"Measure V Too Costly" claims to be a "grass-roots campaign by local residents" but its spokesperson is a Laura Teutschel, a PR consultant based in San Carlos.

"Measure V Too Costly" pays for a full page ad claiming that "the Rental Housing Committee members "contemplated paying themselves salaries." Yet this is no record of this nor does anyone on the committee recall hearing this.

This new political action committee represents all that is disgusting about politics. It purposely misleads people by calling lies and half truths as whole truths. Rental control is worth debating, but this group isn't the way to debate it. Let the city council publically debate it or set up town halls to debate it, not some group whose people and funding are hidden from real residents.

Is this saying that Laura Teutschel ran the campaign in Pacifica that paid Tom Means while he was serving on the Rental Housing Committee? Now he's done his part to try to rack up costs to help her campaign out? This stinks to high heaven. What do Mr. Means and City Council have to say about this? Why is there no comment from them?

Thank goodness there is finally information coming out about the actual costs to our City, to us the taxpayers. To everyone supporting rent control I beg you....go to the Measure V Too Costly website, actually read and learn what rent control truly does to a community rather than follow blindly what terribly mis-guided organizations are brain-washing you with.

Rent control does NOT lower rents. It does NOT make more affordable housing available, it actually does the reverse. Statistic after statistic, fact after fact prove that rent control does NOT work. Google it. Look at facts.

Of course, mvresident2003, everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed. Let's guess, you're a homeowner, you've been enriched from the housing crisis just by virtue of owning a small plot of land. What have you done to help people stay in Mountain View? What have you done to help lower rents?

I don’t know what the big deal is. It’s about time that the residents stood up and spoke out against what a disaster Measure V has been. It’s been a complete exercise in dysfunction—-the rent board is a mess, they can’t make decisions, and have people in there who are not qualified to even be a dog walker. Tom Means is, by far, the most qualified member of the bunch.

Hopefully this group gets their act together and finds a way to repeal it at least fix the problems Measure V is thrusting on our city.

You can call it anything you want but samcar the san mateo county association of realtors are funding this just as they funded every fight against any kind of renter assistance for decades.

Find out which of your council people are owned by samcar, it's almost always realtors without a college education

Well, @Facts, as was made clear during Pacifica's rent control campaign, Tom Means has taken payments from them during his tenure on the Rental Housing Committee. Unfortunately, he lacks an ounce of shame, so he hasn't resigned, and the Council hasn't felt enough heat yet to remove him. I'm sure the above poster talking about "qualifications" simply meant "willing to be a good lap dog for moneyed interests."

I'm going to say it again. Those of you interested in FACTS, just google "rent control" and you will see statistic after statistic, fact after fact. Rent control DOES NOT WORK.

It is unfortunate that all the lost $ from this fiasco aren't going towards real affordable housing initiatives.

The attack on the providers of 65% of Mountain View's housing needs to STOP. Just wait, the landlords are going to sell to big developers who will tear down the apartments and build condos or more offices. We have a city council that tried to reason with the community in 2016 and institute some tenant protections but those were not enough for Lenny Siegel and the tenants. Rather than give them a chance to work, they went straight to the nuclear bomb of rent control and our community is no better off for it. Let's repeal Measure V, eliminate the bureaucracy, and put in place real renter protections that don't put every housing unit at risk of becoming a $1-million condo.

Rent control has held down rents for tens of thousands of tenants - half of whom would otherwise have been forced to leave the city. Naturally, landlords and their supporters will lie about the effects and the landlords' city council will place a repeal (or gutting) of Measure V on the November ballot.

google "rent control" and get the facts. [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Google "rent control" for the facts of the devastating effects it can have on communities. Repeal Measure V

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

The renters will pay the 2.5million. If it is not the current ones, it will be the next ones. To think the landlord will pay for that, it is to think PGE will pay for the Millbrae fire. The only solution is to take thr current houses in Mountain View, and distribute them to the people.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

First let’s clear up something here.

THIS IS NO GRASS-ROOTS POLITICAL CAMPAIGN

How can I say this?

Any website with a .com extension is a commercial website, it cannot be considered a grass-roots campaign as long as it registered as a .com for its DNS. Please refere to this website (Web Link

“The .COM at the end of some Web addresses (such as lifewire.com) is called a TLD, or top-level domain. The .COM ending remains the world's most common generic top-level domain.

The .COM TLD means commercial, which just intends to convey the type of content that's being published. For example, it's different from other top-level domains that are meant for content much more specific, like .MIL for the U.S. military or .EDU for education institutions.

Using a .COM URL doesn't offer any special significance other than perception. When someone sees a .COM address, they immediately see it as a "serious" website because it's the most common TLD. However, it doesn't have any technical differences over a .ORG, .BIZ, .INFO, or any other generic top-level domain.”

If it were a grass roots campaign it would be registered as an .org. This is a prime example of “ASTRO-TURFING” or artificial political organizations. Please refer to the following:

“The domain name org is a generic top-level domain (TLD) of the Domain Name System (DNS) used in the Internet. The name is truncated from organization. It was one of the original domains established in 1985, and has been operated by the Public Interest Registry since 2003. The domain was originally intended for non-profit entities, but this restriction was not enforced and has been removed. The domain is commonly used by schools, open-source projects, and communities, but also by some for-profit entities. The number of registered domains in org has increased from fewer than one million in the 1990s, to ten million as of June 2012.”( Web Link

This COMMERCIAL GROUP, is for profit. The public should use it’s judgment whether to address it at a “for-profit” business instead of a political organization

It is pointless to split hairs .org or .com
Just feel sorry for some activists who will have to move out of town once this is repealed.

Hello Mike Rose,

Just a quick reality check for you.

The City Council cannot place a ballot question that changes any existing rights within the City Charter, doing so would be a violation of the Citizens Constitutional rights. They are only allowed to propose City Ordinances Ballot measures.

The proponents of a CSFRA repeal will have to undergo the same process politically that those who put the CSFRA on the ballot. However, there is a major obstacle approaching.

The Ballot initiative to repeal Costa Hawkins is proving very successful. It took only 2 weeks to get 1/3rd the signatures needed to put it on the State ballot.

Upon repeal of Costa Hawkins, the CSFRA would automatically apply to every apartment rental in Mountain View, including the Rent Rollback provision. Thus anyone living in the apartment at the time of October 2015 that continues to the next election would be entitled to a rent rollback and rent refund.

The only reason why CSFRA won by such a small margin was that it was not universally applicable to all apartments. It was only applicable to the older apartments.

Removing the block by repealing Costa Hawkins would simply mean a vote to repeal Costa Hawkins could result in thousands of dollars to be paid back to all apartment tenants in Mountain View.

The CSFRA has a provision that would automatically apply the rent rollbacks once Costa Hawkins is repealed.

If you think that the 60% of tenant citizens of Mountain View alone would not act to achieve this? Do you think that the 60% would be unified to prevent repeal of CSFRA? Do you think that Home Owners, who already supported the CSFRA, would be inclined to reverse in this situation?

It would appear that the situation simply is not in favor of your proposition.

It certainly seems rent control is all the rage nowadays. Even Chicago, which to date has had the common sense to avoid this misguided legislation, is considering it. However I suggest you Google Article by William Sanders "A Chicago economist weighs in on rent control" 2/15/18 which points out that the average expenditure on rent there is less than 20% of average income and that the average rent is half that of rent control cities New York and Los Angeles and a third of San Francisco's. This DePaul University economist concludes, "Ultimately, the point is that there are better ways to help low income households - such as rent subsidies- than by creating a bureaucracy to regulate rents.

Given rent control has been shown to actually increase rents (most recently concluded by Stanford economists Rebecca Diamond and Tim McQuade) I suggest when you hear someone espousing it that you ask yourself what their motivation might be. I think you will find at least one of four factors: 1) they or their friends or family are renters themselves, 2)they are populist politicians seeking political gain, 3)they are owners that use service vendors who are renters and they want to keep their own costs down (think gardeners and nannies) or 4) they are lawyers and they know the legislation and litigation rent control generates is an absolute boon to their business.

The simple reality is that rent control really only helps the renters in place at the time the legislation passes to the detriment of the entire community forever after.

Measure V should be repealed for the good of Mountain View.

Yes I think the answer is yes, I think Costa Hawkins will not be repealed. It is a state wide ballot and the signature are gathered only in rent contolled jurisdictions.
Of course you will get tenants there voting themselves the lowest possible rent.
But statewide situation is much different. Non rent controlled jurisdictions will vote against repeal in droves.
So sorry to say the MV repeal will happen, now or later, and many of the tenants activists, including blog trolls, unfortunately will receive harsh treatment, sorry to say.

In response to mike rose you said:

“Yes I think the answer is yes, I think Costa Hawkins will not be repealed. It is a state wide ballot and the signature are gathered only in rent contolled jurisdictions.

Of course you will get tenants there voting themselves the lowest possible rent.

But statewide situation is much different. Non rent controlled jurisdictions will vote against repeal in droves.”

You better read this before you assume that Costa Hawkins will not be repealed:

“More than half of California voters say the state’s housing affordability crisis is so bad they’ve considered moving and 60 percent of likely voters support rent control. Their concern is understandable but rent control is not the solution to our high housing costs.”( Web Link

And:

“Housing is a top concern among the state’s electorate. More than half of California voters say the state’s housing affordability crisis is so bad that they’ve considered moving, and 60 percent of likely voters support rent control, according to a statewide poll last fall. Both sides of the rent control battle have also poured money into ballot box fights in recent years.”( Web Link

You also said:

"So sorry to say the MV repeal will happen, now or later, and many of the tenants activists, including blog trolls, unfortunately will receive harsh treatment, sorry to say."

All I am doing is presenting you with multiple sources that do not agree with your point of view regarding Costa Hawkins. You do have the right to your beliefs, but you also must take into account the real likelihood that your opinion may not succeed.

The clear fact is that the Costa Hawkins initiative has a strong backing, in numbers big enough to give good odds that it would succeed.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Here is another opinion of PRO repeal activist on the initiative chances even if it was sponsored by far more legitimate individuals and entities than Wein-stein:

"....Can A Repeal Initiative Win?

Let’s assume Tom Steyer was willing to put $25 million dollars into a repeal initiative for the 2018 or 2020 ballot. Or some other donor lacking the baggage of Michael Weinstein. Let’s also assume that the coalition to pass it was led by state and local labor officials, housing groups, and a broad progressive constituency.

Could such a measure win?

The final two of my five rules for winning measures are “Keep it Simple” and “Appeal to Voters’ Self-Interest.” A strict repeal measure, which is what ACCE has submitted, meets the simplicity test. The real question, as it is for most measures, is whether Costa-Hawkins repeal serves the self-interest of a significant portion of the electorate.

A majority of California’s electorate in November 2018 or 2020 will not be covered by rent control. This includes the vast majority of homeowners (some are also landlords) and a sizable minority if not majority of tenants.

Under a best case scenario, Costa-Hawkins repeal wins 65-35 in San Francisco, Berkeley, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Richmond and Oakland. It goes 55-45 in Los Angeles city, San Jose and Mountain View. These are all rent control jurisdictions where tenants will benefit from repeal.

But San Diego is not passing repeal. The Central Valley? Good luck. Sacramento may have a local rent control measure on the 2018 or 2020 ballot, so repeal could win there. Rural California will go against repeal in droves. As will be the result in all the parts of the state where there is little tenant activism but plenty of realtors and landlords."

In response to Mike Rose you said:

“A majority of California’s electorate in November 2018 or 2020 will not be covered by rent control. This includes the vast majority of homeowners (some are also landlords) and a sizable minority if not majority of tenants.”

That is because the laws will not treat all apartment renters equally because of Costa Hawkins. It is simply the fact that Costa Hawkins splits voters regarding rent control that has prevented it from passing in most cases. Of course, those opposed to rent control do not understand this.

You also said:

“Under a best case scenario, Costa-Hawkins repeal wins 65-35 in San Francisco, Berkeley, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Richmond and Oakland. It goes 55-45 in Los Angeles city, San Jose and Mountain View. These are all rent control jurisdictions where tenants will benefit from repeal.”

Please provide some kind of source regarding this opinion? As you know I always point out my sources of information, and in most cases it is not political interest’s sources, but news articles and disinterested parties. You also said:

“But San Diego is not passing repeal. The Central Valley? Good luck. Sacramento may have a local rent control measure on the 2018 or 2020 ballot, so repeal could win there. Rural California will go against repeal in droves. As will be the result in all the parts of the state where there is little tenant activism but plenty of realtors and landlords."

I simply repeat my previous request, please provide your sources of this information?

I believe everyone has the right to post their opinion on the internet. But the internet does not have any controls regarding what is posted on it. This allows for any opinion to be published without any restrictions. It also though allows for any opinion to be published that may not be able to be proven to be the truth. The internet is the new information war, just like the fact that it is now a weapon for countries to use to control other countries actions.

The simple fact is that when Costa Hawkins is repealed, it will reintegrate the apartment rental community because it will not be separated regarding equal treatment under the law. The relief of rent control will be universal. The political opposition of rent control has exploited the Costa Hawkins system to break up what should have been a united political community. All past performances regarding rent control will be inapplicable if this situation in fact allows for a unified political movement.

Simply put, the previous performance regarding the lack of rent control success will not be a good predictor of future action.

So when Measure V is repealed.. I will come back and reinvest in affordable rental housing in Mountain View. I moved my money out of there last year because of it but think its a good long term market if rent control is repealed and the voters never go back to it.

In response to Howard you said:

“So when Measure V is repealed.. I will come back and reinvest in affordable rental housing in Mountain View. I moved my money out of there last year because of it but think its a good long term market if rent control is repealed and the voters never go back to it.”

It would not be prudent to assume that the CSFRA will be repealed. No one should even think of acting as if it is a foregone conclusion. Given the information I already submitted, it is not even close to being a sure thing.

I would simply say, don’t count the chicvkens before they hatched, they may not be fertilized.

As to the quotes provided above these are OPINIONS of PRO REPEAL tenant activists and senator, NOT MINE. I think I clearly stated that above The Business Man.
Also I strongly recall an opinion from a person referred to on this blog as The Business Man from about a year ago: "....granted, the CSFRA will be repealed in next election...."

In response to mike rose you said:

“As to the quotes provided above these are OPINIONS of PRO REPEAL tenant activists and senator, NOT MINE. I think I clearly stated that above The Business Man.”

You did not provide sources, please provide them so that we can verify. If you chose not to do so, we simply have to take your word on it. You also said:

“Also I strongly recall an opinion from a person referred to on this blog as The Business Man from about a year ago: "....granted, the CSFRA will be repealed in next election...."”

I do remember saying many things. But this is the situation. That was then, and this is now. Given the current situation, where there has been a lot of actions occurring, that prediction I might have said simply is not valid anymore.

Even after just a couple of days, with the right circumstances, any prediction can be just filed in the round file cabinet. I especially concede this reality. So I cannot now claim that the past prediction is valid today.

Just FYI:

Expect an expensive campaign over rent control in California on the November ballot

Liam Dillon


Rent control opponents expect they’ll need to spend $60 million to fight November ballot measure that would expand rent control in California, @caanet tells me

3:58 PM - Jan 18, 2018

(Web Link

Looks like the CSFRA is the least of the problems regarding the next election.

Can the CAA afford $60 million?

It is not going to be just CAA affording 60 million. CAR will put in huge amount, and I assure you every individual owner of rental property in California is going to chip in whatever it takes. Their lifetime savings and retirements in many cases are at stake.
In my personal opinion it is going to be more than 60 million and I won't be surprised if its double that. Billions are at stake, not only for property owners but for construction workers, businesses that won't be able to house their workforce etc.

Doesn't it sound like something that can REALLY happen here in California in the current political climate?
Web Link

In response to Mike Rose you said:
“It is not going to be just CAA affording 60 million. CAA will put in huge amount, and I assure you every individual owner of rental property in California is going to chip in whatever it takes. Their lifetime savings and retirements in many cases are at stake.”

From what that report said, it was only a CAA representative declaring their estimated cost of the campaign.

I was recently informed that a landlord typically pays abbot $600 a year for membership with the CAA.

If the CAA is going to spend $60 Million on the campaign, they need at least 100,000 memberships alone to pay for the campaign alone. Not even taking account the regular operations of the CAA. Otherwise they are going to have to get a loan to pay for it.

Given that the state polls stated that 60% of the electorate is in favor of rent control, getting a loan of that much money is a serious risk to the viability of the CAA. Especially if it turns out that the Costa Hawkins measure succeeds. The CAA will have spent the money, and have no reasonable means to repay it back.

It would appear no standard loan would be granted. It is likely to have a extreme interest rate.

I am in full agreement with the following statement:
“In my personal opinion it is going to be more than 60 million and I won't be surprised if its double that. Billions are at stake, not only for property owners but for construction workers,”

But they too may find themselves in the same situation I have described above. It would appear that the better strategy would be to revise the expected Return On Investment margins to a greatly smaller percentage for the long haul. Your claim however stating:


“Billions are at stake,…businesses that won't be able to house their workforce etc.”

Those businesses are not dependent on housing, they are dependent on the skilled workers. Those businesses simply should not care about the Costa Hawkins question, only whether they can hire the people with the skills to fulfill their specific business needs. The rental market itself simply is not a relevant factor to them. In fact reduced costs of housing via rent control will benefit them by lowering the expected earnings of their employees with the same quality of life.

However, if the industry decides to use anti-competitive practices and conspiracy to in effect cut off existing stocks of housing, or have them deteriorate, that would possibly invoke Sherman anti-trust investigations and possible severe sanctions as a result. Another possible poor decision.

There needs to be a very careful decision to be made.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

In response to mike rose you said:

“The Business Man, you should now better that the funding for this fight won't come from CAA membership fees.
It is so naive on your part to assume that.”

The question remains, where is this money going to come from?

Is it going to come out of thin air?

If you’re saying it will come out of current rents, isn’t that going to possibly be putting money to use where it is significantly likely not to provide any return on investment?

That would appear to be a risky proposition, in a business where the risks are already very high.

Something simply doesn’t appear to add up. It is just an observation.

Just another observation for Mike Rose:

Lease look at this information? (Web Link

MONEY LAUNDERING IN THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY

“SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS

A random sampling of Suspicious Activity Reports describing commercial real estate transactions revealed that property management, real estate investment, realty, and real estate development companies were the most commonly reported entities associated with money laundering and related illicit activity. Professions that customarily collect fees in real estate transactions, such as appraisers, inspectors, surveyors, and attorneys, were reported as primary subjects with less frequency and, therefore, are not listed in the tables that follow.

Since 2003, the trend line in suspicious activity reporting associated with potential commercial real estate-related money laundering has risen steeply. The increase in filings has closely tracked similar trends seen in FinCEN’s recently issued mortgage loan fraud assessment. The increase is likely attributable to the steep decline in interest rate charges on real estate loans, which occurred contemporaneously with the increase in filings.2 It remains to be seen whether this trend in relevant suspicious activity reporting reverses as rates on real estate loans rise and the real estate markets cool.”

The report indicated in Table 3 that real estate investment companies 42.23% and property management companies 24.44% are the highest reported industries involved in money laundering in commercial real estate.

At the same time the report indicated in table 4 that property management companies 43.75% are the highest reported industries involved in potential tax evasion in commercial real estate.

At the same time the report indicated in table 5 that real estate investment companies 14.29% and property management companies 28.57% are the highest reported industries involved in illicit activities in commercial real estate.

The report in table 6 defined illicit activities discovered were comprised at tax evasion at 28.08%, money laundering 22.82%, structuring at 8.77%, money laundering for politically exposed person 8.77%, real estate fraud at 5.26%, money laundering for a fee at 3.51% and public corruption at 1.75%

The report in table 7 describes that property management companies comprise 35.85% and real estate investment companies at 30.94% of the primary subject type in SAR filings describing money laundering associated in commercial real estate.

This would explain how so much money is accessible for such a campaign against the repeal of Costa Hawkins

THB
For each publication against real estate industry faults I can find one exposing the faults of tenants organizations:
Web Link

And to your other response TBM, you guessed it right. Millions of $ to fight CH repeal will come directly from the tenants.
The unintended consequences of rent control are widely publicized and no secret.
It ALWAYS hurts tenants the most, especially the poorest ones.
Look at your situation, you are pretty much confined to your apartment in MV like to a jail cell. Noone, considering your notoriety, especially in light of frivolous lawsuits, will ever consider renting to you in this town. So you have to stay put.
This is the unfortunate reality.

In response to mike rose you said:

“For each publication against real estate industry faults I can find one exposing the faults of tenants organizations:
Web Link”

However, that report does not come up with “criminal” activity or convictions. It merely was advisory. It made no legal conclusions, it is not a court order or judgement. Also that document was written in 2012.

You have no information whether the conclusion of the grand jury was in fact upheld by any court. Unless you can source a case where the board was in fact sanctioned by court proceeding or judgement, this information is simply not comparable to the fact the convictions have occurred in the apartment industry wide-spread.

A Grand Jury does not prosecute in a case, only makes recommendations to the prosecutor for criminal or civil proceedings. Unless you can site a case based on this recommendation, it would appear that it was simply a “informational” report.

The FinCEN report discusses actual conviction statistics, you are not addressing the fact that crimes are systemically reported and convictions acquired in this industry.

Please either produce a court conviction related to this document, or concede that it is just being used to confuse the public?


In so far as your statement:

“And to your other response TBM, you guessed it right. Millions of $ to fight CH repeal will come directly from the tenants.”

The amount of money that is being proposed spent on the campaign will simply kill any profits for the property owners, and worse since 60% of the State Electorate wants Costa Hawkins repealed, it simply will not achieve anything to spend it.

As far as your statement:

“Noone, considering your notoriety, especially in light of frivolous lawsuits, will ever consider renting to you in this town. So you have to stay put.”

You simply neglect to understand the history. The lawsuit was filed and paid for in August 2017. 2 months prior to the RHC finally ordering the rent refunds. Since the court fee and complaint service fee is NOT refundable, the case simply could not be withdrawn. Of course you fail to recognize this. The actions take were forced upon the plaintiff given the circumstances. Another issue you fail to discuss. You have the right to make your opinions known, but the reality was completely different than the way you discuss it.

This should clarify the opinion you expressed does seem to be contradicted by the history of the matter. Even if you read the timeline of the case in the court record, the information provided in this post is simply is proven accurate.

An objective third party would not have enough evidence to justify the conclusions of law you try to make here.

Business man,
I am an objective third party now because I have no stake in Mountain View housing.
I've moved on with my money as any prudent investor would.
You can shake a stick but do you own the day? No.
Law has no position in any of this.
Money rules and you lost the investor in your community.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

TBM
Sometimes I think you run this blog. My posts get removed if I tell the true facts.
Why?

Mike Rose,

No way, I am just a citizen of the City.

Mike! You're back! Quick question, any updates on that Supreme Court appointment? I remember they were about to add you and you'd all rule rent control unconstitutional once and for all. I can only assume your long absence has been due to that. What happened?

To BM, Your posts are too lengthy, much too frequent, and become rather tiresome. I can understand why Mr. Rose gets frustrated with you. (I used to, but now I just ignore your posts.) I am baffled at why the Town Square moderators allow you to take over the way you do.
You really stunt discussion from others when you hijack posts on public forums.

In response to MVWoman you said:

“To BM, Your posts are too lengthy, much too frequent, and become rather tiresome.”

I need to establish objective “proof” of my information, otherwise it would be simply “opinion”, and I am simply addressing other opinions on the website. I am allowed to do so as long as I do not violate the terms and conditions of this website. you also said:

“I can understand why Mr. Rose gets frustrated with you. (I used to, but now I just ignore your posts.)”

My observation is that those that make statements in a public forum, where objective information can be disclosed to contradict them, and it is disclosed to the public, tends to produce adverse emotions. You also said:

“I am baffled at why the Town Square moderators allow you to take over the way you do.”

I do not take over, I simply respond to statements with objective sources and opinions that do not agree with the posts written. That is my right as long as I do so without invoking any personal disrespect. I believe that my behavior simply rarely raises to the level of behavior forbidden by the website terms and conditions. You finally said:

“You really stunt discussion from others when you hijack posts on public forums.”

I do not understand this statement, I cannot “hijack” posts on the website. I have absolutely no control over this forum at all. In fact, your terminology doesn’t make sense, the definitions I come up with is “forum hijacking” is done where “advertising” is planted. With regards to that definition, I am not advertising, just expressing a differing point of view. We all have equal access to the forum as long as the terms and conditions are not violated. The other definition is that I “hacked” the forum in order to access information I am not provided authorization to obtain. Clearly, I am not acting in this way.

Granted, my posts directly address the topic, but does so as to point out the probable results of actions. In many cases the results I discuss wind up with negative results. My observations have not been perfect, but my average level of accuracy has been proven reasonably good. If it happens to demonstrate that those proposing certain actions will not succeed based on good information, I cannot be blamed for that situation

To Randy,
Good to hear from you again and happy to answer your questions.
Re: SCOTUS, we got 1 appt already, few more to go.
Re: my absence from forum = censorship.
Re: what happened, CAA dropped the ball with the lawsuits, apparently they have a bigger fish to fry. This one was very dissapointing but understandable.