Virginia Veteran Wins Battle to Keep His Flagpole in Yard

How do the courts feel about scumbag HOAs that attack people who fly the flag?

Judge rewards flagpole lawyer

In a rare decision, a judge ordered the homeowners association to pay Silver twice his regular legal fees - a total of $126,225 - after he successfully argued the case against

The Indian Creek Homeowners Association Phase 3B.


Originally, Silver agreed to represent George Andres, a 68-year-old veteran at odds with his neighborhood association over a flagpole he had put in his yard, for free. By the time he came on board, a judge had ruled against Andres, and he and his wife were ordered to pay about $30,000 in attorneys' fees.
An attorney for the association then filed a foreclosure lawsuit because Andres couldn't pay.


Silver got a temporary injunction that kept Andres' American flag flying and then won an appeal that reversed the rulings against Andres. As Silver made the case, he said, he saw a way to argue that the homeowners association should pick up the tab for his services.

THE COURTS ARE NOT ON THE SIDE OF THE HOA BASTARDS.

THE HOA DOUCHBAGS LOST.

DEAL WITH IT.

Vader said:

Under FEDERAL LAW ... flying the flag is the right of EVERY AMERICAN.

President signs bill freeing homeowners to fly U.S. flag



By The Associated Press
July 25, 2006

WASHINGTON — President Bush signed a bill yesterday that bars condominium and homeowner associations from restricting how the American flag can be displayed.

Sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., the measure prohibits those groups from preventing residents from displaying an American flag on their own property.

H.R. 42 was passed unanimously by both the House and the Senate.

"Americans have long flown our flag as an expression of their appreciation for our freedoms and their pride in our nation," Bush said in a statement. "As our brave men and women continue to fight to protect our country overseas, Congress has passed an important measure to protect our citizens right to express their patriotism here at home without burdensome restrictions."
H. R. 42

One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, two thousand and six


An Act
To ensure that the right of an individual to display the flag of the United States
on residential property not be abridged.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(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;
(2) the terms "condominium association'' and "cooperative association'' have the meanings given such terms under section 604 of Public Law 96399 (15 U.S.C. 3603);
(3) the term "residential real estate management association'' has the meaning given such term under section 528 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 528); and
(4) the term :member''--
(A) as used with respect to a condominium association, means an owner of a condominium unit (as defined under section 604 of Public Law 96399 (15 U.S.C. 3603)) within such association;
(B) as used with respect to a cooperative association, means a cooperative unit owner (as defined under section 604 of Public Law 96399 (15 U.S.C. 3603)) within such association; and
(C) as used with respect to a residential real estate management association, means an owner of a residential property within a subdivision, development, or similar area subject to any policy or restriction adopted by such association.

THE HOA DOUCHEBAGS LOST. ​

DEAL WITH IT​

Click to expand...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ243/pdf/PLAW-109publ243.pdf

LIS > Code of Virginia > 55-513.1

http://www.reesbroome.com/associations/files/newsletters/October_2007.pdf

Virginia Condominium & Homeowners Association Lawyer: Displaying the Flag

I am dealing with it.

And, here is the actual text of the law that was passed:

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.

[[Page 120 STAT. 573]]

SEC. 4. <<NOTE: 4 USC 5 note.>> 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.

bold mine.

The bolded text is the crux of the issue, as far as this law is concerned. You seem to have missed that, somehow, even going so far as to completely ignore it. I am not sure how, since it is kind of obvious.

Anyway, it would be up to judges to determine what 'reasonable restrictions' are as well as 'substantial interests'. Though I am not sure what would be the outcome, I don't think the HOA was unreasonable, and I do think they might have a good shot at demonstrating some substantial interest, given what this law is about.

Anyway, it is not as clear cut as you seem to believe, as you would know if you knew anything about law.

Vader said:

Under FEDERAL LAW ... flying the flag is the right of EVERY AMERICAN.

President signs bill freeing homeowners to fly U.S. flag



By The Associated Press
July 25, 2006

WASHINGTON — President Bush signed a bill yesterday that bars condominium and homeowner associations from restricting how the American flag can be displayed.

Sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., the measure prohibits those groups from preventing residents from displaying an American flag on their own property.

H.R. 42 was passed unanimously by both the House and the Senate.

"Americans have long flown our flag as an expression of their appreciation for our freedoms and their pride in our nation," Bush said in a statement. "As our brave men and women continue to fight to protect our country overseas, Congress has passed an important measure to protect our citizens right to express their patriotism here at home without burdensome restrictions."
H. R. 42

One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, two thousand and six


An Act
To ensure that the right of an individual to display the flag of the United States
on residential property not be abridged.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(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;
(2) the terms "condominium association'' and "cooperative association'' have the meanings given such terms under section 604 of Public Law 96399 (15 U.S.C. 3603);
(3) the term "residential real estate management association'' has the meaning given such term under section 528 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 528); and
(4) the term :member''--
(A) as used with respect to a condominium association, means an owner of a condominium unit (as defined under section 604 of Public Law 96399 (15 U.S.C. 3603)) within such association;
(B) as used with respect to a cooperative association, means a cooperative unit owner (as defined under section 604 of Public Law 96399 (15 U.S.C. 3603)) within such association; and
(C) as used with respect to a residential real estate management association, means an owner of a residential property within a subdivision, development, or similar area subject to any policy or restriction adopted by such association.

THE HOA DOUCHEBAGS LOST. ​

DEAL WITH IT​

Click to expand...

Dezaad said:

And, here is the actual text of the law that was passed:

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.

[[Page 120 STAT. 573]]

SEC. 4. <<NOTE: 4 USC 5 note.>> 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.

bold mine.

The bolded text is the crux of the issue, as far as this law is concerned. You seem to have missed that, somehow, even going so far as to completely ignore it. I am not sure how, since it is kind of obvious.

Anyway, it would be up to judges to determine what 'reasonable restrictions' are as well as 'substantial interests'. Though I am not sure what would be the outcome, I don't think the HOA was unreasonable, and I do think they might have a good shot at demonstrating some substantial interest, given what this law is about.

Anyway, it is not as clear cut as you seem to believe, as you would know if you knew anything about law.

Click to expand...

I think I just posted the links, did you go read them?

American said:

I think I just posted the links, did you go read them?

Click to expand...

Good information, and it confirms (to a great degree) what we've been asserting.

The HOA didn't lose. They were probably within the legal HOA agreement and within the law. They backed down, probably due to popular pressure. Perhaps they were right to do so, perhaps not.

Whatever the case, IMO, the Veteran was intentionally breaking an agreement to which he was a voluntary party. I don't understand why he wanted to live in a neighborhood where he knew he had to agree that others get to tell him what he can't do.

Dezaad said:

Good information, and it confirms (to a great degree) what we've been asserting.

The HOA didn't lose. They were probably within the legal HOA agreement and within the law. They backed down, probably due to popular pressure. Perhaps they were right to do so, perhaps not.

Whatever the case, IMO, the Veteran was intentionally breaking an agreement to which he was a voluntary party. I don't understand why he wanted to live in a neighborhood where he knew he had to agree that others get to tell him what he can't do.

Click to expand...

Yes, it cofirms you are a supporter of HOA nazism.

Vader said:

Yes, it cofirms you are a supporter of HOA nazism.

Click to expand...

Yes, <sigh> I am sure 20 years from now we'll be looking back on the time of HOAs with horror at the despicable acts they had accomplished against mankind.

I am just sure of it.

Dezaad said:

Yes, <sigh> I am sure 20 years from now we'll be looking back on the time of HOAs with horror at the despicable acts they had accomplished against mankind.

I am just sure of it.

Click to expand...

I am sure you are an HOA BOD member. There can be no other explanation for your support of HOA nazism.

Dezaad said:

Good information, and it confirms (to a great degree) what we've been asserting.

The HOA didn't lose. They were probably within the legal HOA agreement and within the law. They backed down, probably due to popular pressure. Perhaps they were right to do so, perhaps not.

Whatever the case, IMO, the Veteran was intentionally breaking an agreement to which he was a voluntary party. I don't understand why he wanted to live in a neighborhood where he knew he had to agree that others get to tell him what he can't do.

Click to expand...

Apparently, you missed the part where I stated REPEATEDLY that the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 NEGATES THE HOA CONTRACT.

The HOA's retarded rules are trumped by the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005.

I do not understand why that is so difficult for you people to comprehend.

Vader said:

I am sure you are an HOA BOD member. There can be no other explanation for your support of HOA nazism.

Click to expand...

Actually no, quite the opposite. I live in a neighborhood where there are no HOAs at all, and no covenants. On purpose. And THAT is the explanation for why I support the legality of HOA agreements. They are really really easy to opt out of.

Vader said:

Apparently, you missed the part where I stated REPEATEDLY that the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 NEGATES THE HOA CONTRACT.

The HOA's retarded rules are trumped by the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005.

I do not understand why that is so difficult for you people to comprehend.

Click to expand...

Apparently you missed the part where American and I completely obliterated your assertion by actually showing that you don't comprehend that law at all.

Scroll up and read the law. Read the analysis American links to. It's all there.

Dezaad said:

Actually no, quite the opposite. I live in a neighborhood where there are no HOAs at all, and no covenants. On purpose. And THAT is the explanation for why I support the legality of HOA agreements. They are really really easy to opt out of.

Click to expand...

Sad.

I do not support HOAs. HOAs are busy-body assholes who seek to control the neighborhood.

**** them and the dick they rode in on.

I will NOT be told what I can have on my property... by ANYBODY ... let alone a group of neighborhood asshat HOA pricks.

Dezaad said:

Apparently you missed the part where American and I completely obliterated your assertion by actually showing that you don't comprehend that law at all.

Scroll up and read the law. Read the analysis American links to. It's all there.

Click to expand...

Neither of you did any such thing.

The law I posted is federal and it trumps state-based idiots. You are wrong. Accept it an move on.

The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 NEGATES THE HOA CONTRACT.

No matter how much bull**** you two HOA-lovers come up with ... this fact WILL NOT CHANGE.

Vader said:

Neither of you did any such thing.

The law I posted is federal and it trumps state-based idiots. You are wrong. Accept it an move on.

The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 NEGATES THE HOA CONTRACT.

No matter how much bull**** you two HOA-lovers come up with ... this fact WILL NOT CHANGE.

Click to expand...

You didn't even read the federal law carefully, because it does not support your argument.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

Who cares what the law says? A Medal of Honor recipient wants to put up a flag pole. So what? Why does the HOA have to be so anal?

Click to expand...

Yes, officer, I was driving at 90 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. Why do you have to be so anal in giving me a ticket just because I broke the law?

TheNextEra said:

Wait a minute, now I am a rightie? :rofl:rofl

Sorry but nothing in the post supports your claim they lost legally. They backed down, but they did not lose legally.

Maybe you should actually read the article instead of just posting sophomoric one liners about righties and Nazis.

Again, they did NOT prohibit him from flying the flag as you were claiming.

Click to expand...

WHY ARE YOU ALL WASTING YOUR TIME? Vader is not going to say,
"You're right. He broke the rule." No, he's going to keep saying how correct he is and that anyone who disagrees with him doesn't know what they are talking about. You have better things to do with yoru time on here than argue with a know-it-all. I know I do.

aps said:

WHY ARE YOU ALL WASTING YOUR TIME? Vader is not going to say,
"You're right. He broke the rule." No, he's going to keep saying how correct he is and that anyone who disagrees with him doesn't know what they are talking about. You have better things to do with yoru time on here than argue with a know-it-all. I know I do.

Click to expand...

GET BACK IN THAT KITCHEN AND BAKE ME SOME PIE!!!!


:mrgreen:

aps said:

WHY ARE YOU ALL WASTING YOUR TIME? Vader is not going to say,
"You're right. He broke the rule." No, he's going to keep saying how correct he is and that anyone who disagrees with him doesn't know what they are talking about. You have better things to do with yoru time on here than argue with a know-it-all. I know I do.

Click to expand...

You're right. He has stopped addressing our arguments and instead has gone on and simply repeated what we have already disproved. What can ya' do?

Dezaad said:

You're right. He has stopped addressing our arguments and instead has gone on and simply repeated what we have already disproved. What can ya' do?

Click to expand...

You haven't disproved anything.

Vader said:

Pay attention .... THEY BACKED DOWN BECAUSE THE LAW OF THE LAND WAS AGAINST THEM.

Click to expand...

Pay attention, NO THE LAW WAS NOT AGAINST THEM (see I can use caps too).

Vader said:

There is a law in Virginia which prohibits interference with those who wish to fly the national flag.

Click to expand...

And again, they were not prohibiting the flying of the flag, only the vertical pole. The guy was still able to fly his flag on a 45 degree angle pole, so again, YOU ARE WRONG (see again I can use caps like you).

A point you CONSISTANTLY keep ignoring.

Vader said:

The HOA idiots backed down because they knew they were on the losing team.

Click to expand...

They backed down because of bad publicity, like a boycott. Exactly how it should have been handled.

Vader said:

Also .... Slightly liberal is the same as mostly conservative.

Click to expand...

No, they are not mostly the same, but please keep telling yourself that.

Vader said:

You haven't disproved anything.

Click to expand...

No, but I did. And btw, your contention is not at all what the rest of us are contending, you should have paid attention.

American said:

No, but I did. And btw, your contention is not at all what the rest of us are contending, you should have paid attention.

Click to expand...

No, you didn't.

He has every right to fly his flag and the assholes in the HOA can **** off.

He is entitled to fly to the flag in any manner he so desires. As a veteran, it's logical that he would mount it on a proper flagpole.

To start with, a flagpole is not an eyesore. It shows a veteran resides therein. Next, the owner of the home is a Medal of Honor recipient. He's earned the right to fly whatever kind of flag he desires.

Next, we have all of the latent support for HOA nazism. Why? Why are you people supporting a group of nazis?

As to your contention that you are slightly liberal; no matter what is said you are still mostly conservative.

TheNextEra said:

Pay attention, NO THE LAW WAS NOT AGAINST THEM (see I can use caps too).

Click to expand...

WRONG.

Federal Law is against them. He has the right to fly a flag in any fashion he so desires.

TheNextEra said:

And again, they were not prohibiting the flying of the flag, only the vertical pole. The guy was still able to fly his flag on a 45 degree angle pole, so again, YOU ARE WRONG (see again I can use caps like you).

A point you CONSISTANTLY keep ignoring.

Click to expand...

When they told him he could not fly his flag on the vertical pole they challenged his right to fly a flag. In so doing they DID violate federal law.

Moreover, according to the original article, Decorated Veteran, 90, Fights to Raise Flag in His Yard - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com, states clearly that the veteran in question and his family found no provision barring flagpoles. As such, should the matter have come before a court of law, the Sussex County Asshole Association has no case.

You republicans can continue to rally behind the nazi HOA if you wish. They were wrong and YOU are wrong.

It's just sad that you support the HOA that willingly harassed a 90 year-old CMOH recipient.

For all of you pro-HOA people, here is a letter from a UNITED STATES SENATOR which CLEARLY STATES that his research found that the HOA guidelines in question did not specifically prohibit flagpoles.

Here is a letter from a U.S. Senator which expresses my point:

Karen S. Peterson
Attorney-at-Law
Coates & Davenport, P.C.
5206 Markel Road, Suite 200
Richmond VA 23230


Dear Ms. Peterson:
I have been made aware of a situation involving a dispute between your client, the Sussex Square Homeowners Association in Henrico County, Virginia, and a homeowner, Van Barfoot, a retired Army Colonel. It is my understanding that Col. Barfoot installed a flagpole in the yard of his home for purposes of displaying the American flag and that the Homeowners Association is now requiring him to remove this flag pole under threat of legal action. I have been informed that the covenants governing this neighborhood association do not expressly forbid installation of flag poles and that the association opposed the flag pole on the grounds of its aesthetics.

I am mindful that the Association is a private entity, and I respect its right to regulate such matters. At the same time, as you are aware, Col. Barfoot served this country with great distinction, and I am very disturbed by the treatment that he received as he attempted to honor our nation by flying the American flag in the front yard of his home.



The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration awarded by the United States government. It is bestowed on a member of the United States armed forces who distinguishes himself “conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.” As a fellow combat veteran, I hope you and the Association will consider the exceptional nature of Col. Barfoot’s service when considering his pride and determination in honoring our flag.


I am pleased to join with many area citizens in expressing my concern over the action taken by the Sussex Square Homeowners Association.


Since it appears that Col. Barfoot’s request was denied based on subjective criteria as opposed to an explicit regulatory violation of the covenants governing the Homeowner’s Association, I would hope that your clients would exercise the discretion afforded to them to develop a reasonable resolution that would allow this distinguished combat veteran to honor our nation in a manner in keeping with the established traditions, customs and regulations governing the display of the flag of the United States of America.


Sincerely,
Jim Webb
United States Senator


AS SUCH ... THE HOA DID BREAK THE LAW I PREVIOUSLY OUTLINED AND THE LAW IS, WAS, AND MOST CERTAINLY CONTINUES TO BE AGAINST THEM.

ALL OF YOU ARE WRONG. DEAL WITH IT.

Vader said:

Yes, it cofirms you are a supporter of HOA nazism.

Click to expand...

Nazism does not mean what you're using it to mean. Please stop skull-****ing the english language, kthxbye.