I think Joe said what I wanted to say but better. See his comments
below. Mine are as follows:
From my understanding of law (which is little and that is the way the
lawyers want it), that is the law of contract. The only thing that I know
of that canot be contracted is something illegal and under duress.
Building from that what great litigatious lawyer would defeat all those
CC&R contracts that are bordering on the illegal of ursurpering your rights
and to live there put you under duress? Why does the individual have to
give up so many rights in order to have a home? Look to what is said in
you Freedoms thing.
I am sure that in the USA the same thing happens as what is in Canada.
JUDGES under pressure of rich lawyres make laws, what you say, only
legislature can make laws. Hey, judges can interpret the laws they way
they see fit. I have observed such in Canada, and the USA, in my humble
opinion, is more litigation bound than any country that I know of. Money
talks and big money talks big.
I donot know what to do short of a revolution that was done long time ago
in the USA when the laws were too oppresive.
WOW, what did I say?
Chris opr VE7HCB
At 11:25 AM 2002-04-20 -0400, Joe Subich, K4IK wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Christensen
> > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:34 AM
> > To: Brian Hemmis; towertalk@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [Towertalk] ABC Home Owners Assoc Expose
> >
> > Reform is a legislative issue, not a judicial issue regardless of
> > the number of attorneys who sit in Congressional seats. This is
> > the reason why the FCC correctly deferred the ARRL's recent
> > preemption petition to Congress...precisely where it belongs.
>
>
>Paul,
>
>You're only partially correct (if I may argue with a lawyer on a legal
>issue). If the laws concerning Homeowner Associations (or private
>contracts) permit actions which are unconstitutional ... limit
>free speech (First Amendment) , due process (Fifth Amendment) rights
>or are subject to federal preemption, e.g. interstate commerce (Article
>1, Section 8), then the reform becomes a judicial issue and the law(s)
>in question must be struck down.
>
>While I support reasonable homeowner association rules, I believe anti-
>antenna CC&Rs should be struck down as violative of (1) free speech
>rights, (2) due process rights, and (3) improperly intruding into an
>area of federal primacy (interstate/international commerce).
>
>There is a reason to call the judiciary (and thus the lawyers) to task
>for allowing the homeowner association mess to continue unchecked.
>
>73,
>
> ... Joe, K4IK
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Towertalk mailing list
>Towertalk@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|