"Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until the
end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a $100-a-day
fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."

That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

The gas lamp is ridiculous. I'd go all electric and remove gas
service.rather than pay for lamp

On Sep 21, 12:19 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"HeyBub" wrote:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:29:21 -0700, wrote:

The gas lamp is ridiculous. I'd go all electric and remove gas
service.rather than pay for lamp

A link to the real lamp fire (s) ....

http://hamptonsnbc.com/Gas_Leaks___Fires.html




On Sep 21, 12:19 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"HeyBub" wrote:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

--
Oren

Hofstadter's Law - It [a task] always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

I don't have a copy of the convenant, but according to the news article
the phrasing is "a ban on any commercial use of the property name" then
immediately following there's a statement that the guy is violating this
by "trying to see an idea". Frankly that's a rather long stretch.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:40:01 GMT, (John Cochran)
wrote:

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

I don't have a copy of the convenant, but according to the news article
the phrasing is "a ban on any commercial use of the property name" then
immediately following there's a statement that the guy is violating this
by "trying to see an idea". Frankly that's a rather long stretch.

Owner web site disclamier.*

*
Copyright 2007. Hamptons NBC- Sarasota, Florida. All rights reserved.

Hamptons Neighbors for a Better Community (“HamptonsNBC”) is not
affiliated with and in no way represents “The Hamptons of Sarasota
Community Association, Inc,” or its Board of Directors or any of its
committees or organizational entities or contractors.

http://hamptonsnbc.com/


--
Oren

Hofstadter's Law - It [a task] always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

"John Cochran" wrote in message
...
I don't have a copy of the convenant, but according to the news article
the phrasing is "a ban on any commercial use of the property name" then
immediately following there's a statement that the guy is violating this
by "trying to see an idea". Frankly that's a rather long stretch.

"a ban on any commercial use of the property name"
"trying to sell an idea"

How much profit does he expect to get selling his idea?
How much revenue does he expect to get selling his idea?

If no profit and no revenue, how can this be considered commercial use?

I don't know all the laws - maybe the HOA can write into the covenant
something about residents not being allowed to say unkind things about the
HOA on their website. But it appears that the best argument they were able
to come up with was the one about commercial use.

He might be able to go to his insurance company with the fire issue and try
to get them to cancel his policy or raise the premiums because of the risk.
Presumably when they do this to him, they and other companies will follow
suit and do the same for everyone else in the community. That might be
legally possible but it doesn't do anything to move things closer to a
harmonious state.

The real issue is what the members of the HOA want. When he bought the
house, he must have known there was an HOA, and he should have known that
HOAs function, more or less, as a democracy and can make whatever rules they
want within whatever restrictions the law applies. If the members are well
informed about the dangers of the gas lights and a majority of them agree to
keep them and no law is being violated, then the HOA can keep that rule in
place. If he believes the members are not properly informed or are just
being apathetic, then he can start his website or use other legal means to
keep them informed and interested. If he decides to go off on a crusade and
find legal means or get an insurance company to take action (and apparently
he has not done this), this is probably legal, but then he really is
"stirring the pot" and would make life a lot better for everyone, including
himself, if he just moved. But given that a simple move, including selling a
house and buying another, can cost tens of thousands of dollars, it's not
such a simple solution.

I would really like to know how such a moronic idea as putting gas lights in
front of every house ever got implemented, much less written into the HOA
bylaws. I kind of imagine that during the construction phase, someone
happened to watch a movie about olde England that showed houses with gas
lights, and they thought that was so romantic and decided their community
had to have that too. Now they don't want to accept the realization that it
was a stupid idea, so they're using the HOA to block any reconsideration.

"Nick Danger" wrote

The real issue is what the members of the HOA want. When he bought the
house, he must have known there was an HOA, and he should have known that
HOAs function, more or less, as a democracy and can make whatever rules
they want within whatever restrictions the law applies.

Say what? They are about as totalitarian as you can get. The boards are
full of people who have too much time on their hands, and have no idea how
things work. People who do know how things work either don't have the time,
or can't get the committee government to implement basic common sense logic.

Like reassessing costly dangerous lighting situations.


Steve

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:57:08 -0700, "SteveB"
wrote:

HOAs function, more or less, as a democracy and can make whatever rules
they want within whatever restrictions the law applies.

Say what? They are about as totalitarian as you can get. The boards are
full of people who have too much time on their hands, and have no idea how
things work. People who do know how things work either don't have the
time,
or can't get the committee government to implement basic common sense
logic.

You can usually throw the bums out. All it takes is to round up a gang
of people who are as ****ed as you about the current officers and mob
the annual meeting.
All it takes is a little shoe leather and knocking on doors. It is
somewhat like hearding cats but it can be done. I did it at my HOA. We
ended up gertting the votes to let the deed restrictions die a
peaceful death after they expired. We still have an HOA chartered
under article 617 but we don't have the 720 deed restricted (liens,
fines etc) community.
Most HOA deed restrictions DO expire if the members don't show up to
vote against renewal. They were running our community on about a 17%
turnout at the annual meeting. We had 66% at the last meeting and the
vote reflected that. It went two to one against the the establishment.

What you did was admirable. It is difficult to find enough owners who are
residing there, find enough interested people, and find enough people who
are willing to miss a TV program or two. I've had all sorts of experiences
with HOAs on all levels, and it is quite a demonstration of the governing
process, from the good to the bad.

Most people are unaware of even their CC&Rs, let alone how the laws and
rules actually do work.

Steve

On Sep 22, 1:54 am, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:57:08 -0700, "SteveB"

wrote:
HOAs function, more or less, as a democracy and can make whatever rules
they want within whatever restrictions the law applies.

Say what? They are about as totalitarian as you can get. The boards are
full of people who have too much time on their hands, and have no idea how
things work. People who do know how things work either don't have the time,
or can't get the committee government to implement basic common sense logic.

You can usually throw the bums out. All it takes is to round up a gang
of people who are as ****ed as you about the current officers and mob
the annual meeting.

That's assuming the vote isn't rigged in the first place.

what trademark? His site is hamptonsnbc. not "the hamptons" or other such
thing.

s


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:56:28 -0500, "Steve Barker LT"
wrote:

what trademark? His site is hamptonsnbc. not "the hamptons" or other such
thing.

s

Paris Hilton TM 'ed "That's Hot" or some such. Now I'm afraid to pick
up a frying pan. Moms can't tell the children - that's hot! :-)





"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

--
Oren

Hofstadter's Law - It [a task] always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:56:28 -0500, "Steve Barker LT"
wrote:

what trademark? His site is hamptonsnbc. not "the hamptons" or other
such
thing.

s

Paris Hilton TM 'ed "That's Hot" or some such. Now I'm afraid to pick
up a frying pan. Moms can't tell the children - that's hot! :-)


You can trademark an otherwise generic word in certain context. Many of us
use trademarked names for noncommercial purposes all the time. It can be
a Ford Owner Club, or Star Trek Fan Club. Using the work Hamptons is not
necessarily an infringement.

Google give over 4,610,000 hits for the word Hamptons and is it used by
Hamptons Vodka, Nuke the Hamptons, and many others. I'd never live where
there was an HOA though.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

On Sep 21, 12:19 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"HeyBub" wrote:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

What trademark?

In article . com,
Larry Bud wrote:

On Sep 21, 12:19 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"HeyBub" wrote:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

What trademark?

From the story above.
"Grievances and propaganda" is how the association's attorney described
the Web site's content, in a certified letter Aug. 9 demanding that Zaki
cease any use therein of the trademarked name The Hamptons.

on 9/21/2007 12:19 PM Kurt Ullman said the following:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366


He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.


They can't copyright the word 'Hamptons'. They might even be on shaky
grounds copywriting "The Hamptons"
"The Hamptons" is a common reference for the region in Suffolk County,
Long Island NY that is a summer home to many of the elite and famous.
See also this site:
http://www.thehamptons.com/toc.html (TheHamptons.com)

The association's lawyer's letter to the web site owner stated that it
is forbidden to use the logos, trademarks, or designs of the community.

"19.3 Promotional Events: ... All logos, trademarks, and designs used in
connection with The Hamptons are the property of Developer, and the
Association shall have no right to use the same after the Community
Completion Date except with the express written permission of
Developer.
--------------------------------
Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 495.15 1, the Association has the
right to bring a suit for injunction to defend its logos, trademarks,
and designs against anyone who wrongfully uses the same or similar
logos, trademarks and designs. That Section states as follows:

The owner of a mark that is famous in this state shall be entitled,
subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court
deems reasonable, to an injunction and to obtain such other relief
against another person' commercial use of a mark or trade name if such
use begins after the mark has become famous and is likely to cause
dilution of the distinctive quality of the famous mark, as provided in
this section."

It does not state anything about using the name 'The Hamptons', or
Hamptons.
Unless the website owner uses any of the logos, trademarks, or designs
of the developer, he is not in violation of the covenant.

This is just a feeble attempt to scare the website owner into taking the
site down.

Coincidentally, look at my sig....

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

In article ,
willshak wrote:

on 9/21/2007 12:19 PM Kurt Ullman said the following:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366


He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.


They can't copyright the word 'Hamptons'. They might even be on shaky
grounds copywriting "The Hamptons"
They are trademarking it. Maybe, maybe not. They could TM The
Hamptoms in the context of a FL subdivision as long as it hadn't been by
another. They are for a specific service or range of services (or
products). There might be some attempt under the "passing off" part of
the regs, but I find it hard to believe that a Sarasota houing
development could be confused with a section of Long Island by too many
people.



"The Hamptons" is a common reference for the region in Suffolk County,
Long Island NY that is a summer home to many of the elite and famous.
See also this site:
http://www.thehamptons.com/toc.html (TheHamptons.com)

Yep. Which would have little to do with the trademarking of the name
for a Florida Subdivision. Although a quick search through the trademark
registry finds none for FL (Although I did find that apparently Racine,
WI holds the Hamptons of the Midwest, BTW a community).

Are the Hamptons in Florida going to sue the Hamptons in New York because
they are using a trademarked name?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until
the end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a
$100-a-day fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."

That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:14:19 -0700, "hollenback"
wrote:

Are the Hamptons in Florida going to sue the Hamptons in New York because
they are using a trademarked name?

Exactly! Has anyone even checked to see if there is a trademark owned
by this HOA?

A casinos in Las Vegas is currently having a dispute; regarding
similar names.

________

It's a hard-won reputation for value, one the Plaza's owners want to
protect when the company that owns the posh Plaza in New York City
opens a $5 billion version of their butler-hosting, tea-providing
hotel on the Strip.

That's why Tamares Las Vegas Properties filed a complaint Thursday in
Clark County District Court to block Elad Group of New York from using
the Plaza name in Sin City.

_________


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until
the end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a
$100-a-day fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."

That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366




--
Oren

Hofstadter's Law - It [a task] always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:14:19 -0700, "hollenback"
wrote:

Are the Hamptons in Florida going to sue the Hamptons in New York because
they are using a trademarked name?

Exactly! Has anyone even checked to see if there is a trademark owned
by this HOA?


They could trademark a logo, for instance. Also although they use
the Hamptons as short hand, they might have a longer name the guy is
using. Also, aren't the Hamptons in NY a town and not a subdivision.
That might make a difference.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:48:46 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:14:19 -0700, "hollenback"
wrote:

Are the Hamptons in Florida going to sue the Hamptons in New York because
they are using a trademarked name?

Exactly! Has anyone even checked to see if there is a trademark owned
by this HOA?


They could trademark a logo, for instance. Also although they use
the Hamptons as short hand, they might have a longer name the guy is
using. Also, aren't the Hamptons in NY a town and not a subdivision.
That might make a difference.

INAL. I tried to do a TM search and found about 500 just using
"hamptons"

Many years ago the Miami Herald (IIRC) published a story about an
upset client of a law firm. He discovered the law firm did not have a
trademark for the firm, so he registered it. Supposedly, they paid
dearly to get it back.



--
Oren

Hofstadter's Law - It [a task] always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

If you want to see reDICKulous, check out what mr. nissan has had to go
through.

http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php



s


"Oren" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:48:46 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:14:19 -0700, "hollenback"
wrote:

Are the Hamptons in Florida going to sue the Hamptons in New York
because
they are using a trademarked name?

Exactly! Has anyone even checked to see if there is a trademark owned
by this HOA?


They could trademark a logo, for instance. Also although they use
the Hamptons as short hand, they might have a longer name the guy is
using. Also, aren't the Hamptons in NY a town and not a subdivision.
That might make a difference.

INAL. I tried to do a TM search and found about 500 just using
"hamptons"

Many years ago the Miami Herald (IIRC) published a story about an
upset client of a law firm. He discovered the law firm did not have a
trademark for the firm, so he registered it. Supposedly, they paid
dearly to get it back.



--
Oren

Hofstadter's Law - It [a task] always takes longer than you expect, even
when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until
the end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a
$100-a-day fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."

That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366



I live about 20 miles south of this homeowner. I have been in developments
in Florida since 1982. In one place I was a board member for more than a
dozen years.

So when I give you my thoughts on the subject I am not just blowing smoke.

The Florida statutes has one section on Corporations Not for Profit. Under
Section 617.0808 Removal of directors.

"Any member of the board of directors may be removed From office with or
without cause by vote or agreement in writing by a majority of all votes of
the membership." It goes on from there and those really interested can find
it all on line.

So my take on this situation is that 1) things are not all that bad if he
cannot muster enough votes and 2) As he was once a board member and the
president, no less, he was negligent not being conversant with applicable
law.

I am not now involved with the HOA where I live. My wife contends that
involvement is grounds for divorce.

Charlie

The HOA doesn't have leg to stand on. Jeeeeze what a waste of time.

s

another good reason to ban HOA's. They think they are God.


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until
the end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a
$100-a-day fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."

That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

"Steve Barker LT" wrote in message
...
The HOA doesn't have leg to stand on. Jeeeeze what a waste of time.

I would tend to agree. The web site should have "fair use" of the name.

Frankly, the game isn't worth the candle. He should contact the attorney
who wrote the letter and say he is changing the name on his site. It's
just not hard to burn up several $1000 in legal bills is a ****ing contest
with a HoA. I believe the story mentioned a $10k figure.

s

another good reason to ban HOA's. They think they are God.



Governments LOVE HoA just because the HoA's can do things governments can't.

They tend to be run by folks without much in the way of common sense.

When we were in the house search and ended up with us being where we are the
FIRST criteria we told the agent was NO Home Owners Association of the type
that can actually impose rules. Neighborhood associations are OK, of
course.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:14:31 -0400, "John Gilmer"
wrote:

He should contact the attorney
who wrote the letter and say he is changing the name on his site.

Against the smart advice of his attorney? (see site) The owner hasn't
done anything wrong....

He should not contact anybody, but let his attorney do that!

--
Oren

"If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping me."

On Sep 21, 6:14 pm, "John Gilmer" wrote:
"Steve Barker LT" wrote in ... The HOA doesn't have leg to stand on. Jeeeeze what a waste of time.

I would tend to agree. The web site should have "fair use" of the name.

Frankly, the game isn't worth the candle. He should contact the attorney
who wrote the letter and say he is changing the name on his site. It's
just not hard to burn up several $1000 in legal bills is a ****ing contest
with a HoA. I believe the story mentioned a $10k figure.

s

another good reason to ban HOA's. They think they are God.

Governments LOVE HoA just because the HoA's can do things governments can't.

More than that: HOAs often have private roads paid by the residents,
private trash pickup, and private snow removal. The local government
still gets their 100% of the property tax, but doesn't have to pay for
the above mentioned items.

In article . com, Larry
Bud wrote:
On Sep 21, 6:14 pm, "John Gilmer" wrote:
"Steve Barker LT" wrote in
... The HOA
doesn't have leg to stand on. Jeeeeze what a waste of time.

I would tend to agree. The web site should have "fair use" of the name.

Frankly, the game isn't worth the candle. He should contact the attorney
who wrote the letter and say he is changing the name on his site. It's
just not hard to burn up several $1000 in legal bills is a ****ing contest
with a HoA. I believe the story mentioned a $10k figure.

s

another good reason to ban HOA's. They think they are God.

Governments LOVE HoA just because the HoA's can do things governments
can't.

More than that: HOAs often have private roads paid by the residents,

It appears to me that they can be driven upon by anyone if they connect
to public roads and are not marked "No Trespassing - Not A Public
Thoroughfare" or something along these lines.

private trash pickup, and private snow removal.

Sounds to me at least arguably functions of a sub-municipal level of
government! (A level below often "township", which has a bit of case
history being 36 square miles IIRC and is usually at least a few square
miles).

The local government still gets their 100% of the property tax, but
doesn't have to pay for the above mentioned items.

The next-lower level of government gets their tax that is called an HOA
fee!

- Don Klipstein )

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

It appears to me that they can be driven upon by anyone if they connect
to public roads and are not marked "No Trespassing - Not A Public
Thoroughfare" or something along these lines.

Probably depends on the original set-up. The developers around here
put in the roads, get them inspected by the city and then they are given
to the city or county. They are public roads.



private trash pickup, and private snow removal.

Sounds to me at least arguably functions of a sub-municipal level of
government! (A level below often "township", which has a bit of case
history being 36 square miles IIRC and is usually at least a few square
miles).


That might depend on the state if it is applicable at all. In Indiana,
for instance, many cities (and even more towns and no townships or
below) don't do trash pick-up. In those areas, it is up to the
individual. Our HOA decided to contract for trash pick-up because we got
a good deal and got tired of having one or two garbage cans out every
day.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 05:12:06 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

It appears to me that they can be driven upon by anyone if they connect
to public roads and are not marked "No Trespassing - Not A Public
Thoroughfare" or something along these lines.


They usually have gates and a guard that keeps out the riff raff

Those kind of gates that stay open as long as a line of cars keep passing
over it? The first guy presses his remote, and you could drive a semi truck
in after him as long as you get to the coils before the auto close mode
starts. And even then, some gates are set to open if another car comes
within the loops before the gate is closed.

I hear what you're saying, but gates are an item that provides a low level
of security.

Guards are a different matter. At some HOAs, they only have a day shift.
And they have only one guard. So, if he goes on rounds, no one to watch the
gate. And nine times out of ten, the guard can't run 100 feet or scale a
six foot fence. And are unarmed.

Fences, gates, and guards do not keep out the riff raff. They're like
monkeys. If they want in, they will just come in any way they can.

Steve

I lived for 9 years in Columbia, MD which is layers upon layers of HOA's.

My take: Let the buyer beware. Simple and short.
You are required to be provided notice and documentation that you are moving
into a HOA property and house. You agree to the arrangement (and property
lien documents) when you purchase the land and house. Period. You are
assumed to be an adult at the time of purchase.

I have no tears to shed for anyone who purchases into an HOA, and later
decides they don't like the HOA because it is a bunch of busy bodies. Why
do you think the states allowed HOA's in the first place. So the states
could concentrate all the busy bodies together and then they would leave the
rest of us alone.

I am totally in favor of HOA's. I like not having busy bodies bothering me
where I live.

Phil



"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until
the end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a
$100-a-day fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."

That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:19:19 -0400, "Phil-In-Mich."
wrote:

I am totally in favor of HOA's. I like not having busy bodies bothering me
where I live.

Coming soon to an area near you, "busy bodies".


--
Oren

"If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping me."

"Phil-In-Mich." wrote in message
...
I lived for 9 years in Columbia, MD which is layers upon layers of HOA's.

My take: Let the buyer beware. Simple and short.
You are required to be provided notice and documentation that you are
moving into a HOA property and house. You agree to the arrangement (and
property lien documents) when you purchase the land and house. Period.
You are assumed to be an adult at the time of purchase.

I have no tears to shed for anyone who purchases into an HOA, and later
decides they don't like the HOA because it is a bunch of busy bodies.


While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no right to
stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this country.

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:



While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no right to
stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this country.

I never have understood why people can't seem to recall that the first
words of the first amendment are "Congress shall not".. For the most
part, the first amendment covers only what government does. Thus, if I
want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.

In ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no right to
stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this country.

I never have understood why people can't seem to recall that the first
words of the first amendment are "Congress shall not".. For the most
part, the first amendment covers only what government does. Thus, if I
want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.

Another amendment, I believe the 14th, extends these restrictions to the
states - and it has been understood that this includes all lower lwvels of
government.

And I have heard of court cases restricting HOA rulemaking, I believe on
basis that HOAs are a level of government - nad have to obey the Bill of
Rights. (IIRC - it has been years since I read the newspaper article
saying that.)

- Don Klipstein )

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:28:46 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote Re HOA demands resident's web site come down:

And I have heard of court cases restricting HOA rulemaking, I believe on
basis that HOAs are a level of government - nad have to obey the Bill of
Rights. (IIRC - it has been years since I read the newspaper article
saying that.)

Precisely. Watch what happens to a HOA that tries to include racial
restrictions.

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no right
to
stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this country.

I never have understood why people can't seem to recall that the first
words of the first amendment are "Congress shall not".. For the most
part, the first amendment covers only what government does. Thus, if I
want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.

Another amendment, I believe the 14th, extends these restrictions to the
states - and it has been understood that this includes all lower lwvels of
government.

Yeah. Although my point (which I missed rather badly from the looks of
things) is that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private entities.



And I have heard of court cases restricting HOA rulemaking, I believe on
basis that HOAs are a level of government - nad have to obey the Bill of
Rights. (IIRC - it has been years since I read the newspaper article
saying that.)

That would probably be state-specific depending on how they are
set-up, assuming that what you read wasn't later overturned.

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:



While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no
right to stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this
country.

I never have understood why people can't seem to recall that the
first
words of the first amendment are "Congress shall not".. For the most
part, the first amendment covers only what government does.

ALL of the Constitution is a limitation *on government*.
NOT any limit on the People.

Thus, if I
want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.


Even on such "private property" -open to the public-,you still retain
certain rights,and they are still subject to certain government
regulations,such as health,safety regs,both state and Federal.

As people are so quick to say;"no right is absolute".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:



Even on such "private property" -open to the public-,you still retain
certain rights,and they are still subject to certain government
regulations,such as health,safety regs,both state and Federal.
Even in the public areas, absent a state law to the contrary, there
is no right of assembly, you have no right of free speech in that they
can toss your behind for leafleting, etc. Even under this theory, it
is a long stretch to suggest that the HOA is public.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:



While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no right to
stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this country.


I never have understood why people can't seem to recall that the first
words of the first amendment are "Congress shall not".. For the most
part, the first amendment covers only what government does. Thus, if I
want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.

Given that most Florida HOAs purport to exercise quasi governmental
functions,
and do so under authority provided them by state law, theres a real good
argment that a Florida HOA is subject to the First Amendment and cannot
restrict whats on that web site.

Your mall analogy is not at all applicable.