NEW $15,000,000 FOR BONDS??

[rmreed]

Just write a letter saying who you are and stating that you would like to intervene on behalf of your self and other interested parties to stop the proposed bond issue for Union County.

If you hand deliver the letter be sure to write hand delivered to: and get them to sign and date or mail it certified mail return receipt.

This sounds like something that we should have done before the public meeting about the bonds this morning at 9:00 a.m. at the court house. Do you think it could still be done? As a matter of fact the judge mentioned that he had received several letters from individuals, and he asked if anyone there wanted to intervene. They had been hand delivered, logged in at the clerk of court and delivered to the judge and the commissioner's office. So is there still hope.

[luckyme]

sometime, hasn't that time past as the hearing was this morning?
I'm just a lay person and don't understand all the legalese, I did in fact write a letter that was delivered to the judge prior to the hearing. I thought it should have been read into the permanent record, but none of the letters were? I wish there would be more of an explanation given regarding "our" recourse, meaning we the public.
When the judge called for anyone who wanted to intervene, I wish he would have clarified what that meant. Not knowing made me, I'm ashamed to say, not stand up and speak my piece, I truly thought I did that in my letter however.
Can some one give me guidance? I'm not a shy person, I just want to make sure I know what I'm doing before rushing headlong into a mailstorm. thank you in advance

[shortcircuit]

I think that anyone can file for an intervention any time before the bonds are actually issued, what happened today was simply a hearing where Liemar officially announced his intentions to borrow enough money to justify another 100% property tax increase next year. He thinks that wal mart will provide enough tax money to cover the bonds. That's like counting on a chicken to lay a golden egg before you even own a chicken.

[sometimeman]

Go For It, What have you got to lose? Look what it costs you if you don't!

The Judge was trying to give you directions! He wants it intervened but He wants to appear neutral.

[luckyme]

thanks sometime, I will give it my best!

[luckyme]

sometime, so why aren't you doing anything..? Isn't is costing you the same as me and all the rest of "we the people"?
Confused...

[bubbadebubba]

Here's what Wikipedia says about Intervention and it looks like it is too late to intervene::

In law, intervention is a procedure to allow nonparties to join ongoing litigation, either as a matter of right or at the discretion of the court, without the permission of the original litigants. The basic rationale for intervention is that a judgment in a particular case may affect the rights of nonparties, who ideally should have the right to be heard.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Canadian practice
o 1.1 External links
* 2 United States practice
o 2.1 References
* 3 See also

[edit] Canadian practice

Interveners are most common in appellate proceedings, but can also appear at other types of legal proceeding such as a trial.

In general, it is within the discretion of the court to allow or refuse an application to intervene. There are exceptions to this however (for example, under subrule 61(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, if the court has stated a constitutional question then the attorney general of any province or territory, or of the federal government, may intervene "as of right", i.e. without the need to be granted leave to intervene).

Courts will tend to allow an application to intervene if the applicant will provide a different perspective on the issues before the court, without expanding those issues.

Interveners are permitted in criminal matters as well as civil matters. However, courts sometimes express concern in allowing applications for intervention in criminal matters where the applicant will make arguments against the position of the accused. It sometimes is seen as unfair that the accused in a criminal matter be required to meet arguments from sources other than the prosecution.

There are several distinct reasons why someone might wish to intervene in a proceeding:

* if the proposed intervener is currently a litigant in a case with legal issues similar or identical to the case at hand;

* if the proposed intervener represents a group of people who have a direct concern in the legal issues raised in a case (for example, if the case involves deportation of a particular individual, an application for leave to intervene might be made by an interest group for the rights of refugee claimants);

* if the proposed intervener is concerned that the court's decision in a particular case might be so broad as to affect the proposed intervener's interests; in other words it would be an intervention to ensure that the court's ruling does not have "accidental" unintended effects.

It is often said that the role of interveners is to "assist" the court in making a just decision on the dispute at hand. While it is true that judges sometimes do indicate that interveners have been of aid to the court in reaching a decision, the use of the word "assist" can be seen as misleading in that it implies the intervener is acting altruistically. In general, the goal of the intervener is to influence the court in making its decision, not just to "assist" the court.

Canadian courts use the term "amicus curiae" in a more limited sense. Generally, in Canada, an amicus curiae is someone who has been specifically commissioned by the court to provide a viewpoint which the court believes is necessary and otherwise lacking. By contrast, an intervener is someone who has applied to the court to be heard on a matter. For example, the Quebec Secession Reference (a case in the Supreme Court of Canada) had one amicus curiae and several interveners.

[bubbadebubba]

But keep your ears open, the hearing Monday was to validate the bonding.

If there is a court hearing for the ISSUING of Bonds, that may be a good time to intervene, especially if the bonding payouts run longer than the tax collections.

[sometimeman]

Lucky- My Contribution consists of posting, coaching, prodding and encouraging. Yes! We are all affected by sorry illegal, incompetent, governmental officers and bureaucrats!

make sure the Judge hears this. It might cause him to take a second look at the bond request.,

Another way of looking at it---

What does it cost a family of four to "LIVE" in Union County?

Their house is paid for, there is no house payment.
Their car is paid for, there is no car payment.

They have a garden. They can live cheap, right?
Yeah right -if- they come up with about $300 dollars a month to pay Lamar to "rent" their property from the county. Because, if they don't Lamar will file a Fi-Fa and foreclose on their property and sell it and they will be homeless!

It costs $3,420 a year for a family of four to have the privilege to say, I live in the "kingdom" of Lamar. I live within in the borders of Union County!

[luckyme]

sometime, read the the paper tomorrow and let's chat. I haven't read the article myself, but have heard what the commish responds to from Mr. Cook and has the nerve to put words in the mouth of the Honorable Judge Barrett. I was at the court house, and the Judge NEVER made reference to any letters SPECIFICALLY, let alone put a name on anyone in opposition or mention what that opposition might be. He did ask for anyone to intervene, if I had changed one word in my letter from exception to intervention, we may have been having a much different conservation this evening.. (Hind sight and more knowledge is a wonderful thing. sigh...)
The legal organ is also professing that the former SPLOST tax was created in 2003 and therefore does not come under the ruling of the 2004 issuance to be published, hmmm if it's voted on in 2003, probably didn't enact until 2004. And I'm not certain, but it could be another carry over from another SPLOST vote. With NO PUBLICATIONS, who's to know where anything stands on any of this AND THERE IN LIES ALL THE PROBLEMS!!! In any event they should be required to publish continuing projects and most certainly the newest proposed projects.. They need to name the project and report the estimated cost. Have you seen any such publications in the legal organ? I've tried to research various sites with no luck.
I'm so new to this side of politics, I'm a quick learner, and appreciate any and all the help I can get. I'm the sort of person who doesn't sit on knowledge, but will do the best of my abilities to act upon it, if I'm comfortable with my own understanding of the knowledge and my ability to convey it to the proper entities with confidence.
I truly thank you for all the information you provide!!