Rules Made to be Broken? or Who are the Rules For?

Two of the meetings I attended this week left me feeling a little funny about subjects dear to my heart and my careers, Laws and Rules. As a retired Court Interpreter, I still consult periodically and find myself in the court rooms of America. As a Realtor specializing for 25 years in the Luxury and Executive marketplace, I am conscientious about the protection of my clients and will continue learn all that I can to remain invaluable to them, not only as a marketer of their property, but as a consultant and guide to their financial preservation and growth. So here is this weeks startling observation.

Who are the rules in place for? Why expect protection from government agencies that were created for the specific purpose to protect the public, and who demand fees and no longer offer what they were set up to do in the first place?

My first example is of a Judge rendering a judgment. Now for our legal system to actually function - there is a system of rules (to the game) that even the judges must follow in order to preserve equality among opponents in court. These are rules like who speaks first, when is the cut-off date and time to submit evidence or to serve the opposing side in a timely manner, when is exculpatory evidence allowed – and when it is not…this list goes on and on. The point I want to make is this: there is a set of rules established for every procedure, but why are the rules changed or disregarded arbitrarily from judge to judge and from case to case? Justice is left outside in the corridors of the courthouses if the rules are not observed inside the courtroom. Why even have rules, or attorneys and judges and lawsuits, if REAL Justice is not being served or protected? For my lifetime of service, my eyes were opened to the elasticity of the rules of law and to law itself, applied arbitrarily based upon the ‘relationship’ of court personnel, attorneys and the judge – to one another, as foremost to the resolution of any case. It is pure politics. Justice, in her beauty lies not only asleep, but in a fetal position of a comatose state. For over 30 years I have listened to the complaints made by the legal community that the ‘system is broken!’ Well, I wonder why? So much for rules…

My second example is over the collecting of fees for mandatory permits necessary to initiate any structural change to a property. These city offices were established for the protection of the public against faulty construction results, that the then tax paying citizen would be saddled with upon completion.

Well that is no longer the case and apparently has not been the case for quite some time! (Being protected, that is.)

California Building Code Title 24 – Appendix Chapter 1 – General, was the topic presented to the Pasadena Foothills Association of Realtors on Thursday, June 3, 2010 by our own Kelly Richardson, Esq. Here is the shorthand version of that information provided to the attending membership.



105.4 Validity of permit. “Because we are approving your plans DOESN’T mean that any future faults or problems (that result from the plans we approve) were approved.”

108.4.4 Inspections. Even if there was a faulty or overlooked item by the city inspector, the owner is not indemnified against future problems.

110.1 Use and occupancy. When the city finally issues a “Certificate of Occupancy’ (allowing the use of the structure after many inspections) it is not to be construed as approval of the construction.

104.8 Liability. The city has zero accountability for protection to homeowners/builders for any errors or omissions of the city’s part.

There are thousands of dollars being collected from each property, for what? What is the money for? When we know it is to protect ourselves – we pay. But as information is being put forth in opposition to that public ‘knowledge’ – what is really happening here?

So according to My Richardson, there are laws that are written and were voted in, and remain on the books – but are arbitrarily changed by individuals occupying the office. For the detailed wording of the above noted building codes, I refer the reader to the aforementioned California Building code Title 24.

My parting thought…

If the purpose for the establishment of this agency or office no longer exists, then the mandatory fees collected are simply to fund employment for the office administrator’s and their staff. Why not abolish the office altogether? Let the public not be confused or hold an expectation of something that does not exist! And finally, why have laws and rules in place if they are summarily and arbitrarily adapted and changed – WITHOUT THE PUBLIC HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH?

Rules were not made to be broken; they were made to better ensure fairness and peace among the people.