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.

 

US Veteran faces legal action for flying American Flag

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkrunner
 




A homeowner association is corporation formed by a real estate developer for the purpose of marketing, managing, and selling of homes and lots in a residential subdivision. It grants the developer privileged voting rights in governing the association, while allowing the developer to exit financial and legal responsibility of the organization, typically by transferring ownership of the association to the homeowners after selling off a predetermined number of lots.


Source

From the landowner's point of view, It's a group that works in a neighborhood to keep the place looking good. The people still own their property (I did when I belonged to one) but there are restrictions and rules people must follow so that the neighborhood doesn't get run down or look bad. They dictate the fence heights, lights, how many vehicles you can have, just a lot of things. I will never live in one again, but they do exist and everyone who buys there knows it.

reply to post by Lysergic
 


You fast typer, you! Grrr!
edit on 6/26/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Ok thanks guys

I keep my property up, but I don't need people raising a ruckus because I I have pumpkins on my porch for Halloween or they don't like my Christmas lights. Not sure I would want to be part of one of these things.....
edit on 26-6-2011 by Darkrunner because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
im sooo dissappointed in everyone who sided with the HOA....
there is obviously more to the story than what is told...
How long has this guy lived in the house?
When was the HOA established?

I have relatives who decided to move out of a neighborhood after an HOA was established because they did not agree with the "T&C". Whos to say this guy isnt gettin shafted.

On another note...judging by the pictures of his house the flag pole has been there a while, is this a new issue with the HOA? did he do something to piss someone off?

I for sure would never buy a home unless i truly owned it and the land it was on (guess im never buying a home but thats a different conversation).



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkrunner
 


You definitely don't want to be a part of a HOA.
People who join them freely and then whine about it get under my skin. People need to take responsibility for their own actions.


Originally posted by RadicalRebel
im sooo dissappointed in everyone who sided with the HOA....


It's the LAW we're siding with. He agreed to the terms and then broke them. When asked to comply, he refused. That's how the law in polite society works. They even gave him plenty of chance to change his behavior, but he resisted.

What other social contracts do you think he shouldn't have to abide?
Can he take stuff without paying for it because he's a veteran?
Should he get to vote as much as he wants because he's a veteran?
Maybe he shouldn't have to buy car insurance because he's a veteran?



there is obviously more to the story than what is told...


It's not obvious to me. This has happened several times. Mostly with veterans who think they should be allowed to break the rules because they're veterans. They want special treatment.



I have relatives who decided to move out of a neighborhood after an HOA was established because they did not agree with the "T&C".


That's what this guy should do. You don't like the rules? Don't play! I can't believe people are siding with the "I'm a veteran! The rules I agreed to don't apply to me" guy...



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
There are many aspects that are not given in the article that should be looked at in this case.
In the point of a homeowners association, there is an appeal to such, as it provides a ready made community with its own rules on what you can and can not do. These rules provide a sense of uniformity and to ensure that the value of the homes and the community never depreciate or lose their value due to the problems that would occur in a regular neighborhood. Some of these rules are often based off of common sense, such as you have to keep the noise to a low level, no wild parties, no exceeding the maximum number of people in the dwelling at any given time. While these rules may seem oppressive in nature, they do create an atmosphere that is appealing, while the rules would restrict on one side, putting out in black and white what the persons responsibility is and is not, on the other hand, it also outlines what is the responsibility of the association in itself, and what it has to do in order to ensure that all of the community is kept relatively happy and the property itself is maintained.
The question that is raised here is what is the limitations that a HOA can impose on a persons private property, and what they are and are not able to do. Most of such is outlined in the bylaws of the community and the agreements that are signed at the time of the purchase of the rentals.
However, there is the other question of, does the person own the property, and did they present him with a copy of the rules and the state laws. However a check of the Ohio State laws may provide a key and the person in the article, the veteran, very well may have a leg to stand on legally. It seems that in April of this year a bill has been offered and is making its way through the legal system at this very time to allow for the display of the American flag, and would make denying such against the law, to include rental and Home Owners Association rules.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by youallcrazy

Originally posted by TechUnique
Sorry but your country is fail...
No offence intended but I don't envy you Americans at all.


If the US is a fail, what does that make the country we successfully revolted against?
No offense


All democratic nations are fail IMO. I'm not discriminating here. This story is set in the US so I commented on how fail your system is. Don't get me started about the UK..

This isn't a competition.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Let me help those of you FAILING to recognize that the HOA has NO RIGHT to impose the ban per Federal law!

The law is Public Law 109-243 passed by the 109th congress which states:


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.

The law was approved on July 24, 2006.

I live in the next township over from this individual and am also in an HOA. They are feifdoms for people who could never let go of high school student council.
Our HOA dictates everything from the color of your front door to what types of flowers you can plant and where. As a result, I am having it disbanded! I have begun a petition requesting the dissolution of the HOA along with permission to vote by proxy for all of the undersigned, since it will have to be voted on by a 70% super majority. I have over 50% of residents already signed on in less than 2 weeks. HOAs have long over-stepping their intended purpose and have outlived their usefulness in my opinion. This man should do the same!



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Try doing some research! There is a FEDERAL LAW that specifically states that NO ONE can ban the display of the flag!

The law is Public Law 109-243 passed by the 109th congress which states:


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.

The law was approved on July 24, 2006.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Try doing some research! There is a FEDERAL LAW that specifically states that NO ONE can ban the display of the flag!


Oh, I have researched it. Last year when someone else tried this. The HOA isn't banning the display of a flag. Perhaps you should look further into it and get the facts of the case.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Then you haven't researched it deeply enough. Read it again...

The law is Public Law 109-243 passed by the 109th congress which states:


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.


Pay specific attention to this: "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..."

In other words, they cannot use flagpole restrictions or ANY OTHER RESTRICTION or method of prevention that would infringe on his freedom to display the flag on his property in accordance with US Code for displaying the flag: HERE!



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


The part you left out seems pretty important.


SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS.

Nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with--

(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.


BH is right. You are wrong. Musta left that part out for a reason.
edit on 27-6-2011 by Undertough because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
i dont understand ... its illegal to display their own country flag outside your house ?????
impossible



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Oh please... he signed a HOA so he can't do it. That is ridiculous. So if I create and sign a HOA that says I can grow pot in my front lawn I guess the police will be powerless to stop me. It's in my HOA suckers!! The federal laws and Constitution are all trumped by my friggen HOA.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 

reply to post by Ben81
 


Maybe you can explain this then.


Originally posted by Undertough
reply to post by kozmo
 


The part you left out seems pretty important.


SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS.

Nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with--

(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.


BH is right. You are wrong. Musta left that part out for a reason.
edit on 27-6-2011 by Undertough because: (no reason given)


It was not that he wanted to fly a flag that was the problem it was how. Likewise, I would not be able fly a flag that includes a spotlight on the pole that shines in my neighbors windows. People need to just grow up and learn to live together like adults. He does not need a giant pole just to fly his giant flag.

edit on 27-6-2011 by Undertough because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Then you haven't researched it deeply enough.


As I said in my first post here, this was discussed thoroughly in another thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Flag Act allows for "reasonable restrictions pertaining to place or manner of displaying the flag".

Flag Act



Nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with--

...
(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.





posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Why anyone would join a kommunity like that is totally beyond me. HOA's are little kingdoms run by committees of power mad fascists. He should've known they wouldn't allow him to show his patriotism in any way, shape, or form.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
He should've known they wouldn't allow him to show his patriotism in any way, shape, or form.


That's not true at all. They went out of their way to allow him to show his patriotism within the guidelines of the HOA. You can't stand up in church and start screaming in the middle of the sermon. There are RULES in a polite society.

I agree that he shouldn't have signed on the dotted line, but he did. And blaming the HOA because he willingly agreed to their terms is the epitome of a lack of personal responsibility. Saying that the HOA wouldn't "allow" him to show patriotism is dramatized and incorrect.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by The Old American
He should've known they wouldn't allow him to show his patriotism in any way, shape, or form.


That's not true at all. They went out of their way to allow him to show his patriotism within the guidelines of the HOA. You can't stand up in church and start screaming in the middle of the sermon. There are RULES in a polite society.


Ever been to a Church of God?


I agree that he shouldn't have signed on the dotted line, but he did. And blaming the HOA because he willingly agreed to their terms is the epitome of a lack of personal responsibility. Saying that the HOA wouldn't "allow" him to show patriotism is dramatized and incorrect.


I'm not blaming the HOA. They were already extant with their bylaws and he agreed to be a part of their kollective. I'm blaming him for being duped into thinking he could possibly be allowed to exercise his rights in such a village.

And it's the left that has complete disregard for personal responsibility, BH. The people that seem to think we can't get along without the government handing us everything on a silver platter. Oh, excuse me, paper plates. The government long ago melted down and sold the silver platters to pay for the entitlements the left think they deserve.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Ever been to a Church of God?


Touché! Bad example. I have been to a Church or God and to a Southern Baptist black church, so yeah. But you get my meaning.



I'm blaming him for being duped into thinking he could possibly be allowed to exercise his rights in such a village.


But he wasn't "duped". He is not a victim here. He freely signed an agreement and now he's trying to break it. That is not being 'duped'. He is responsible.

And they ARE allowing him to exercise his rights. He can have a flag. He can stand in his yard every day and display his patriotism for everyone else to see.



And it's the left that has complete disregard for personal responsibility, BH.


Sorry I don't buy the left/right BS. Sure, some on the left aren't too keen on it, but there are those on the right who are just as guilty. This is a shared hypocrisy. BOTH sides want to restrict freedoms, Just different ones.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Touché! Bad example. I have been to a Church or God and to a Southern Baptist black church, so yeah. But you get my meaning.


My first time was my last time. I like my Christianity like I like my ice cream: vanilla.


But he wasn't "duped". He is not a victim here. He freely signed an agreement and now he's trying to break it. That is not being 'duped'. He is responsible.


My verbiage was wrong. He is a dupe, not was duped. He thought he could get away with it in a kommunity like that. He should have known better. He either didn't read contract or he thought "surely they don't mean that". Either way, he was remiss.


And they ARE allowing him to exercise his rights. He can have a flag. He can stand in his yard every day and display his patriotism for everyone else to see.


The article doesn't mention how long he's had the flag pole. Has this all of a sudden become a problem after years or decades because someone complained, or did he put up the first pole week before last?

Either way, he should affix the flag to his house...along with the flag pole.




Sorry I don't buy the left/right BS. Sure, some on the left aren't too keen on it, but there are those on the right who are just as guilty. This is a shared hypocrisy. BOTH sides want to restrict freedoms, Just different ones.


The left takes away our rights in the name of "making better decisions than we possibly could". The right takes away our rights in the name of "national security". Neither is left or right. They're both firmly entrenched in the middle...of fascism.

/TOA



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join