Thank you, Keith

[dalebert]

First off, I'll chime in and say that I also have never had anything stolen by Ivy. Hopefully anyone else who's been around Bill & Ivy, or had them in their home, will also chime in similarly.

I'm not getting involved in this, taking sides, or expressing any personal opinions about anyone, but will only speak of my personal first-hand experience. I have never had anything stolen by Ivy. I loaned her a very small amount of money once (sort of- picked up something from the store for her) and she paid me back in a reasonable time frame. She also once gave me a small desk.

[RattyDog]

Jeremy: got your email, thanks. I called you and left a voicemessage. Call me back when you get it.

Joey: You are confused.

Dalebert: Hello! I hope you are doing well.

[Friday]

Christ, what a saga.

But I do know, first-hand, that the restaurant was a complete dump when she rented it

Being "a dump" is a matter of opinion which entitles the renter to nothing, legally or morally

they spent thousands of dollars on labor and materials getting the place cleaned up

That seems like a really foolish thing to do, unless the renters had worked out a written agreement in advance with the owner stating that such and such improvements by the renters would be compensated with XYZ from the owner.

A handful of freestaters, including myself, did all the work on the place.

Did any of you warn Ivy that, perhaps, this was not the wisest way to proceed with launching a business??  Seriously.

When the landlord sued to evict her, she counter-sued with a bill for all the renovations we'd done. That sounds entirely reasonable to me.

So now we're getting somewhere.  Thanks for confirming RattyDog and aworldnervelink's claims that Ivy is/was getting evicted.  As for this seeming reasonable to you, I think you're letting your personal feelings get in the way of your principles here.  The very fact that the landlord had to sue her to try to get her off his property says a lot right there.  The fact that she chose to use the court system to fight back, rather than respecting the property owner's wishes and leaving, seems to fly in the face of what most FreeStaters are supposedly fighting for here in New Hampshire (at least, that's what I thought).

I'm friends with Ivy and I've defended her against most of this claptrap because the vast, vast majority of it centered around her personal habits and preferences, her romantic partners, and so forth, which are nobody's damn business but her own. Everything I hear sounds like the nattering of prudes and busybodies, so I dismiss it out-of-hand. True or not, it's not something any free-minded individual cares about.

But if you have actual, serious allegations of actual crimes of aggression—theft and fraud—let's hear it. Get it all out in the open on the forum. Get these people who've made accusations to come forward publicly, here, so we can deal with this, and everyone can make their own judgments.

I won't defend someone's behavior if it's actual, proven aggression.

It does seem to me that several people have publicly shat on Ivy because they don't like her style, her romantic shenanigans, etc. (By the way, I notice you didn't get an answer to your question "Why was Ivy banned from this forum?") And for the record, all of my dealings with her have been positive.  She offered to do an odd job for me before we'd even met, she did it as and when requested, and was mellow about collecting payment from me afterwards.  She has been friendly, kind and generous.

But allow me to be an idealistic, cold-hearted bitch for a moment (oh, ok, I'm one all the time  ): we all didn't move to New Hampshire to be friendly, kind and generous.  We moved here to work to restrict, or eliminate, government, and to work to build a society based on personal responsibility, honoring one's contracts, peaceful resolution of differences of opinion, and respect for other's property (and no, just in case there's any question, that's not a snarky reference to Bill; human beings are not property). 

Only somewhat off-topic rant: a lot of people these days are into being "nonjudgmental".  FUCK nonjudgmental.  If you don't judge when needed, you have no moral standards.  Ivy's not the first FreeStater to get evicted, or to apparently break a contract; she's just the first one to be publicly pilloried for doing so.  Maybe our community needs a little more judgmentalism, and holding one another to the principles we supposedly believe in and are fighting for, or else aren't we all just a bunch of hypocrites and our movement a load of horseshit? 

Have a nice day.

[MaineShark]

But I do know, first-hand, that the restaurant was a complete dump when she rented it

Being "a dump" is a matter of opinion which entitles the renter to nothing, legally or morally

they spent thousands of dollars on labor and materials getting the place cleaned up

That seems like a really foolish thing to do, unless the renters had worked out a written agreement in advance with the owner stating that such and such improvements by the renters would be compensated with XYZ from the owner.

A handful of freestaters, including myself, did all the work on the place.

Did any of you warn Ivy that, perhaps, this was not the wisest way to proceed with launching a business??  Seriously.

Actually, speaking as a contractor who has done such work for several businesses, that's fairly standard.  It's extraordinarily rare that a space is already completely furnished for the needs of the business moving in, so nearly all businesses will end up spending money to remodel the space to meet their needs.

When the landlord sued to evict her, she counter-sued with a bill for all the renovations we'd done. That sounds entirely reasonable to me.

So now we're getting somewhere.  Thanks for confirming RattyDog and aworldnervelink's claims that Ivy is/was getting evicted.  As for this seeming reasonable to you, I think you're letting your personal feelings get in the way of your principles here.  The very fact that the landlord had to sue her to try to get her off his property says a lot right there.  The fact that she chose to use the court system to fight back, rather than respecting the property owner's wishes and leaving, seems to fly in the face of what most FreeStaters are supposedly fighting for here in New Hampshire (at least, that's what I thought).

The aforementioned expense of remodeling is why businesses tend to rent space on a lease, rather than an at-will agreement.  The business owners need to know that they will be able to recoup the cost of the remodeling work, by being in that space for a given amount of time.  The landlord was trying to kick them out prior to the end of the lease contract, so no, they had no obligation to respect the property owner's wishes, in that regard.  The contract he signed trumps any wishes he might have had.

Joe

[D Stewart]

Christ, what a saga.

Ivy's not the first FreeStater to get evicted, or to apparently break a contract; she's just the first one to be publicly pilloried for doing so.  Maybe our community needs a little more judgmentalism, and holding one another to the principles we supposedly believe in and are fighting for, or else aren't we all just a bunch of hypocrites and our movement a load of horseshit? 

As far as I can make out (from this thread), she wasn't evicted, nor did she constructively break the lease.  If she had, then one would expect that the court would have found against her and for the landlord.

You seem to be taking the position that so long as a Porc is one of the parties to a contract, then that Porc can never take issue with any actions which may occur pursuant or contrary to that contract, or seek redress related to that contract.  I think that is THE CRAZIEST THING I HAVE HEARD ALL DAY.  Nor did I come here to eliminate government: I came to improve it.  Improving it does not require that we rid it of any reasonable and well-established mechanism of delivering the judgement which you say you seek.  The judicial system does a great many bad things, partly because they are required to, and partly to perpetuate themselves and accrue money and power for themselves.  By all means seek to improve it.  But to suggest that a party to a civil contract should enter into same with the expectation that it would be immoral for him to employ existing civil mechanisms to defend his rights in that contract or to defend himself and his interests against others who have chosen to use said mechanisms to enforce their perceived rights, seems to me a quite incredible concept, in the best sense of that word.

If you would prefer not to recognize the appertaining laws, then I would suggest that you don't enter into the (verbal, written, whatever) contract in the first place.  I see that there are several people who have done just this -- avoided contracts -- to make a point (driver licenses, registrations, etc.).  Good for them.  Bill & Ivy apparently were not trying to make a point, they were trying to make a living.  Good for them!

[AntonLee]

I once believed I could shine shit.

[Tom Sawyer]

I know let's debate, analyze and dissect this matter further.

To the folks that think Ivy is a decent person, that they call friend, good -- be her friend. But, being her friend probably isn't best served by publicly whipping this nonsense up.

To the folks that have no personal knowledge of these goings on because you're new to the forum, live in distant places etc. maybe you aren't helping anybody by adding your fuel to this fire.

As for me, I have only briefly met Ivy/Sharon in person, and I have a little more knowledge, from having read these issues, revolving around her, going from the present - back to when she was still in R.I. "Bad luck" seems to follow her around, and it has been argued convincingly that her choices lead to most of it.

Ratty didn't start this thread...
Jeremy, as he sometimes does, decides that energy from other forums should be brought over to the underground. He has done this back and forth from the NHLA to here and the forum which he administers, The NH Tea Party. His motivations are open to interpretation, I think he likes to promote his forum and likes to be the emissary between factions.
Then the "owner" of this other forum graces us with his presence on this inflammatory topic. You created a home that's linage goes back to other "misunderstood" persons that where high "drama" and derisive. Why is this mess being pimped over here, when there is a place to air this where the principals hang out.

The debating of the minutia is a way to ignore the bigger obvious red flags that someone is perhaps trouble best avoided. That is at least my position... somehow the need for every single individual who decides to align themselves with our efforts, is to be preserved at any cost. Our biggest problems will (have) stemmed from our own "allies" not our "enemies".

Ratty has presented an obviously emotional response to something she has first and second hand knowledge of. She has no requirement to convince every one of Ivy/Sharon's supporters, or even worse people that have no knowledge of any of the people involved. From what I know of Ratty she is a decent, hard working woman, whose contagious enthusiasm, makes me like to see/hear more of around here. She has voiced her "opinion" regarding the character of someone, I take that "opinion" seriously even if some facts are debatable or open to interpretation.

I feel that the smoke of many pieces of information over the "years" suggest that there is some kind of a fire/"bad luck"/drama that surrounds Ivy/Sharon. We have seen it with others, that were here, that no longer post.

[J’raxis 270145]

Jeremy: got your email, thanks. I called you and left a voicemessage. Call me back when you get it.

I am not discussing these allegations in a non-recorded form.

Email. Or on the forum.

[J’raxis 270145]

When the landlord sued to evict her, she counter-sued with a bill for all the renovations we'd done. That sounds entirely reasonable to me.

So now we're getting somewhere.  Thanks for confirming RattyDog and aworldnervelink's claims that Ivy is/was getting evicted.  As for this seeming reasonable to you, I think you're letting your personal feelings get in the way of your principles here.  The very fact that the landlord had to sue her to try to get her off his property says a lot right there.  The fact that she chose to use the court system to fight back, rather than respecting the property owner's wishes and leaving, seems to fly in the face of what most FreeStaters are supposedly fighting for here in New Hampshire (at least, that's what I thought).

Not at all. The eviction rationale was fraudulent, according to Ivy—the landlord claimed the rent cheques were invalid when they plainly were not. The landlord then tried to use the legal system to enforce this act of fraud. Ivy fought back in the venue the landlord chose to use. That's self-defense, not initiation.

If someone tries to use the violence of the State to come after me, I too would learn what I need to know about the law they're trying to (ab)use, and retaliate in kind. Let those who turn to the State have its wrath turned back upon them.

[J’raxis 270145]

To the folks that think Ivy is a decent person, that they call friend, good -- be her friend. But, being her friend probably isn't best served by publicly whipping this nonsense up.

From what Ivy's told me, she wasn't too happy this drama started when Natalie posted, but she's appreciative I and the others have been posting in her defense. She's also emailed me a lengthy rebuttal to Natalie's specific allegations, which I'll construct a post from at some point.

Jeremy, as he sometimes does, decides that energy from other forums should be brought over to the underground. He has done this back and forth from the NHLA to here and the forum which he administers, The NH Tea Party. His motivations are open to interpretation, I think he likes to promote his forum and likes to be the emissary between factions.

Both true, but when I cross-post something, it's usually in recognition that to get the message out to everyone, I need to post it on multiple forums. Usually when I post news articles, they go on all of them—NHLA, FSP, NH Tea Party, and here. When there's a political discussion brewing here, I'll direct people over to the NHLA forum instead. When there's a discussion going on here that's also going on elsewhere, I'll direct people there. And so on.

My motivation in starting this thread was exactly as stated in the initial post—I like Keith, despite his having done a few things I disagree with (e.g. initially banning Ivy), and since so many people have piled on his establishment with complaints, I thought it'd be appropriate to do the opposite. At least one person has responded to this thread saying they'll now give Keith additional business as a result of his decision.

And my motivation for cross-posting in this case was to get the message out to everyone that Keith did a good thing.

Then the "owner" of this other forum graces us with his presence on this inflammatory topic. You created a home that's linage goes back to other "misunderstood" persons that where high "drama" and derisive. Why is this mess being pimped over here, when there is a place to air this where the principals hang out.

I didn't start the mess here. I posted a simple public thank-you note to Keith. No one is replying with inflammatory posts over on the Tea Party, so the debate gets had here. I don't even think RattyDog has an account there.

Ratty has presented an obviously emotional response to something she has first and second hand knowledge of. She has no requirement to convince every one of Ivy/Sharon's supporters, or even worse people that have no knowledge of any of the people involved. From what I know of Ratty she is a decent, hard working woman, whose contagious enthusiasm, makes me like to see/hear more of around here. She has voiced her "opinion" regarding the character of someone, I take that "opinion" seriously even if some facts are debatable or open to interpretation.

It's not just her opinion—it's a litany of serious accusations that need to be rebutted in order to maintain someone else's reputation. If I see someone being attacked like this, and I have information to counter it, I most certainly will do so.

[J’raxis 270145]

You created a home that's linage goes back to other "misunderstood" persons that where high "drama" and derisive.

Actually, the forum was created by Michael Hampton. I only took over administration sometime around 2008-09-15.

Also, anyone's welcome on the forum: Its original purpose, I believe, was to have a slightly more secure discussion board (note the SSL URL) than this one, not to give a home to "high drama" types, although, my policy of never banning users, at most just asking them to stop or leave if they're excessively uncivil, probably gives it that impression.

[KBCraig]

I once believed I could shine shit.

Mythbusters: Polishing a Turd.

[Kat Kanning]

Haven't read this thread, but have been told the jist of it.  Take this discussion elsewhere.  It isn't sporting to discuss this where Ivy can't answer.