DC hotel frequented by Proud Boys to close Jan. 4-6

Contract law in terms of courts is interesting. People agree to contracts all the time - never reading them. The website says to click in the box that you agree to the terms - with terms being a link to a long column of words - that nobody reads. People otherwise sign contracts they never read. Rental agreements. Sales agreements. Credit card and banking agreements. Car loans etc. They put Xs were to sign. Or even have colored stickies pointing where to sign - and people do without reading it.

I was in a curious lawsuit I brought years ago against a huge phone company over yellow page advertising. I contracted for a tiny yellow page listing. The long contract of the terms were on the back in tiny brown letters on yellow paper - legal length. It had the typical language that it was the sole contract and anything anyone otherwise said, represented, promised etc is irrelevant. The written contract is everything, anything else is nothing. The language said the only liability of the phone book company was refunding money paid - no damages. I paid nothing as it was to be monthly billing when the ad came out the next book year.

The ad did not appear in the next yellow pages. I talked to the sales rep. He went to the account on his computer, where there were notations that a local small claims court judge - that the company used to collect on accounts and who had a competing little side business - has contacted the phone company privately telling them to not run my ads. It was not a court order. Just a corruption. The notation said my ad therefore was to not to be run and the judge to be given a free listing (an illegal corporate contribution). I sued not just for breach of contract but the biggie "common law fraud."

Under common law fraud you only have so show any monetary lose, with the big one being exemplary damages to be based on the question of how much money would it take to make certain the company never did anything like this again because the judgment is just too massive. That means it is based on the size of the company - meaning discovery into all their income, accounts and assets - which would be into the tens of billions of dollars. I filed pro se (often did). Sued for a billion dollars - one of those crazy pro se lawsuits, right? I also sent a massive relevant discovery request/demand for all their financial records of every kind.

The company's law firm filed a motion for summary judgement claiming the contract only allowed refund of money paid for the ad and I had not paid even the first month. No damages otherwise allowed. For the hearing, their lead lawyer showed up with an assistant attorney and 2 legal aids. In the hallway, I suggested a tentative deal in advance. If I lose, I lose. If I win, they have to do all the discovery, he'll have to go back to his client explaining how the company is in a billion dollar jury trial against a pro se and massive legal fees for piles of discovery including into all company financial records and accounts - and of course I would bring in a lawyer for the actual jury trial. OR we can agree if I win this the day, if he loses in motion to dismiss, I will be paid $10,000 and it agreed my little listing will be run every year, year after year perpetually until I said to stop running it. Either way, it ends today. He smiled, said "sure" and we shook hands. I was just another stupid pro se who doesn't understand law to his mind.

The hearing lasted under 5 minutes. He lost. Why?

Because NO ONE reads the contracts. I had written on the bottom in the back on the original, which also showed on the carbon, in small letters "Paragraph 8 above does not apply to this contract." The salesman didn't look at the back like no one does. The lawyer, so absolutely familiar with the contracts language in every contract hadn't either. So the lawyer was in the consumer position having to argue against a written contract - while I made the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander, the contract is the contract." He was completely blindsided - and he knew it. A jury wouldn't like a mega billion dollar company making illegal secret deals with judges against little people like me. But it would be a 10 year lawsuit and who knows what would happen? Besides, I was getting out of that business activity anyway.

I got a check for $10,000 from the law firm, probably paid by the firm to avoid the embarrassment. That ad still runs in that phone book to this day - a little business thing I gave up long ago. I gave the phone number to someone in the same business I liked telling him to never, ever let that phone number expire.

I doubt it worth any Proud Boy litigating. But if the person did not expressly agree to allowing the hotel to unilaterally cancel it is breach of contract. That said, I agree with the hotel's decision for the safety of the hotel, guests and employees.

 

Cool story! You got back at "the man." Very creative.

We don't read the EULAs; this is true. For real, my own money on the line contracts? Yes. Yes I do. In cases where it's too complex, I hire a lawyer to read them for me; AKA buying a house.

Now, you say you agree, because safety. The hotel was cited for violating COVID distancing rules, due to Proud Boys.

Safety is a very legitimate reason to cancel reservations. No different than if there was a fire that made it unsafe, so the hotel had to close.

 

Very well said, and agreed.

 

So you have a source that says 80% that you have used to try and prove 98% without a source.

If mental gymnastics couple power the world Americans would be a world leader instead of a declining one.

 

STILL Posting off-topic in a thread about the Hotel and Proud Boys?

Anyway, back on-topic, people (from both sides) seem to be supportive of the Hotel's Decision.

Once again, here is the Topic of THIS Thread:

DC hotel frequented by Proud Boys to close Jan. 4-6

You're welcome.

 

What I got was $10,000 to recover some lost income out of it and my ad in the book next year. I also got that judge removed from office for it in the end - but that's an irrelevant story.

I hadn't thought of the prospect of the Democratic local government going after the hotel as a retaliation. We are in agreement about the hotel shutting down. OK.

 

So now you are pushing a “study” that specifically excludes the largest news network, Fox News, to arrive at your conclusion.

And you have the gall to discuss self respect in others...
It would be ironic if many weren’t so invested in being fully and completely manipulated, as it stands it is just sad.

I bet you can prove 100% of vehicles on the road are German if you exclude everything but VW, Mercedes and BMW brands!!!

Pathetic. Wholly inadequate.

 

I don’t really care.

Trump went out of his way to earn bad press. He courted it. He fed on it.

Pissing of “liberals, elites, swamp people and other mysterious imaginary denizens of Trump’s ever changing and expanding enemies list is something that his dwindling fan base gets off on.

Not that it does anything for them, actually.

Besides, you’re a pretty pathetic excuse for an elected official if you let the rantings and biases of the press get under your skin.

Bad press comes with the job.

Harry Truman would have spit in Donald Trump’s eye.

 

Conservatism has been a mystery to liberals for as long as I can remember.

 

This batch of republicans is many things. Conservative isn't one of them.

Conservatives don't run to SCOTUS crying when an autonomous state, who has every right to decide how their elections are run, goes about being autonomous. That's a snowflake value.

Conservatives aren't mean spirited, petty liars, who cry about everything.

The current republican party is filled with children. I said this in another thread - if you had told me a year ago that the democrats would be the adults in the room today, I would have LMAO so hard and bet you an entire year's salary. I'm so glad I didn't make that bet, because here we are, looking at the lousy democrats and thinking, "hmm... they are the adults, now?"

This is so sad. We need more George HW Bush; less Trump.

 

No point in being polite with the proud sissies.

 

Its a mystery how anyone could fall for it, yes.

 

And the nutters on the right aren't trying to dictate terms so the rest have to fall in line?
Good lord man, the right is trying to over throw the country!!!

 

Just making stuff up again?

 

LOL You have to laugh at the 'boys' and their AR-Phallic!

 

popeyes cannot ban african Americans because no one makes fried chicken like popeyes.

free market capitalism means all consumers have the freedom to purchase goods and services from any private business.

 

Exactly. And conservatives should be first in line in letting businesses decide their own operating policies.

 

Another example of the right and their roll as 'victim class'.

 

disagree, the separation of church and state clause gives Protestant Christians the exclusive right to ban homosexuals from buying wedding cakes.

 

Which has what, exactly, to do with a hotel shutting down completely, for safety reasons?

 

a hotel that gives up liberty for security deserves neither.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benja...Franklin,deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

Uh what?

Okay - you just go ahead and be free. Run naked down a busy highway while it's below zero.

I get it; you are a nanny stater. I'm not. I think businesses should get to decide what's best for their business.

 

Really? "Proud Boys" is a race now? It's a skin color. Facial features. Hair type. Something you're born with and cannot change. A Proud Boy. How do they reproduce?

 

Possibly but I didn't refer to republicans. I used the term conservative for a reason. You assumed I meant republicans because you are partisan.

True. The republicans (not the conservatives) only sued because the election officials broke the laws of their states by counting ballots that their laws said should not count. A conservative understands that the US constitution gives elections solely to the states. A conservative also supports republicans who correctly point out the illegal actions of the election officials.

Some are as is true of any group of people.

I don't think childish behavior is limited to a single party.

I think Bush was a better man but a worse president than Trump. But I'm not affected by words and personalities. I just judge actions.

 

You are calling me a partisan? Why do you like my posts when I agree with a conservative point of view, then?