SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > In Honor of Our Warriors > MOH Recipients Links

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 6 December 2009, 14:28
sfmedicw9 sfmedicw9 is offline
The USA's Loose Cannon
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kurdistan in N Iraq
Posts: 1,154
I understand its about the pole in the yard - he's wrong by the letter of the law - given

I have never understood why people move into neighborhoods with a HA

Why would anyone subject themselves to little Nazi busybodies?? I mean these are people that actually think its important that their precious little grass i trimmed correctly, They think it actually matters that everything looks like Ward and June Cleavers House

Fuck I would just as soon rather these little twerps would just do the little lemming thing and jump off a cliff. If your worried how your precious little toys look to the point of it actually causes you to give a damn - your living a worthless life anyhow - you need to get a life
__________________
I dont recall ever being released from my vow to defend the constitution against all enemys foreign and domestic (read that liberals and globalists)
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 6 December 2009, 14:35
AJG AJG is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lexington, VA
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker19D30 View Post
This is what it comes down to for me. There would seem to be a first amendment issue here.
There's not a First Amendment issue here. First, nobody is telling he can't do anything that he didn't agree to when he purchased the house. Second, the First Amendment prohibits state action which restricts freedom of speech, it has no bearing on what a homeowners' association which a person voluntarily joined can require of its members.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 6 December 2009, 14:37
AJG AJG is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lexington, VA
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Section8 View Post
So As I understand the general consensus here is that we should all bow down to a HOA because they are right and we are sheople. They are above the federal and state statues. Interesting!!!
No. The consensus is that you should follow rules that you voluntarily agreed to follow. Its called a contract.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 6 December 2009, 14:48
AJG AJG is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lexington, VA
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenhat View Post
I think a good lawyer could make the HOA wish they had never denied that application.
The issue of the binding nature of HOA rules has been litigated to death in pretty much every state in the country. I think a good lawyer will tell this homeowner this and advise him as to how to go about displaying his flag within the rules.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 6 December 2009, 15:03
SOTB's Avatar
SOTB SOTB is offline
Minus one, but more symmetrical....
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Clorox'ing the gene pool....
Posts: 33,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfmedicw9
I mean these are people that actually think its important that their precious little grass i trimmed correctly....If your worried how your precious little toys look to the point of it actually causes you to give a damn - your living a worthless life anyhow - you need to get a life
I suppose I live a worthless life, then....
__________________
Losing faith in humanity, one assclown at a time....
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 6 December 2009, 17:59
P38's Avatar
P38 P38 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfmedicw9 View Post
Why would anyone subject themselves to little Nazi busybodies?? I mean these are people that actually think its important that their precious little grass i trimmed correctly, They think it actually matters that everything looks like Ward and June Cleavers House

Fuck I would just as soon rather these little twerps would just do the little lemming thing and jump off a cliff. If your worried how your precious little toys look to the point of it actually causes you to give a damn - your living a worthless life anyhow - you need to get a life
1. I like my home owners association, the "Nazi busybodies" don't control it, and I can fly the American flag on my property any day of the week.

2. As to "your living a worthless life anyhow", that's just such a stupid statement that I don't even know how to respond to it. What do you know about me?
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 6 December 2009, 20:09
Longrifle's Avatar
Longrifle Longrifle is offline
Sound off for equipment check!
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pergo per caligo...
Posts: 5,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJG View Post
I think a good lawyer will tell this homeowner this and advise him as to how to go about displaying his flag within the rules.
And I think a better lawyer would consider the possibility that this "rule" is wrong in denying a property owner a commonly accepted way of displaying the flag, and would offer his services.

Suppose a HOA had a rule prohibiting invitation of certain minorities to sit on one's lawn. Clearly that wouldn't be an acceptable rule, so why is this one?

At one time "covenants" were enforced, too, until someone stepped up to the plate with a lawyer and got that changed.

I simply do not believe anyone, for any reason, should have the right to tell a property owner how they can display the US flag respectfully on their own land. Paying property taxes alone should provide that guarantee.
__________________
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ~Patrick Henry

"Sēlre bið æghwæm þæt hē his frēond wrece, þonne hē fela murne." ~Bēowulf, bearn Ecgþēowes
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 6 December 2009, 20:13
The Fat Guy's Avatar
The Fat Guy The Fat Guy is offline
The Sagacious One
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pushing string down the hall
Posts: 14,194
Its all about the fight

What a bunch of shithouse lawyers we all are.

Read the good Colonel's story again. Its not about the flagpole, its about the fight! Its about his ability to stay alive and fight for what he thinks is right. I would hate to say that he would probably get sick or worse if he were to win this case and then have nothing to fight for.

NOTE: This is the opinion of someone who never has and never will live under the fascist rule of a home owners association, which is really just a collection of uppity sheep that desperately wish they were born as sheep dogs or wolves. This is their next best thing for them, controlling lesser sheep.
__________________
No one will take better care of us, than us: Suicide Hotline: 1-800-273-8255
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 6 December 2009, 20:31
mdb23's Avatar
mdb23 mdb23 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fat Guy View Post
What a bunch of shithouse lawyers we all are.

NOTE: This is the opinion of someone who never has and never will live under the fascist rule of a home owners association, which is really just a collection of uppity sheep that desperately wish they were born as sheep dogs or wolves. This is their next best thing for them, controlling lesser sheep.
I think at least one person in the thread is an actual lawyer of the non shithouse variety.

I don't live in a neighborhood with a HOA, but I think your description of those who do is, at best, unfair. Not every issue in the world is one of patriotism, sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves. Some things are just simple economics.

A lot of people save for years to buy the home of their dreams. Other people buy a home in the hopes of selling it, making a profit, and moving one step closer to the home that they dream of. In either case, I can understand the fear that someone will move in next door, let their grass grow waist high, and paint their fucking home purple, making your home an unsellable piece of shit...... for people in these situations, I can understand the appeal of a HOA.

I know of one neighborhood where a guy moved in and erected huge (car sized) models of the space shuttle, a rocket, and even built a brick tower in his back yard. The dude was a nutter...... now if you are the person next door, who wants to buy your house? Nobody.

The simple fact is that the Colonel signed a contract. If he didn't like the rules, then he shouldn't have signed it. I respect that man greatly for what he has done, but I respectfully think that he is in the wrong here.....
__________________
"Everybody thinks himself so well supplied with common sense that even those most difficult to please...never desire more of it than they already have." Rene Descartes
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 6 December 2009, 20:32
AJG AJG is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lexington, VA
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Longrifle View Post
And I think a better lawyer would consider the possibility that this "rule" is wrong in denying a property owner a commonly accepted way of displaying the flag, and would offer his services.
Fine, think what you want. Suffice to say, this issue has long been resolved by the courts in pretty near every case and it's my general rule not to take a client's money for litigating an issue where the long settled law is against him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Longrifle View Post
Suppose a HOA had a rule prohibiting invitation of certain minorities to sit on one's lawn. Clearly that wouldn't be an acceptable rule, so why is this one?
Because that law would be violating federal laws and probably state laws also, depending on what state you are in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Longrifle View Post
At one time "covenants" were enforced, too, until someone stepped up to the plate with a lawyer and got that changed.
A covenant is a restriction in a deed which in some way limits what can be done with the land by future owners. They are still enforced regularly unless they violate some law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Longrifle View Post
I simply do not believe anyone, for any reason, should have the right to tell a property owner how they can display the US flag respectfully on their own land. Paying property taxes alone should provide that guarantee.
As a matter of principle, I agree. As a matter of law, it really doesn't matter what you or I believe, the law is to the contrary absent a statute such as the one someone here posted from Florida.

Frankly, I'm not sure the Florida statute would withstand a constitutional challenge under Article I, Section 10, which provides that "No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. But that's just a quick thought off the top of my head, which I admit to not having researched.

Last edited by AJG; 6 December 2009 at 20:38.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 6 December 2009, 20:35
mdb23's Avatar
mdb23 mdb23 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Longrifle View Post
Suppose a HOA had a rule prohibiting invitation of certain minorities to sit on one's lawn. Clearly that wouldn't be an acceptable rule, so why is this one?
The simple answer is that the prohibition against minorities in the community would violate federal discrimination laws, a prohibition against flagpoles does not.
__________________
"Everybody thinks himself so well supplied with common sense that even those most difficult to please...never desire more of it than they already have." Rene Descartes
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 6 December 2009, 20:46
MakoZeroSix's Avatar
MakoZeroSix MakoZeroSix is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 7,877
Quote:
Read the good Colonel's story again. Its not about the flagpole, its about the fight! Its about his ability to stay alive and fight for what he thinks is right. I would hate to say that he would probably get sick or worse if he were to win this case and then have nothing to fight for.

NOTE: This is the opinion of someone who never has and never will live under the fascist rule of a home owners association, which is really just a collection of uppity sheep that desperately wish they were born as sheep dogs or wolves. This is their next best thing for them, controlling lesser sheep.
Hey, whoa, bro...Wouldn't Dale Carnegie opt to appease the homeowners association, in an attempt to win their friendship and influence them?
__________________
Quote:
there’s nothing in our country anymore that seems to suggest that selfless service to the nation is not only appropriate, but required.”
- General John F. Kelley
19 Oct 2017
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 6 December 2009, 21:36
Longrifle's Avatar
Longrifle Longrifle is offline
Sound off for equipment check!
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pergo per caligo...
Posts: 5,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJG View Post
Because that law would be violating federal laws and probably state laws also, depending on what state you are in.
Exactly my point. It's time for a law to protect one's right to fly the US flag on his/her own property.

Quote:
A covenant is a restriction in a deed which in some way limits what can be done with the land by future owners. They are still enforced regularly unless they violate some law.
My fault for being vague. I was referring to covenants preventing future sale of a home to non-whites.

Quote:
As a matter of principle, I agree. As a matter of law, it really doesn't matter what you or I believe, the law is to the contrary absent a statute such as the one someone here posted from Florida.
We keep beating around the bush. I think we need a law to allow a property owner to fly the US flag. If he can hang one he ought to be able to fly one, and a HOA can butt out when it comes to the US flag. If they want to restrict any other flag that's another matter for another thread, law, contract, argument, or discussion.

Quote:
Frankly, I'm not sure the Florida statute would withstand a constitutional challenge under Article I, Section 10, which provides that "No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. But that's just a quick thought off the top of my head, which I admit to not having researched.
I believe you. Thus the need for a federal law in this matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdb23
The simple answer is that the prohibition against minorities in the community would violate federal discrimination laws, a prohibition against flagpoles does not.
And the simple solution, since common sense is lacking in certain HOAs, is a federal law allowing a property owner to display the US flag on a flagpole.

Just as there is a clear need for laws to prevent racial discrimination in contracts, there obviously is a need for a law to prevent this kind of crap in contracts.
__________________
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ~Patrick Henry

"Sēlre bið æghwæm þæt hē his frēond wrece, þonne hē fela murne." ~Bēowulf, bearn Ecgþēowes
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 6 December 2009, 22:42
sfmedicw9 sfmedicw9 is offline
The USA's Loose Cannon
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kurdistan in N Iraq
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOTB View Post
I suppose I live a worthless life, then....
No No No

Im talking about those that get upset over this stupid shit. Those that actually make it there business to get confrontational over someones elses lawn or how they choose to paint their own house

Or those that maintain that sterile suburbia neatly trimmed Ward Cleaver shit to the point they think that somehow it matters in the grand scheme of things.

No offence meant to anyone here
__________________
I dont recall ever being released from my vow to defend the constitution against all enemys foreign and domestic (read that liberals and globalists)
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 6 December 2009, 22:57
Mother Mother is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Southampton, England
Posts: 40
Some on this site that have commented about this issue may not have lived in a townhome type community with an HOA and are confused on the facts.

“Barfoot had sought permission to install the pole shortly after he moved into the community — a complex of townhouses where the grounds are community property — last June. The board denied his request in July.”

The key words there are “community property”. No one is saying he cannot fly the flag nor have a flag pole, they are saying he can’t do it on the piece of land that is considered an area that is used by the entire community. Granted, most townhome type communities do not have much private property aside from the living structure but as stated by others there are other ways of displaying the flag that would not violate any rules.

Maybe what I should be saying is; Read the whole story.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 7 December 2009, 00:27
Greenhat
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJG View Post
Because that law would be violating federal laws and probably state laws also, depending on what state you are in.
If a lawyer could demonstrate that this rule is violating a federal law or a basic principle on which the United States is founded, would that not constitute a similar circumstance?

A number of people have stated that he is allowed to display a flag, just not on a flagpole.

However, by denying him his flagpole, isn't the HOA denying him the ability to raise and lower the flag in a manner consistent with military protocal and pay respects to that flag in a manner which is indicative of his status as a recipient of the Medal of Honor?


Quote:
Frankly, I'm not sure the Florida statute would withstand a constitutional challenge under Article I, Section 10, which provides that "No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. But that's just a quick thought off the top of my head, which I admit to not having researched.
I believe that argument was used pre-civil war to enforce the pursuit of slaves. I'm not sure I'd want to make an argument that called on that as precedence.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 7 December 2009, 00:31
Greenhat
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother View Post
Some on this site that have commented about this issue may not have lived in a townhome type community with an HOA and are confused on the facts.

“Barfoot had sought permission to install the pole shortly after he moved into the community — a complex of townhouses where the grounds are community property — last June. The board denied his request in July.”

The key words there are “community property”. No one is saying he cannot fly the flag nor have a flag pole, they are saying he can’t do it on the piece of land that is considered an area that is used by the entire community. Granted, most townhome type communities do not have much private property aside from the living structure but as stated by others there are other ways of displaying the flag that would not violate any rules.

Maybe what I should be saying is; Read the whole story.
If the HOA was smart, they would have approved his request, put in a flagpole at the entrance to the community at their own expense and politely asked the Colonel if he would take care of raising and lowering the flag there. They then would have got coverage from a local newspaper and TV stations of their community.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 7 December 2009, 01:31
Psi Brr
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
For many veterans, and particularly the WWII veterans I know well, the reverence paid to the United States through the act of hoisting its flag is anything but a passive endeavor. It is a solemn ritual which reminds them of the commitment they made to the United States to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic,” and that they would, “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” This remains a lifelong oath for many veterans, as it does for me.
<o></o>
Our country and Constitution, and reverence for the same should come first in our thoughts when we enact rules for our various organizations, but it doesn't happen.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 7 December 2009, 01:34
Psi Brr
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
In reference to, "There oughtta be a law"...

The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 prohibits a condominium, cooperative, or real estate management association from adopting or enforcing any policy or agreement that would restrict or prevent a member of the association from displaying the flag in accordance with the Federal Flag Code on residential property to which the member has a separate ownership interest.

The question here comes up in the last section of the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 (http://www.govtrack.us/con<wbr>gress/billtext.xpd?bill=h1<wbr>09-42)

Section 4: Limitations
(1) any provision of chapter 1 of title 4, United States Code, or any rule or custom pertaining to the proper display or use of the flag of the United States (as established pursuant to such chapter or any otherwise applicable provision of law); or

(2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place, or manner of displaying the flag of the United States necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association.

In regards to the flag pole and the HOA rules, the 2 paragraphs come into conflict within that law. With the HOA denying the use of a flag pole, which is established under customs and rules of proper display of the US Flag, then is it reasonable for an HOA to deny that proper use for concerns of neighborhood aesthetics?

In what way does a flag pole detract or harm the visual appeal of the neighborhood, and is the HOA within their rights/authority to ask for its removal?

These are the likely key questions a judge would want answers for in court to make a ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 7 December 2009, 07:52
Outofcontrol's Avatar
Outofcontrol Outofcontrol is offline
hippies beware
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,185
Im sad to see this issue turn into a circus. I think a damning issue for the HOA in this matter is that the good Col. states in the article that "he cannot get any communication from them." In most any dispute resolution case, it is usually defered to arbitration (if not already outlined that way in the contract), and is looked down upon by "Triple A" (American Arbitration Assoc....not the car people) when one of the parties is shown to be less than reasonably communicative.

Personally, Im still scratching my head why the HOA had a problem with a flag pole to begin with? I mean...its just a flag pole.

The good Col. could tell them that he is donating the flagpole and its care and maintenance to the community.

OOC, out
__________________
MOLON LABE

"Don't tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish."
--Mark Twain

"All that we see is perspective, not fact...All that we hear is opinion, not truth."
--Marcus Aurelius

"The time you spent typing and formatting this post would have been better spent hitting yourself in the face with a hammer."
--Jimbo

Wise old man--"That woman was SEXY!"
Young lad--"She's out of my league."
Wise old man--"Look...let women figure out why they wont sleep with you...dont do it for them."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:34.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
© SOCNET 1996-2018