this venue.
Ultimately, someone is likely to write a book about this situation. If it is written well, it stands to sell quite nicely. This venue that you have provided is a great source of material to a researcher. I am protecting my rights under the law for that specific reason.
I would suggest to the ultimate author of such a book,
I second Scott's sentiment, although he hasn't been around to see what you the others have been saying to each other; I'm sick to death of this nonproductive self-important crapola. Especially when it's clearly inflammatory, as in the other threads recently. Sorry Craig, anyone will tell ya I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but enough is enough.
I have been profering information here that no one else has had. It is too bad that folks have not taken that information seriously. The most recent case in point was iralands attempted purchase in the last year of the property behind Estes.
Do you not think that information was unique? Do you not think it accurate? The information certainly is revealing.
While I appreciate the forum that you have provided, I must disagree with your assessment as to intellectual property right ownership of said postings. This is a VERY complicated area of intellectual property right law, and I am merely following the suggestions of my lawyers by staking my claim. And clearly, one can copyright stuff after it is written - - - we do that in our business endeavours all the time; imagine copyrighting something before it is written? Besides, this is a re-statement of my copyright ownership which was posted some time back in time on this venue.
Ultimately, someone is likely to write a book about this situation. If it is written well, it stands to sell quite nicely. This venue that you have provided is a great source of material to a researcher. I am protecting my rights under the law for that specific reason.
I would suggest to the ultimate author of such a book,
"A Township Wrecked by a Church"
But we shall let the writers decided that. -- Edited by Rational at 13:36, 2006-01-13
Yes Craig but if you voluntarily add text and or information to my book, it and everything in that book is still mine.
If you write on the bathroom wall does that mean you are the only one that can use it…no!
Rational wrote: Besides, this is a re-statement of my copyright ownership which was posted some time back in time on this venue. I am protecting my rights under the law for that specific reason.
Yes, I understand - - - internet postings are very complex legal questions still being sorted out in the courts. The net is too new to have established good clean case law to govern this area of endeavour.
there is no complexity, the forum is clearly mine as well as everything on it. and as i said before this forum and everything on it is free and open to any registered user to use as they wish.
By posting any information or text on this forum, the user gives permission for the other registered users of the forum to use that material as they wish.
scottso wrote: By posting any information or text on this forum, the user gives permission for the other registered users of the forum to use that material as they wish.
