Whats a liberal to do??

Hmmm.

I wonder if they're plans will violate the zoning ordinances for that specific parcel.

The reason I'm wondering is that some areas will identify any structure built that is intended to house more than a handful of non-related people as a boarding house. To build one of those you generally need a special permit as it's a commercial structure intended to house people. And because boarding houses are often sources of illegal behavior and 911 calls.

Be amusing if it turns out they cannot build what they intend due to zoning restrictions.

In two years and a bit Cindy will be sitting on five acres of nothing of importance. Buying this land through a strawman is the most amusing thing she's done. Let me enjoy the absurdity of it.

And they use the Katrina disaster for their own cause. Guess its no different than using her own son though.

At least She has not physically assaulted anyone? unlike Her new friend.

Can she go to jail for this scam? Someone please say yes.

"In two years and a bit Cindy will be sitting on five acres of nothing of importance."

Well, less than that...since she assures us that she will keep up her 'hunger strike' until, I dunno, Bush kills himself or resigns or something, which isn't going to happen, that means Cindy won't be doing much of anything by, say, the end of August. Is 5 acres a big enough burial plot for her ego?

Is 5 acres a big enough burial plot for her ego?

No.

Perhaps the neighboring properties will take the opportunity to fertilize their land with an abundance of chicken litter during August.

- MikeB

MikeB,

If the neighbors do that, the camp Casey Commies will just think its more burned out hippy war protestors arriving to join them.

Mama Moonbat is going to find out that owning property has a lot more responsibilities to local government that most existing homeowners have found out.

There are zoning laws, health regulations, and a whole slew of laws that the average Texas citizen has to abide by. What she does on the property might be in conflict with the Texas Department of Agriculture (it is farming/cattle country), the Texas EPA, the local water reclaimation district, the Texas Departments of Commerce and Treasury (if she wants to engage in any business activities), and that's just state and local laws.

Let's be fair here. Just as Disney used agents to buy swamp and orange groves around Orlando, the use of a third party name to keep the seller from jacking up the price is a common practice. In this case, it is more likely the seller would decide not to sell given the desire not to have a circus neighboring their land.

The ~$11,000 per acre may or may not be going rate, though it seems a bit high to me (indicating the seller felt they could make a quick profit on the land).

Much of Texas does not have zonning limitations (see Houston as a prime example). I would be amazed if this 5 acres of undeveloped scrub land has any. However, there is likely to be county standards on construction, sanitation, nuisannce, etc. The question is if the local officials will want to go to the trouble of enforcing these regulations. Can you say "Pro bono high power city slicker lawyers for Cindy"? I thought that you could.

Whos walking down the streets of old Crawford, smiling at every camera She meets. Whos penning a tell all attack on King George? Everyone knows its Cindy..

The Association

Hmmm...

I am not sure what Texas law would be on this matter.

Would Fonseca acting as an "agent" for Sheehan for the purchase be acting as a real estate agent without a license?

Would Fonseca recieving 52K (personal income?) from Sheehan's foundation be subject to taxation by the state and feds?

Can transfeering money from Gols-Star families to a third party to purchase property for the second party, be considered Monay Laundering?

Maybe somebody in Texas should look into this.

Sheehanigans

I love it! Now when my lefty friends spew their BDS, I'll just call Sheehanigans.

Thanks a lot 914, now I can't get the damned Slinky song out of my head.

Matt, I'm kind of wondering the same things. Yes, it's perfectly legal to use agents to buy property. However, this sort of thing has to be done carefully when transferring all of the money and titles around. From what I've read, it looks like GSFFP transferred the money to Fonseca's personal accounts for him to buy the property. Having done so, he now intends to sign the title over to Sheehan personally. Which comes out looking like Sheehan has tapped the organization for $52K for her personal use. Smells like tax evasion to me.

Another thought occurred to me right after I posted that. Several of the Southern states have passed special tax exemptions or deferrals for Katrina victims. Has Texas done so? Since Fonseca was misrepresenting himself as a Katrina victim, did he take advantage of any such?

There is a bright side for Ramsey. He'll make quite a profit off of this sale as the land will probably be back up for sale in two years at a depressed price. Not only that, but he'll be able to make interest off of the money until he can buy the land back.

$52,000 - from sale of land
+~$1,500 - interest for 2 years
-$40,000 - repurchase of land
------------
=~$13,500 - profit

Only Hillary! could find a better "investment" opportunity.

Since Fonseca was misrepresenting himself as a Katrina victim, did he take advantage of any such?

Actually, he really is a Katrina victim. The question now is if Sheehan will be benefitting from his benefits in the land transfer. I'm no legal expert - far from it - but that would most definitely be illegal.

If the whacko's are operating under tax exempt status (Fed 501), they have just comitted a major federal crime with the transfer of the 'tax exempt' money unless the deed is in the organizations name, been there, done that. Someone with a law degree start filing charges, they will stick or become so expensive the entire whacko organization will collapse.

Reagan conservative lashes out at 'hijackers of the conservative movement'
[aka Culture of Corruption]
SLIMEBALLS
John Byrne
Published: Friday July 28, 2006
He says national security decisions are too often made for political gain. And he maintains that Tom DeLay used "legal plunder" for the "immoral purpose of holding onto power."
[Slimeball Fake Christian]
A Democrat? No - His name is Richard Viguerie, a conservative icon and key architect of Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory. Known to many as the godfather of direct-mail campaign fundraising, his four-decade career has succored scores of conservative candidates and grassroots causes.

A balding grandfather with a wry Texan's smile, Viguerie is a seasoned conservative who confidently brushes aside accusations that his criticism of Republicans is intended for personal gain. On Monday, he sat down to talk about his new book, Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause.
[SlimeBALLS]
Modeling himself after Barry Goldwater, a 1960s conservative iconoclast whose reactionary stances later positioned Ronald Reagan for victory in 1980, Viguerie says the worst day of his political life was when Lyndon Johnson defeated Goldwater for president in 1964. Viguerie, who aided Reagan's election but later became critical of some of his policies, today sees a landscape where Republicans run using a mantle of traditional values but carry the banner of conservatism [Fake Christian Slimeballs] only as far as it takes them to get elected.
Viguerie begins his book with two quotes. "The first is from Ronald Reagan and it says something along the lines of: 'I tell my people that when we begin to refer to the federal government as us, we've been here too long.' And then I recount a story of [former House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay (R-TX), late one night after dinner, he wants to light up a cigar and the manager says I'm sorry, Mr. DeLay... it's against the law to smoke in a federal building. And DeLay says, 'I am the federal government.'"
[What a Slimeball]
Tom DeLay is singlehandedly the primary person responsible for the most expansion of the government[Conservative? Hardly] since Lyndon Johnson, and that's the prescription drug benefit. He's the one who kept the vote open in the House of Representatives... to make sure that he had enough votes... and twisted arms, and passed onto our children billions of dollars of debt.
While you paycheck pundits are worried about, "theories" and Cindy Sheehan you have taken your eyes off of your Slimeball Sudo 'CHristians'

I don't know if you guys are just stupid and corrupt, or just stupid.

-Atrios

Yeh I just love it when my righty friends are so corrupt! The Delaynannigans!

Are you guys gonna elect these neo-liberals again ad stick your kids with billions of dollars in debt just so you can say later, with a sad digusted face. "Yes, Kids, I sm truly sorry, they fooled us, they stole from me and indebted you"
-Atrios

Ah, Atrios. That bastion of righteous indignation and self-importance. How nice. That "direct-mail campaign fundraising" thing - is that anything like the fancy envelope I recieved from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. this morning promising me a sexy new canvas tote bag if I only contribute $10 to the Democrats to squash George Bush's "staggering", "sweeping onslaught" to cripple the environment?

And by the way, it's not "sudo". It's pseudo, slimeball.

Actually, I don't know so much about the "laws" on what they can to with the property. I'm wondering what all those poor saps who give their money to Gold Star Families are thinking about that money being spent on a transfer of real property to one person who hasn't done a damn thing for their cause but act the fool and shoot off her mouth causing more people everyday to say, "WTF?".

And by the way, it's not "sudo". It'

nope it's SUDO look it up, maybe you will learn 'something' other than what you 'don't know' about politics.

Wait, maybe you were spelling "sumo"?

Yeah, that's it! Sumo Christians. I like it!

Looked it up

Dictionary.com

Did you mean sudor?
Suggestions:
sudor
scudo
udo
sudd
suds
budo
judo
kudo
ludo
sumo
sudor

I also looked up "Atrios".

It appears there is no such thing.

I love the outrageously hypocritical and self-serving positions you hold on this issue, especially regarding:

1) Taxes - all you right wing types who just hate paying taxes, and who think that paying taxes to some evil "big"government who will then use "your money" for some silly social program that might help somebody else is tantamount to stealing from you, are now in support of the very system you despise -- taxes -- and hope they will be used to hurt or penalize someone you disagree with.

2) Zoning Laws and other Government regulations - you also love to complain about having to comply with so many darn rules that all these "socialist" sounding government agencies put into place to try to maintain community cohesion and efficient use of the local infrastructure, and yet now you are fully supporting zoning laws and other regulations -- that you would in most other instances consider to be an unacceptable infringement on your personal rights, or your property rights -- just so that those laws and regulations can hurt or penalize someone you disagree with.

3) Free Market/Capitalism - you all love to rant and rave about how everyone should be free to spend their money however they darn well please, and "nobody can tell me what to do on MY land that I bought with MY money." And yet, when Gerald Fonseca decides to buy a piece of land, and then decides to give it or sell it to someone else, a day, or a month, or a year later, for a dollar, or for a small or even huge profit, why can't he do that?
Since when does a buyer of a house have to tell the seller where he got the money from, or if he plans to sell (or even give) the property away in a day a year, and who he will sell it to?
Of course, if he stole the money, or if he doesn't report receiving that $52 K as a gift -- which would be considered as taxable income for 2006 -- or if Sheehan used money that was not hers (i.e. she misappropriated funds from the donations of the GoldStar Family organization), then any or all of those potentially illegal activities would have to be answered to, and possible fines, or more severe penalties, even jail time, paid, according to tax regulations or other laws on or before April 15, 2007.
But in the meantime, it's amazing that the good old-fashioned red-blooded American "Don't tread on Me" approach that is mirrored in the "Don't mess with Texas" sentiment that you would typically defend to the death -- when it refers to something that YOU are doing -- gets thrown completely out the window when someone that you disagree (Fonseca) with has the audacity to do what he wants (e.g. buy some property) and then later do something else with that property (e.g. let his friends stay there, or sell it to someone in the future).

And now I can't wait for slings and arrows of the "you are a tin-hat crazy" or the litany of other mean-spirited and highly personal attacks that will undoubtedly be thrown at me for having the nerve to present an argument that points out what seem to be obviously hypocritical positions/arguments many of you are taking on this issue.
Of course, you might also decide to take another approach, and offer some kind of logical, reasonable or objective arguments that show that you really DO believe that:
a) paying income and property taxes is a good thing, and as such, Cindy Sheehan should have to pay here fair share (which, as a moonbat liberal, or whatever other school-yard names you call her, I'll bet she gladly pays, since most liberals do see the value in that crazy idea of "everybody chipping in a little of what they have for the betterment of the whole community"), or
b) zoning laws and other gov't regulations (that typically limit what the individual can do, in order to be a participating member of the larger community) are a good thing, and that enforcement of them -- even with the limitations they bring -- are valued, and should be directed evenly, and fairly (no more or less than would be directed at anyone else in Crawford), regarding the Fonseca and/or Sheehan property, or
c) people should be allowed to buy the property they want, and then sell it to someone else later, without having to divulge what all their thoughts and intentions are to the seller in advance, and get his blessing before closing the transaction.

Who knows, maybe you will make some or all of those arguments/take those positions... and if you do, then you may actually have a lot more in common with this liberal democrat then you could have ever imagined. Or maybe not. I wonder which approach you'll take.... :-)

Hmmm.

1. @ atrios

It's frigging "pseudo" you moronic twit.

"sudo" isn't even a fucking word.

2.

And yet, when Gerald Fonseca decides to buy a piece of land, and then decides to give it or sell it to someone else, a day, or a month, or a year later, for a dollar, or for a small or even huge profit, why can't he do that?

Because it wasn't his fucking money you utter imbecile.

Plus ...

There are a multitude of laws, depending on the state, concerning transactions involving non-profits and property/assets. I frankly wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that these idiots made some serious mis-steps in all this and will end up paying penalties.

All I saw above was people saying that applicable laws should be enforced in this case, whether they are zoning and occupancy regulations at the local level or federal tax laws.

Odd that simply calling for the proper administration of justice gets the moonbats all riled up, isn't it?

Or, is it?

::-)

too bad losers

Atrios:

1. It is PSEUDO, moron
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861736207/pseudo-.html

2. Don't you have your own blog to pollute?
http://atrios.blogspot.com/

3. Love those open threads of yours...too lazy or idiotic to actually write something there?

Ahhh, thanks, Ed... you proved my point so quickly, and completely!

Thank you for being a shining example of the kinds of rational, reasonable person that represents the conservative views typically expressed here, and the attempt to respond to one person's argument with an equally compelling counter-argument, rather than relying on crude, vulgar language and sophomoric personal attacks when you retorted with your erudite reply:

"Because it wasn't his fucking money you utter imbecile"

How does that explain why someone can't buy something with money that was given to him? Didn't anyone ever just "give" you money Ed? And if they ever did, when you decided to spend it, did you tell the clerk or salesmen when you were making your purchase with that money, just where the money came from? And did you feel obligated to tell the clerk what you were going to DO with that purchase?

And I was very impressed that your answer to me was preceded in the same post by your equally intelligent, objective reply to Atrios about the spelling of a word in question, when you offered this very compelling retort:

"It's frigging "pseudo" you moronic twit. 'sudo' isn't even a fucking word."

Wow, those kind of intellectually compelling arguments and wise choice of language must have made you the captain of your debating team at Harvard. It's inspiring to see how you lay out your argument in a succinct, convincing and wonderfully fact-filled manner, rather than stooping to the illogical and invalid Argumentum ad hominem approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) to presenting an argument/position.

Your fellow right-wingers must be proud to have you speak for them on this blog.

SUDO
sudo allows a permitted user to execute a command as the superuser or another user

Get it dithshiths?
You allowed the asswipe delay to screw America in your name.