Comments on: Barton eviction fight: No immediate ruling at hearing; city offers help, cites ‘alarming conditions’

By: Thomas M.

Thomas M. — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 02:04:56 +0000

I keep pinging ECR for the Ruling, but so far nothing. The Mayor is so obviously H.U.A. on this deal… what’s taking so long?

By: grain of salt

grain of salt — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 00:45:40 +0000

I’d like to read Triangle’s negative media campaign against the Bartons. I am searching the internet and can’t find anything except a few references to public record, which seem to be accurate. Gatewood Neighbor, can you please tell me where I can find this information?

By: WSB

WSB — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:23:24 +0000

In reply to WSB.

… and the city attorney’s office tells us they have heard no such thing from the judge, nor any other decision/order/ruling/etc. The last thing they heard was the same thing our reporter heard in court on Friday – that Judge Spearman had taken it under advisement. – TR

By: WSB

WSB — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 17:12:35 +0000

In reply to To Gatewood Neighbor. FYI there is nothing in the court files. So I'm checking with the city attorney, for starters. - TR

By: To Gatewood Neighbor

To Gatewood Neighbor — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 17:08:41 +0000

I may regret jumping into this train wreck, but I have an honest question for Gatewood Neighbor.

You’ve said repeatedly that you think the Bartons should be allowed to stay in their house, presumably in the hope of keeping it. Various other commenters have pointed out that keeping the house isn’t a legal option at this point. They’ve even gone so far as to cite the specific laws relevant to this case, showing conclusively that the Bartons’ best-case-scenario would be to receive some money for damages, but still no house.

My question is this- do you understand that there is no way under the law for them to keep the house? Or do you dispute that, and on what grounds?

I understand you and the Bartons may disagree with the laws, but I’m concerned that your/their refusal to accept what the laws say may be keeping them from obtaining the help they need.

By: WSB

WSB — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 17:03:29 +0000

In reply to Gatewood Neighbor. I checked the court files late last night before ECR went offline for its (annoying to me, it hampers my work) nightly 11 pm-4 am unavailability. Nothing new on this case then, but will check again now.

By: Gatewood Neighbor

Gatewood Neighbor — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:48:41 +0000

From the SAFE Facebook page posted today. Can’t confirm or deny its accuracy.

UPDATE ON THE BARTON’S

The judge has decided that she wants the city and the plaintiff to come to a resolution on their own and she has given them twenty days from last Monday to do so. After twenty days the city can file for an extension. The Barton home is safe for at least the next two weeks, it could be safe for much longer

By: Gatewood Neighbor

Gatewood Neighbor — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:44:44 +0000

Dear Gatewood Neighbor – I am not going to debate you. I think you should save your legal arguments in this complex case for court, and your citations on argumentation and debate for another forum. Whatever your relationship is to Triangle, you have put a very personal face on Triangle for me. As I said above, originally I was pretty neutral about Triangle. But between Triangle’s negative media campaign against the Bartons personally and similar comments in your postings, I now have a very negative impression of Triangle and how it does business as a company. Whether you are going to call my comment a logically flawed response again or not, I will tell you as a business owner and senior executive for other businesses prior to that: this is not good PR for Triangle. That I know is not good business.

By: Gatewood Neighbor

Gatewood Neighbor — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:31:25 +0000

Grain of salt – yes it is a fascinating and complex case – I think as such too soon to make assumptions about the outcome. Yes, the Sheriff’s Office has said it has completed the eviction. That has been reported extensively. I understand about those in the legal field loving to engage in lively debate, however, I don’t think your earlier posting to me “ as you repeatedly encourage everyone to eat with anything Triangle says that doesn’t jive with your version of the story. Can’t have it both ways there, “neighbor”. “ much showed that, inaccurately portrayed my comments about Triangle, and I don’t think putting the word neighbor in quotes (I think safely interpreted as a sneer to me in this case) was appropriate. Yes, I guess I did use “grain of salt” once in a posting. WSB clarified the numbers involved, which I appreciate because I was only hearing it from Triangle – obviously not an impartial party. I really had nothing against Triangle except as a company caught in the crosshairs of a very difficult and complex situation. However, I don’t think the company’s subsequent negative media efforts towards the Bartons personally really shows much professionalism or character as a company. I’ve said all along that I think the Bartons should be allowed to stay in their home until their case plays out in court. I still do. It is for the courts to decide at this point. I think you and I can agree on that point.

By: Dear Gatewood Neighbor

Dear Gatewood Neighbor — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 05:27:17 +0000

There is another flawed logical argument called ad hominem. It is named for a Latin word that more or less means “against the man”. It is an argument made by a person who essentially suggests that the person making the argument is biased so their argument is therefore invalid. It looks like this: 1) Person A is claiming Y. 2) Person A has a vested interest in Y being true. 3) Therefore, Y is false. My point is that, just because I may know who these people are on a social level, or just because I recognize that they are being inaccurately portrayed in some of your posts does not necessarily mean my arguments are flawed. Talk about the arguments. Don’t attack my motives, they are irrelevant unless they have twisted my argument, which they have not. I’m just saying if you want a house back, you have to file. No file? No house. Rather than post logically flawed responses, prove me wrong. Or, and this seems like a much better solution to me, let’s sit back and wait together.

By: grain of salt

grain of salt — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 04:28:24 +0000

I have posted three responses total on this issue which, from a legal standpoint, is one of the most interesting cases I have ever seen. When is the last time you heard of anyone filing for a Writ of Mandamus? You may not realize this, but it’s the kind of thing most people only read about in textbooks. I never claimed to know anyone directly involved in this, but I do share at least one personality flaw with many in the legal field. That is, I love a lively debate. The problem is you have to stick to the actual argument for it to really work. Oh, and not to be a stickler, but from what I have read, they have already been evicted. Now, if KIRO is accurately reporting the circumstances (and I think they are, otherwise, the Writ makes no sense), they’ve engaged in criminal trespass. That’s a different legal issue than eviction.

By: Gatewood Neighbor

Gatewood Neighbor — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 03:31:28 +0000

Grain of Salt – I think you and Dear Gatewood Neighbor are a little too involved from your comments to be impartial parties at this point. Dear Gatewood Neighbor has already acknowledged some sort of first hand knowledge about Triangle Property as a company, its integrity and its motives. I don’t think you are an attorney because of your emotionally charged responses to my postings; maybe you are but most attorneys don’t use the emotionally charged language that you do. In any event, it is for the courts to decide, not your or Dear Gatewood Neighbor. Ultimately though, even if Triangle Property prevails and evicts the Bartons, it is going to have to deal with selling the property. If I were Triangle Property, I wouldn’t even want to have to deal with the possibility of SAFE picketing my broker’s open house.

By: Gatewood Neighbor

Gatewood Neighbor — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 03:11:17 +0000

Grain of salt – I did not address my response to you. Thank you for responding though.

By: grain of salt

grain of salt — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 01:18:49 +0000

Don’t make the assumption that I’m not an attorney. How do you suppose it is that I know the previous poster is right about the court not returning the house? There was no filing before the sale. It’s not an issue that can even be heard. Do some research and you will see; it’s not impossible to comprehend. There is a lot of flexibility in the law, but requirements like this filing are fairly rigid. But, all this said, I do believe you are right about one thing for sure: time will enlighten us all.

By: grain of salt

grain of salt — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 01:06:02 +0000

Aug9 3:22pm.
” The only numbers people are using and timeline (including the free and clear title) are provided by Triangle Property’s attorneys. I think this should be taken with a ‘grain of salt'”