It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Marine vet's 20-foot flagpole has homeowners association filing suit over a display of patriotism t

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amperage
Just setting foot in one of those places controlled by a "home owners association" is asking for your rights to be trampled on.


What rights trampled on?

You are free to buy a home any where you want. That is your right.

If you buy it in a place that has rules - - you agree to those rules - - you are contractually obligated to abide by those rules.

Damn "flag waivers"! They think they are above the law. Guarantee if his neighbor tried to fly a Mexican or Wicca flag - - - he'd be first knocking down the door of the HOA to have it removed.




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


What law in its entirety do you claim? You keep referring the " state law", but haven't put down one in specific. Care to? Or do you plan on arguing with nothing but smoke?


Actually, i keep referring to states rights. again, quit trying to change my wording. And thanks for proving you have no idea what states rights are.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


What law in its entirety do you claim? You keep referring the " state law", but haven't put down one in specific. Care to? Or do you plan on arguing with nothing but smoke?


And for the record, the only 'laws' I have quoted have been the ones you have used. Oops, falling further into it, huh kiddo.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
HOA's are there for the Sheeple... makes em feel 'safe and secure' while they pay ever increasing 'rent' to live in a bought and paid for home...

Signing up for an HOA... you PAY them a monthly fee to control you... the epitome of Sheepdomness. I know one guy was fined 500.00 for leaving his garage door open longer than 20 minutes (the time limit set in those rules). This same community also dictated how large a flag you were allowed to fly and it could only be mounted on a certain spot on the garage...

Funny thing was... the HOA just happened to sell that size flag and holder at their office


Anyone sign's one of those agreements is signing away his/her soul


HOA = Hitler Owns America

:shk:
edit on 7-1-2011 by zorgon because: Snergle Pups




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Ok time out.....( taking a step back ), state rights have no jurisdiction over a presiding HOA.

10 Amendment:


The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."



But this is not a state issue. This is a private organization implementing rules against persons. So with this known fact, and yes the owner new the bylaws rules, it still does not negate the laws of the Congress which passed the Flag act.

Now, with that, it clearly states that the hanging of a flag will not be abridged. Further, the Article 3 and 4 dont specifically identify the restrictions of a residential HOA. It does, very slightly address the condominium assoc. But that is not the case here. This is a residential home.

With that, this case may in fact abridge the right of this homeowner. My argument has been the same, that the Congressional law passed in regards to hanging a flag, supersedes a private organizations rules(bylaws). That has been my argument. That the Congressional law supersedes a HOA law. Period.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Wait just one minute! A group of people decide that they want to live together in a community with rules and codes. This group of people builds a community with certain criteria that must be adhered to in order to live within that community. This group of people then informs anyone else that they must adhere to these rules if they want to live within that particular "subdivision" or community prior to their moving in.

We have a large group here that wishes to live in a certain way and goes about creating an environment that they will safe and sustainable in.

Here you are saying that these people are like Hitler for this? It seems to me that a large group of people have a way they want to live and you, an individual, would deny them of this right? And you have the nerve to call someone other than yourself a fascist?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


Real quick, I bet it wasn't those whom live in the area that established the rules. I used to live in a community much like you speak of, gated community. But I can assure you, at no time did the members of the community establish these set rules or guidelines. They were drawn up by a group of advisors, who can't wait to get to the bank with your money.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


The very law you quote says that the display of the flag can be limited by certain non governmental organizations. What part of that section of the law do you not understand? Why do you recognize part of the law as valid but not the other parts of the same law?

Its like saying "I follow the Bible but only the books of John and Revelations cause the rest isn't valid" The bible is a collective of stories valid only in its entirety and the law is all one piece of legislation. You cannot pick and choose which parts to support and which parts to ignore. Ignoring the law is why the gentleman in the OP is in the situation he's in.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Ok time out.....( taking a step back ), state rights have no jurisdiction over a presiding HOA.

10 Amendment:


The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."



But this is not a state issue. This is a private organization implementing rules against persons. So with this known fact, and yes the owner new the bylaws rules, it still does not negate the laws of the Congress which passed the Flag act.

Now, with that, it clearly states that the hanging of a flag will not be abridged. Further, the Article 3 and 4 dont specifically identify the restrictions of a residential HOA. It does, very slightly address the condominium assoc. But that is not the case here. This is a residential home.

With that, this case may in fact abridge the right of this homeowner. My argument has been the same, that the Congressional law passed in regards to hanging a flag, supersedes a private organizations rules(bylaws). That has been my argument. That the Congressional law supersedes a HOA law. Period.


1)It's a private organization implementing a CONTRACT on individuals (one that they willfully signed), which it is the states place to oversee.

2)This is a residential home within a residential real estate association contract. He signed to live in the HOA. He could have just as easily bought a house outside the HOA, but he didnt, and signed the contract.

3)Again, no one is telling him that he cant fly a flag. The issue is over the size of the pole.

4)Re-read the act. It specifically state "Residential Real Estate Associations", which is EXACTLY what an HOA is.

5)You are right about the flag act in general, but again, not in this case, as no one is telling him he cant fly a flag. They are telling him that he cant have a 20 ft pole.

The bottom line here is thatyou are wanting to only apply part of the act, when the fact is that specific wording was put in to protect hoa's.

Also, you need to conisder that HOA's have their own set of lawyers. They would not be pushing this if they did not feel like they were within the law.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


You do realize the HOA fee goes back into the maintaining of the neighborhood and roads within it and that most HOAs are non profit in nature?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


First off, if you really believe that all funds acquired form HOA dues is only redirected into the community, your sorely mistaken. You don't honestly believe it costs 16k to utilize the drip system for plants monthly due you?

2nd, though you both make good arguments the problem still remains.


SEC. 3. RIGHT TO DISPLAY THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES. A condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent a member of the association from displaying the flag of the United States on residential property within the association with respect to which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use.


Take note, where it states " may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement that would restrict or prevent a member of the association from displaying the flag of the United States on residential property within the association'. The home owner in question would fall under " such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use.".

That what Im trying to say anyways. He falls under the Article 3 entitlement.

edit on 7-1-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-1-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


First off, if you really believe that all funds acquired form HOA dues is only redirected into the community, your sorely mistaken. You don't honestly believe it costs 16k to utilize the drip system for plants monthly due you?

2nd, though you both make good arguments the problem still remains.


SEC. 3. RIGHT TO DISPLAY THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES. A condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent a member of the association from displaying the flag of the United States on residential property within the association with respect to which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use.


Take note, where it states " may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement that would restrict or prevent a member of the association from displaying the flag of the United States on residential property within the association'. The home owner in question would fall under " such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use.".

That what Im trying to say anyways.

edit on 7-1-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)


And if you can show me where anyone is saying this person CANT fly the flag at all, you may have an argument.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
He really should just pay attention to the old adage:
"It's not the size of the pole, it's how you use it."

20ft, 10ft, 5ft, it doesn't matter.

Neither of those things has anything to do with "patriotism", nor has anyone told him that he cannot fly his American Flag. If the homeowners association says the size of his pole is in violation of the rules he shouldn't look at this as a smack at his desire to be patriotic.

Making this a case about "patriotism" and "God-given rights" (is a blessing regarding unlimited Flag Pole length in the bible?), is disingenuous and indicative of political manipulation.

What's next? 20ft isn't patriotic enough, and it needs to be 100ft if he is a true American?



- Lee



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Its not an argument on whether he can or cant. The HOA is putting a stipulation on the size of the pole. But reverting back to Article 3, states that there will be no abridgment. Nor any rules, to enforce, nor obstruct from the hanging of the flag. Hanging of the flag would curtail the pole included.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Yes I believe what I said as it is typically the law regarding HOA unless the members of the HOA vote to change to a for profit model. I feel the need to remind you that I have written contracts for sale and purchase of real property in Florida.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


BWAAHAHA!!!! ....hang on ....catching my breathe! BWAAHAHAHA!!!! Oh my friend, how naive can you be? Trust me, someone is going to the bank. I have been affiliated with HOA's for about 10 years. I can tell you it is broken into percentages. Usually two different models. One for the actual maintenance of the community, and the other for the HOA organization to stay in business. In other words, making a deposit into their bank account in which they can continue to take your funds and " run " the business.
edit on 7-1-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-1-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Its not an argument on whether he can or cant. The HOA is putting a stipulation on the size of the pole. But reverting back to Article 3, states that there will be no abridgment. Nor any rules, to enforce, nor obstruct from the hanging of the flag. Hanging of the flag would curtail the pole included.


And referring back to article 4, the act says that Nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with 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.

Not sure how many more times I can post it. The act gives HOA's the right to reasonable restriction. Limiting the height of the pole could easily be considered a rasonable restriction.

Also, by the act that you, again, are trying to fit this into:
"(1) the term `flag of the United States' has the meaning given the term `flag, standard, colors, or ensign' under section 3 of title 4, United States Code;"

So, again, the pole does not fall into this act.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Nice try at distraction. Rather than laugh at my comment perhaps you can prove your viewpoint that someone makes a profit off the hOA?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
As a good neighbor I'd reduce the pole.
It really isn't a big deal.

I guess the homeowners association will be a bit more discerning next time.

I'm just waiting for a Conservative politician to take up his cause to ensure reelection.

It's going to happen.

- Lee



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


Why does it have to be a conservative? Why not a liberal?




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join