Tresspassed

[billlaur]

How can a person be trespassed from the villages for holding a god bless the homeless vets sign. I thought the roads were public and sidewalks are public…Iknow the squares are private property but open to the public.

[Bill14564]

How can a person be trespassed from the villages for holding a god bless the homeless vets sign. I thought the roads were public and sidewalks are public…Iknow the squares are private property but open to the public.

You may want to talk to a real lawyer if you want valid legal advice.

[billlaur]

What if this person is a homeowner in the villages,,he cannot go home? It dos not make sense..taxes are paid to Sumter county they are public roads.it is not a gated community any one can come…:MOJE_whot:

[Topspinmo]

I don’t think you can be trespasses for your home unless domestic incidents? Now maybe village can trespass you from all facilities and you still have to pay amenities fees. Maybe Businesses can trespass pass person if they are caught stealing or causing disruption. Road maybe public for travel but land maybe private? I’m no expert on subject or claim to be but I did sleep in Holiday INN in pass… and I ran two racks of 9 ball yesterday. :beer3:

[billlaur]

Where did u run 2 racks…

[Topspinmo]

Where did u run 2 racks…

About as far north you can get in villages…

[billlaur]

Could b Churchill tables r pretty easy there,,9 ball a good game… now when your on private property that’s a different story,a business or village property such as rec center, pools you can b tresspassed.but he was on a public sidewalk walk no crime was broken.the deputy was not sure of this,he said semi private, ha what’s that?/// any way keep hitting them straight..:sing:

[Velvet]

Could b Churchill tables r pretty easy there,,9 ball a good game… now when your on private property that’s a different story,a business or village property such as rec center, pools you can b tresspassed.but he was on a public sidewalk walk no crime was broken.the deputy was not sure of this,he said semi private, ha what’s that?/// any way keep hitting them straight..:sing:

Hi, I’m trying to follow what you are saying, can you reword it in regular English?

[Taltarzac725]

How can a person be trespassed from the villages for holding a god bless the homeless vets sign. I thought the roads were public and sidewalks are public…Iknow the squares are private property but open to the public.

Not enough details really here. Where was the person when he was holding up the sign? And when?

[billlaur]

Mid afternoon on a public sidewalk.the sign was handwritten on a piece of cardboard,size was approx 12x16 it’s said got bless the homeless vets….:bigbow…

[Taltarzac725]

Mid afternoon on a public sidewalk.the sign was handwritten on a piece of cardboard,size was approx 12x16 it’s said got bless the homeless vets….:bigbow…

Any danger presented by the sign holder? Like distracting drivers, getting in the way of golf carts, etc.

[billlaur]

No he doesn’t break the law…this isn’t his first rodeo….

[Taltarzac725]

No he doesn’t break the law…this isn’t his first rodeo….

If I were in his situation I would talk to a lawyer licensed in Florida about it. I am a law librarian by inclination and training. We are not allowed to practice law unless special arrangements were made. However, I did graduate from the U of Minnesota Law School but that was in 1989. I am trained in asking questions though. Your friend might try Findlaw. Find Laws, Legal Help, and Attorneys - FindLaw Just a moment... (https://share.google/ZFSLGcpLxdALIMCDy)

[CarlR33]

Mid afternoon on a public sidewalk.the sign was handwritten on a piece of cardboard,size was approx 12x16 it’s said got bless the homeless vets….:bigbow…Public sidwalk, where or what square? In front of the Villages sales office, Dunkin, Five Guys? I guess the question is what is their beef that they have to hold a sign at a specific location? Probably get more traction standing along with the pan handlers on 44?

[billlaur]

Public sidwalk, where or what square? In front of the Villages sales office, Dunkin, Five Guys? I guess the question is what is their beef that they have to hold a sign at a specific location? Probably get more traction standing along with the pan handlers on 44?

It’s called freedom of speech in a public place.no laws are broken..😀

[Bill14564]

It’s called freedom of speech in a public place.no laws are broken..😀

Possibly not which could be why he was trespassed. But details matter and we are hearing only one, fairly biased side of the story.

[CarlR33]

It’s called freedom of speech in a public place.no laws are broken..😀Other side of the story would help.

[fishon]

You’ll not get it.
The story teller won’t give all the facts. If you had the facts you would probably not be outraged like the story teller wants.

[SaucyJim]

Wow. This thread is much ado about nothing. Was this incident even newsworthy enough to make the local paper?

Asking for a friend.

[golfing eagles]

Where exactly did this occur???
How was it reported????
Was he arrested????
Had he returned to a site from which he was already trespassed???
Did he have a reason for trespassing???
Is he homeless or mentally ill???

The entire OP is worthless without those answers

[thevillages2013]

Where exactly did this occur???
How was it reported????
Was he arrested????
Had he returned to a site from which he was already trespassed???
Did he have a reason for trespassing???
Is he homeless or mentally ill???

The entire OP is worthless without those answers

Also, did he have pants on?!

[Maker]

To be trespassed, one needs to be on private property. Have been asked to leave or committed a crime (like shoplifting).
It is a civil complaint by a private entity against somebody.
You cannot be trespassed from public property or public buildings.

IF (big if here) a trespass order was entered then WHO is the order protecting? Was the person ever on their private property? Were they asked to leave?

Signs are protected speech according to the Supreme Court. No person or entity can prevent displaying signs - especially in public or on their own property.
FYI - Deed restrictions are also unconstitutional per SCOTUS (see Reed vs Gilbert AZ). One can sign away their 1st amendment right, but they can also reclaim that right at any time. That's the power of constitutionally protected rights.

HOWEVER - a sign advocating something illegal, or placed in such a manner as to cause an unsafe condition, might have consequences. One has the right to free speech, but that does not isolate them from the consequences of that speech. Think of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or disrupting a concert - you can be asked to leave because it is private property.

IF you were trespassed from a private area, and you were only in a public place (sidewalk) (not on their private property) then you likely have a case against the police and against the person that filed the complaint. A police officer who issued that order should have known better. My guess is that there are details missing from OP's rant.

[bark4me]

How can a person be trespassed from the villages for holding a god bless the homeless vets sign. I thought the roads were public and sidewalks are public…Iknow the squares are private property but open to the public.
You need to give more information. You gave very vague info.

[BrianL99]

...

... Signs are protected speech according to the Supreme Court. No person or entity can prevent displaying signs - especially in public or on their own property.
FYI - Deed restrictions are also unconstitutional per SCOTUS (see Reed vs Gilbert AZ). One can sign away their 1st amendment right, but they can also reclaim that right at any time. That's the power of constitutionally protected rights.



Reed vs Town of Gilbert doesn't mention HOA's, in any way.

Deed Restrictions are private agreements and the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private entities, nor does the US Constitution regulate private contracts.

If you paid an attorney for that legal opinion, is it too late to request a refund?

[Rsb23]

All our constitutional rights are under attack, wake up America!

That’s about as paranoid as it gets. The sky is not really falling for most of us. All is over a half told story without all the facts. Wow

[Bill14564]

How can a person be trespassed from the villages for holding a god bless the homeless vets sign. I thought the roads were public and sidewalks are public…Iknow the squares are private property but open to the public.

By any chance is there a link to a video so we can all see what happened?

[Bay Kid]

They make a living???

[Indydealmaker]

How can a person be trespassed from the villages for holding a god bless the homeless vets sign. I thought the roads were public and sidewalks are public…Iknow the squares are private property but open to the public.

I am sure this did not happen as you have claimed. Why not try being completely honest?

[Heytubes]

As a heads up: most likely not a vet, just a druggie saying that and a pat down would turn up drug paraphernalia which would make them no longer homeless.

[GATORBILL66]

How can a person be trespassed from the villages for holding a god bless the homeless vets sign. I thought the roads were public and sidewalks are public…Iknow the squares are private property but open to the public.


We don't need signs like that in the villages! There is plenty of help for veterans in and around the villages. No veteran should be homeless with all the help that offered to them!

[DjinGA]

Sounds like he was soliciting $$. No soliciting is a neighborhood rule, not a law so Police have to charge with trespass.

[G.R.I.T.S.]

My guess he was suspected of panhandling.

[ThirdOfFive]

It’s called freedom of speech in a public place.no laws are broken..😀
Was this guy accepting "donations"?

Florida doesn't have a statewide law prohibiting panhandling, but many local government units have ordinances prohibiting or regulating it.

[Chellybean]

To be trespassed, one needs to be on private property. Have been asked to leave or committed a crime (like shoplifting).
It is a civil complaint by a private entity against somebody.
You cannot be trespassed from public property or public buildings.

IF (big if here) a trespass order was entered then WHO is the order protecting? Was the person ever on their private property? Were they asked to leave?

Signs are protected speech according to the Supreme Court. No person or entity can prevent displaying signs - especially in public or on their own property.
FYI - Deed restrictions are also unconstitutional per SCOTUS (see Reed vs Gilbert AZ). One can sign away their 1st amendment right, but they can also reclaim that right at any time. That's the power of constitutionally protected rights.

HOWEVER - a sign advocating something illegal, or placed in such a manner as to cause an unsafe condition, might have consequences. One has the right to free speech, but that does not isolate them from the consequences of that speech. Think of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or disrupting a concert - you can be asked to leave because it is private property.

IF you were trespassed from a private area, and you were only in a public place (sidewalk) (not on their private property) then you likely have a case against the police and against the person that filed the complaint. A police officer who issued that order should have known better. My guess is that there are details missing from OP's rant.

A start with Florida Statue would be 316 and 316.2065
Villages in Sumter landing try to enforce sidewalks across the streets from the square, which is public sidewalks even during a event. The square where entertainment happens is under a use permit from 4 pm to 9 pm under statue 190. The village team event people have NO Police power or Authority on public side walks where all the stores are located! Wake up people are constitution rights are be attacked every day by the powers to be!

[golfing eagles]

A start with Florida Statue would be 316 and 316.2065

Bicycle regulations???? I don't think that applies here.

[Chellybean]

Bicycle regulations???? I don't think that applies here.

It also goes abreast in case law in public domain, the case law is endless. As i said its a start.
Again there is to much missing information with the OP

[Raybemis1]

I follow him on YouTube. He will get the trespass rescinded, send an intent to sue, and ask for the sheriffs dept to have additional 1st and 4 th amendment training, and ask for $1788 to be donated to a veterans homeless shelter (the year the constitution was ratified)
He wins all the time because he is allowed to do what he did and where he did it.

[Taltarzac725]

I follow him on YouTube. He will get the trespass rescinded, send an intent to sue, and ask for the sheriffs dept to have additional 1st and 4 th amendment training, and ask for $1788 to be donated to a veterans homeless shelter (the year the constitution was ratified)
He wins all the time because he is allowed to do what he did and where he did it.

So. This is a schtick?

[nn0wheremann]

How can a person be trespassed from the villages for holding a god bless the homeless vets sign. I thought the roads were public and sidewalks are public…Iknow the squares are private property but open to the public.
Googled this. Apparently a regional or national campaign originated in Georgia when a similar incident occurred at a VA facility.

[Road-Runner]

I'm guessing the person holding the sign was doing so to silicate money from drivers at an intersection, etc.? I don't know if this is illegal but I for one don't care for this practice. As a former Georgian, this was widespread around Atlanta plus the occasional "windshield cleaner" downtown.

[CarlR33]

Googled this. Apparently a regional or national campaign originated in Georgia when a similar incident occurred at a VA facility.And at the end the day the actual effort for “homeless vets” is hidden behind this nonsense. It’s hidden panhandling because who wins but the YouTuber with followers and paid advertisement.

[ffresh]

As a heads up: most likely not a vet, just a druggie saying that and a pat down would turn up drug paraphernalia which would make them no longer homeless.

He wouldn't have to be a vet to hold up that sign. Also, a pat down in this situation would be a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The rest of your statement is QUITE a leap!

FredF

[Chellybean]

BTW Statue 810 and 810.09 is a interesting read on Trespassing laws in Florida. JFYI

[ffresh]

Sounds like he was soliciting $$. No soliciting is a neighborhood rule, not a law so Police have to charge with trespass.

You can't be trespassed from public property/forum. Loitering, perhaps but not trespassing!

FredF

[bkcunningham1]

Was it Jeff Gray or someone with his lawsuit happy, YouTube posting group FIRE? He calls himself a 1st Amendment auditor and encourages others to hold the sign and document how local governments react to them standing on public property holding the sign.

[Taltarzac725]

Was it Jeff Gray or someone with his lawsuit happy, YouTube posting group FIRE? He calls himself a 1st Amendment auditor and encourages others to hold the sign and document how local governments react to them standing on public property holding the sign.

Man arrested outside Funky Pelican previously flipped off deputy Your browser is not supported | news-journalonline.com (https://share.google/xIm7CIHCth7jzjoCz)


You might be onto something. I doubt if this has anything to do with homeless vets.

[coconutmama]

The “Bubble” does not care for any social problem awareness signage. Reminds me of the guards from Coleman Prison attempting to bring awareness of the over crowded conditions there & being understaffed. The guards were ousted from holding signs from near Magnolia Plaza a few years back

[Taltarzac725]

The “Bubble” does not care for any social problem awareness signage. Reminds me of the guards from Coleman Prison attempting to bring awareness of the over crowded conditions there & being understaffed. The guards were ousted from holding signs from near Magnolia Plaza a few years back

That looks like a genuine problem. This homeless vets stuff looks more like a schtick. A mode of trolling. There are many ways you can help homeless vets. Homeless Veterans | The American Legion (https://share.google/zECbgmOkO3UfruWRN)

[ffresh]

He calls himself a 1st Amendment auditor and encourages others to hold the sign and document how local governments react to them standing on public property holding the sign.

And IMHO God bless them all! Government, at all levels, increasingly violates citizens' Constitutional rights unceasingly. Many cops are totally ignorant on many aspects of the laws they are paid to enforce and frequently violate many rights they have sworn to protect, particularly Constitutional law/rights; others just don't care. Hand them a gun and badge and some quickly become tyrants. And this abuse is increasing at an alarming rate. And NO, I am not anti-cop - I am anti BAD cops. These "auditors" provide VALUABLE education to police departments across the country and do yeoman's work in helping to keep our rights intact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTz1SwRdldw

FredF

[ssutph2324]

This is the Villages video URL everyone is asking for... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xou1Spau5DE


Did some research. Yes, It was Jeff Gray. He's a retired truck driver and vet. He runs a Youtube channel called HonorYourOath. He tests municipalities and city's to make sure your 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights are being protected. I watched at least 30 of his vids. He is NEVER rude, unless the police are. He litigates the cities/police who are either ignorant or blatantly violate the amendments with local unconstitutional ordinances. URL of the channel below.

HonorYourOath Civil Rights Investigations - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/@HONORYOUROATH)

This additional vid below will explain his purpose. Also in this vid (at 2:20) is Officer Jake Hillier from the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office greeting and shaking Jeff Gray's hand because he supports what Jeff is doing. I know Officer Hillier personally and he is an incredible person and police officer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr5f4E8l2WU

I'm assuming most of you believe police encounters are positive as I do; even that speeding ticket :). But there are still too many government authorities (police or otherwise) who get offended and violent if you simply challenge your detainment verbally. Furthermore, those authorities are often backed by a system that will protect them no matter if it's absolutely clear there corrupt. If you don't think so; watches these vids.

Joffrion Can’t Recall BodyCam Policy - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cVRYfqHGlpw)
Joffrion Can’t Recall Trespass Laws - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Qt4-LFoBjtI)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Y7KgTltTUjc

[Taltarzac725]

And IMHO God bless them all! Government, at all levels, increasingly violates citizens' Constitutional rights unceasingly. Many cops are totally ignorant on many aspects of the laws they are paid to enforce and frequently violate many rights they have sworn to protect, particularly Constitutional law/rights; others just don't care. Hand them a gun and badge and some quickly become tyrants. And this abuse is increasing at an alarming rate. And NO, I am not anti-cop - I am anti BAD cops. These "auditors" provide VALUABLE education to police departments across the country and do yeoman's work in helping to keep our rights intact.

FredF

Kind of sounds like a ridiculous way to show abuse of power by cops and insults the homeless. I recall an Orlando teacher who went and lived as a homeless person in various areas of Orange County and put his experiences on Facebook. Some of these homeless were veterans. I found that man's work very worthwhile.

[bilcon]

How can a person be trespassed from the villages for holding a god bless the homeless vets sign. I thought the roads were public and sidewalks are public…Iknow the squares are private property but open to the public.

Probably one of the same guys that stand on the exits of I-75 begging.

[ffresh]

This is the Villages video URL everyone is asking for... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xou1Spau5DE


Did some research. Yes, It was Jeff Gray. He's a retired truck driver and vet. He runs a Youtube channel called HonorYourOath. He tests municipalities and city's to make sure your 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights are being protected. I watched at least 30 of his vids. He is NEVER rude, unless the police are. He litigates the cities/police who are either ignorant or blatantly violate the amendments with local unconstitutional ordinances. URL of the channel below.

HonorYourOath Civil Rights Investigations - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/@HONORYOUROATH)

This additional vid below will explain his purpose. Also in this vid (at 2:20) is Officer Jake Hillier from the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office greeting and shaking Jeff Gray's hand because he supports what Jeff is doing. I know Officer Hillier personally and he is an incredible person and police officer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr5f4E8l2WU

I'm assuming most of you believe police encounters are positive as I do; even that speeding ticket :). But there are still too many government authorities (police or otherwise) who get offended and violent if you simply challenge your detainment verbally. Furthermore, those authorities are often backed by a system that will protect them no matter if it's absolutely clear there corrupt. If you don't think so; watches these vids.

Joffrion Can’t Recall BodyCam Policy - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cVRYfqHGlpw)
Joffrion Can’t Recall Trespass Laws - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Qt4-LFoBjtI)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Y7KgTltTUjc

THANKS for taking the time to compose this very valuable educational post :wave:

FredF

[ffresh]

Kind of sounds like a ridiculous way to show abuse of power by cops
I totally disagree and believe it's an excellent way to demonstrate the encounter when it occurs and video document it as well, so we (who choose to view it) can learn from the encounter.

and insults the homeless.
So, you are of the opinion that holding a sign stating "God bless the homeless vets" is insulting to the vets. I can't for the life of me see how you could arrive at that conclusion!

I recall an Orlando teacher who went and lived as a homeless person in various areas of Orange County and put his experiences on Facebook. Some of these homeless were veterans. I found that man's work very worthwhile.

I think you're missing the intent of the auditor's actions. :wave:

FredF

[Bill14564]

I think you're missing the intent of the auditor's actions. :wave:

FredF

I believe the intent of the auditor's actions are to drive visitors to his page and money into his pocket.

To the OP: Most of the roads are public/county but the sidewalks are either on private land owned by Sumter Landing CDD (SLCDD) or they are owned by the municipality which is the SLCDD. He wanted to draw attention to himself and provoke the police. He succeeded in that but it seems he didn't do quite enough due diligence.

[Taltarzac725]

I believe the intent of the auditor's actions are to drive visitors to his page and money into his pocket.

To the OP: Most of the roads are public/county but the sidewalks are either on private land owned by Sumter Landing CDD (SLCDD) or they are owned by the municipality which is the SLCDD. He wanted to draw attention to himself and provoke the police. He succeeded in that but it seems he didn't do quite enough due diligence.

I suppose the various Florida police departments are becoming more aware of this trolling. Reminds me of the Jackass movies but those were sometimes entertaining.

[ffresh]

I believe the intent of the auditor's actions are to drive visitors to his page and money into his pocket.

To the OP: Most of the roads are public/county but the sidewalks are either on private land owned by Sumter Landing CDD (SLCDD) or they are owned by the municipality which is the SLCDD. He wanted to draw attention to himself and provoke the police. He succeeded in that but it seems he didn't do quite enough due diligence.

You (or I) can believe or assume whatever we wish - it doesn't necessarily make it so. I commented on what I believe the results of these auditors actions might be. I never posited that I knew what their motivations were for their actions. You have, however, done this several times in more than one post. just sayin' ;)

FredF

[Taltarzac725]

Talk of The Villages Florida - View Single Post - Beware of panhandlers Talk of The Villages Florida - View Single Post - Beware of panhandlers (https://share.google/c7whbJcmZI7dsjsMW)


An old post from just about ten years ago.

[Pugchief]

All our constitutional rights are under attack, wake up America!

At least you still have Freedom of Speech*, unlike the UK which now jails people for thought crimes and Facebook/Twitter(X) posts.

*For now.....

[Daddymac]

Other side of the story would help.

The Guy was standing on the corner, up in lake Sumter. NOT IN THE SQUARE.
POLICE :police: showed up because of a phone call from “THE VILLAGES “ asking to Trespass him. The police showed up and told him he is being trespassed.
And if he didn’t leave,:censored: he would be arrested. He was polite and so was the police officers. So he moved on. Now here is the problem……
THEY VIOLATED HIS 1st AMENDMENT RIGHTS …

[Daddymac]

Here is the link to the story..
https://youtu.be/xou1Spau5DE?si=x0xqtWYTUn52iXaA

[Daddymac]

Possibly not which could be why he was trespassed. But details matter and we are hearing only one, fairly biased side of the story.

Here is the story!!
https://youtu.be/xou1Spau5DE?si=x0xqtWYTUn52iXaA

[Bill14564]

The Guy was standing on the corner, up in lake Sumter. NOT IN THE SQUARE.
POLICE :police: showed up because of a phone call from “THE VILLAGES “ asking to Trespass him. The police showed up and told him he is being trespassed.
And if he didn’t leave,:censored: he would be arrested. He was polite and so was the police officers. So he moved on. Now here is the problem……
THEY VIOLATED HIS 1st AMENDMENT RIGHTS …

Did they or did they exercise their right to choose the activities allowed on District properties?

[Daddymac]

My guess he was suspected of panhandling.

Well you’re wrong there. Panhandling is NOT Illegal, You can’t harass people when your standing there… That’s Illegal..

[Daddymac]

Did they or did they exercise their right to choose the activities allowed on District properties?

https://youtu.be/xou1Spau5DE?si=x0xqtWYTUn52iXaA

[Bill14564]

https://youtu.be/xou1Spau5DE?si=x0xqtWYTUn52iXaA

Yeah, I saw that the other three times it was posted. Thanks for making my point though; he was asked to leave District property due to his actions.

[Maker]

Reed vs Town of Gilbert doesn't mention HOA's, in any way.

Deed Restrictions are private agreements and the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private entities, nor does the US Constitution regulate private contracts.

If you paid an attorney for that legal opinion, is it too late to request a refund?

SCOTUS doesn't need to restate the power of a constitutional right. A constitutional right is absolute. If you surrender it, you can reclaim it at any time. The most common thing maost people might recognize is related to Miranda. You can remain silent, or waive that right and talk, but you may reclaim the right at any time.

CDDs and ARC exist under Florida State authority. As a government extension, they cannot legally enforce an unconstitutional restriction. Even if a resident does not formally reclaim that right.

If CDDs and ARC are not a state entity, why do they display Florida state license plates? Only state agencies can do that. They are bound by that case. Like it or not.

[Daddymac]

[QUOTE=Bill14564;2459179]Did they or did they exercise their right to choose the activities allowed on District properties?[/QUOTE

That corner is not district property.. And the Cop should of investigated that.. Not just listen to the dispatcher. He can be held accountable, and lose his qualified immunity.

[Bill14564]

That corner is not district property.. And the Cop should of investigated that.. Not just listen to the dispatcher. He can be held accountable, and lose his qualified immunity.

Maybe, maybe not. That would likely be a detail in a legal agreement somewhere. Unquestionably, the land those sidewalks were built on was private at one time. The maintenance of the roads was turned over to the County which required them to be accessible to the public. But was the land turned over as well and if so, did that include the land under the sidewalk? If the man decides to try and sue the District then maybe we'll find out.

[billlaur]

By any chance is there a link to a video so we can all see what happened?

Go to you tube search TRESPASSED FOREVER FROM THREE COUNTIESAND 57 SQUARE MILES and u can watch video only about 8 minutes long…:bigbow:

[Bill14564]

Go to you tube search TRESPASSED FOREVER FROM THREE COUNTIESAND 57 SQUARE MILES and u can watch video only about 8 minutes long…:bigbow:

Of course, if I want to find something about the Villages I should search on "three counties" or "57 square miles." But that's okay... you apparently haven't notice yet that the link has been provided in at least four posts so far.

[BrianL99]

SCOTUS doesn't need to restate the power of a constitutional right. A constitutional right is absolute. If you surrender it, you can reclaim it at any time. The most common thing maost people might recognize is related to Miranda. You can remain silent, or waive that right and talk, but you may reclaim the right at any time.

CDDs and ARC exist under Florida State authority. As a government extension, they cannot legally enforce an unconstitutional restriction. Even if a resident does not formally reclaim that right.

If CDDs and ARC are not a state entity, why do they display Florida state license plates? Only state agencies can do that. They are bound by that case. Like it or not.

You can keep saying the same thing over and over, it will still be wrong.

When you bought in The Villages, you bought a home with Deed Restrictions. The District was not a party to that transaction.

There is nothing inherently illegal about Deed Restrictions, provided they don't discriminate agains a protected class. Private transactions are not protected by the 1st Amendment, nor are "signs" protected by the 1st Amendment. If signs were protected by the 1st Amendment, cities and towns wouldn't be able to adopt sign regulations. The 1st Amendment is the Right of Free Speech ... it is not "The Right to Post and/or Carry Signs".

[Howdy]

Mid afternoon on a public sidewalk.the sign was handwritten on a piece of cardboard,size was approx 12x16 it’s said got bless the homeless vets….:bigbow…

1st Amendment right, he/she is 100% legal except in Courtyard Villages where the roads are private & the Villas are private pproperty.
Everywhere else the Sidewalks & Roads are all Public...:bigbow:

[BrianL99]

Here is the link to the story..
https://youtu.be/xou1Spau5DE?si=x0xqtWYTUn52iXaA

Everyone was reasonably polite, but the guy with badge, needs a lot more training and understanding of his job. Where did he come up with the "semi-public" thing?

You would think a local LEO would know the roads and sidewalks of The Villages are public property?

I assume some people recognized where he was standing? Was it on a public street? I'd venture a guess, that the guy with the sign knows the difference, knows he was in the right and there's a lawsuit coming ... as there should be. If the LEO wasn't sure, he should have checked with a superior, instead of spouting off nonsense.

JMOYMMV

[billlaur]

You can't be trespassed from public property/forum. Loitering, perhaps but not trespassing!

FredF

Loitering is not having a purpose,he has a purpose…

[billlaur]

You can keep saying the same thing over and over, it will still be wrong.

When you bought in The Villages, you bought a home with Deed Restrictions. The District was not a party to that transaction.

There is nothing inherently illegal about Deed Restrictions, provided they don't discriminate agains a protected class. Private transactions are not protected by the 1st Amendment, nor are "signs" protected by the 1st Amendment. If signs were protected by the 1st Amendment, cities and towns wouldn't be able to adopt sign regulations. The 1st Amendment is the Right of Free Speech ... it is not "The Right to Post and/or Carry Signs".

You should read the 1st amendment there are 5 elements to it….

[billlaur]

Of course, if I want to find something about the Villages I should search on "three counties" or "57 square miles." But that's okay... you apparently haven't notice yet that the link has been provided in at least four posts so far.

Well what are your thoughts about the video?

[BrianL99]

You can keep saying the same thing over and over, it will still be wrong.

When you bought in The Villages, you bought a home with Deed Restrictions. The District was not a party to that transaction.

There is nothing inherently illegal about Deed Restrictions, provided they don't discriminate agains a protected class. Private transactions are not protected by the 1st Amendment, nor are "signs" protected by the 1st Amendment. If signs were protected by the 1st Amendment, cities and towns wouldn't be able to adopt sign regulations. The 1st Amendment is the Right of Free Speech ... it is not "The Right to Post and/or Carry Signs".

You should read the 1st amendment there are 5 elements to it….

I'm sorry my friend, but you obviously don't understand law nor the 1st Amendment.

There are (5) RIGHTS protected by the 1st amendment. None of those "rights" include an unlimited "right to post signage". nor is there anything in the 1st Amendment which prohibits Deed Restrictions.

[Marmaduke]

You need to give more information. You gave very vague info.
...And, it's surprising that the other entity (which shall remain nameless) but which report "all things bad" against The Villages and Villagers, such as drunk driving incidents and entitled illegal parking, didn't RUN with that story, if there was a perceived injustice.

In fact, they would've been on that incident like white on rice, so it was probably a justified police action.

The OP is charged, or at least challenged with filling in the details which were missing or deliberately left out.

Basically, I'd be curious as to where this occurred, which would end the querries.

[Worldseries27]

I am not a lawyer and am not going to say what is constitutional or not. I grew up where the police to keep law and order dispersed people and crowds all the time especially at 2am on fridays and saturdays at " establishments" to keep people out of trouble. They broke up potential drag races etc. Sometimes the public good requires the " blind eye". I've seen many a cop let people off. Constitutional rights are violated every day. Get over it. It's not the holy grail. It's the goal. What is one supposed to do? Walk around with an attorney at your shoulder for the rest of your life claiming foul. Live and let live life is not perfect.

[elle123]

How can a person be trespassed from the villages for holding a god bless the homeless vets sign. I thought the roads were public and sidewalks are public…Iknow the squares are private property but open to the public.
No one thanked you for your service? 😁

[mjfmicheal]

How can a person be trespassed from the villages for holding a god bless the homeless vets sign. I thought the roads were public and sidewalks are public…Iknow the squares are private property but open to the public.
Tell whomever that they cannot be trespassed from their home without a court order and to ignore that BS and just go home. The Village People are well-known for being high and mighty.

[Cliff Fr]

[QUOTE=billlaur;2458981]Mid afternoon on a public sidewalk.the sign was handwritten on a piece of cardboard,size was approx 12x16 it’s said got bless the homeless vets….:bigbow…[/QUOTE

I do believe there's a law in Florida that says you have to be a certain distance away from a business and a certain distance away from the street. It could be that maintaining the correct distances where you were was impossible

[Chellybean]

Our rights are challenged every day by powers to be. The Event team goes away from the square on public sidewalks try to enforce there agenda of keep people like bicyclists off the side walks during events that they are riding safely with NO pedestrian traffic ( not in the squares but across the street on Public sidewalks in front of public entity's).
The Event team People have ZERO POLICE POWER or Authority on Public sidewalks but they act like they have authority. I have had this argument with these idiots right in front of law enforcement and had to ask for their supervisors Sgt, Lt. etc... to set them straight. As Usual the event team leaders walk away finding out that they have been directed by the powers to be illegal by taking rights from people on Public property. This is all under statue 190 and 316 and 810, with endless caselaw. This needs to stop!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just because Some idiot states you don't have the right to be there does not make it Law. I hope they sue the Heck out of all of them!

[BrianL99]

A start with Florida Statue would be 316 and 316.2065

... The square where entertainment happens is under a use permit from 4 pm to 9 pm under statue 190.

It also goes abreast in case law in public domain, the case law is endless. As i said its a start.
Again there is to much missing information with the OP

Bicycle regulations???? I don't think that applies here.

BTW Statue 810 and 810.09 is a interesting read on Trespassing laws in Florida. JFYI

Our rights are challenged every day by powers to be.

.. This is all under statue 190 and 316 and 810, with endless caselaw. This needs to stop!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just because Some idiot states you don't have the right to be there does not make it Law. I hope they sue the Heck out of all of them!

Where did the OP mention "bicycles"? Who made bicycles part of the topic?

What really needs to stop (no exclamation points necessary), is people with little or no knowledge, experience or expertise, throwing out legal citations, interpretations and conclusions, completely irrelevant to the topic and of dubious validity.

[Chellybean]

Where did the OP mention "bicycles"? Who made bicycles part of the topic?

What really needs to stop (no exclamation points necessary), is people with little or no knowledge, experience or expertise, throwing out legal citations, interpretations and conclusions, completely irrelevant to the topic and of dubious validity.

3.16 and 316.2065 was just a example of public areas and case law is endless.

190 talks about where the powers to be gets their authority in the squares and 810 talks about trespassing laws.
These were examples if someone wants to broaden their knowledge.

[Taltarzac725]

It just seems like they want to bait the local law enforcement into a poor reaction so they can then sue them and really could not care less about homeless vets. And it is planned out that way. Kind of like a troll on the Internet. They will say anything to provoke an angry response and then scream free speech when they get a backlash.

I could be wrong about their sincerity but doubt it. I have a lot of experience with trolls. I had an extremely clever one for years on Findlaw when they had message boards. He often pretended to be me as we could change our handles whenever we wanted. His hometown police department seemed to be very amused by his shenanigans and were very familiar with him. But his Findlaw posts were protected by the First Amendment. He was also begging me for help with his white collar criminal case which he was trying to do without a lawyer while also under another handle constantly attacking me.

[Maker]

You can keep saying the same thing over and over, it will still be wrong.

When you bought in The Villages, you bought a home with Deed Restrictions. The District was not a party to that transaction.

There is nothing inherently illegal about Deed Restrictions, provided they don't discriminate agains a protected class. Private transactions are not protected by the 1st Amendment, nor are "signs" protected by the 1st Amendment. If signs were protected by the 1st Amendment, cities and towns wouldn't be able to adopt sign regulations. The 1st Amendment is the Right of Free Speech ... it is not "The Right to Post and/or Carry Signs".

Go re-read the SCOTUS case. It was specifically about SIGNS, and how ALL signs are 100% protected 1st amendment speech. Those protections apply to everyone.
Protected rights cannot be permanently given up, one may recover those rights at any time. That's basic constitutional law. A deed restriction is giving up that right, and can be recovered at anytime.
The protected class here is all people in the country.
Signs can be with words, or with images, or symbols (such as objects presented as to convey a message). Examples are garage sale; arrows; KFC's chicken bucket.

Governments often adopt sign laws, however most are generally not enforceable by this SCOTUS decision. But they look good, and some people actually fall for those unconstitutional restrictions.
SCOTUS said if you need to read a sign to decide if a law applies to it, then that law is unconstitutional. Their example was a law limiting dates when a political sign can be put up. SCOTUS said legal laws must fit very narrow limitations, such as construction not dangerous to others, can not block view of critical areas creating a safety issue (such as blocking a car's view of a stop sign). They said invalid reasons are content, location, size, quantity, types, style...

SCOTUS also said any part of a government cannot enforce any unconstitutional restriction. CDD operates as an extension of the government. So (for discussion's sake) even if one were to accept your theory that deed restriction are actually valid, CDDs are 100% barred from enforcement.
Don't like that? Go petition SCOTUS for a change in their ruling.

[Taltarzac725]

Your yard, your rights: Lawn signs and the First Amendment | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression Your yard, your rights: Lawn signs and the First Amendment | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (https://share.google/bbP5wxfiSFFyndGdr)


Yard signs. Not the same as a sign along the highway.


Go re-read the SCOTUS case. It was specifically about SIGNS, and how ALL signs are 100% protected 1st amendment speech. Those protections apply to everyone.
Protected rights cannot be permanently given up, one may recover those rights at any time. That's basic constitutional law. A deed restriction is giving up that right, and can be recovered at anytime.
The protected class here is all people in the country.
Signs can be with words, or with images, or symbols (such as objects presented as to convey a message). Examples are garage sale; arrows; KFC's chicken bucket.

Governments often adopt sign laws, however most are generally not enforceable by this SCOTUS decision. But they look good, and some people actually fall for those unconstitutional restrictions.
SCOTUS said if you need to read a sign to decide if a law applies to it, then that law is unconstitutional. Their example was a law limiting dates when a political sign can be put up. SCOTUS said legal laws must fit very narrow limitations, such as construction not dangerous to others, can not block view of critical areas creating a safety issue (such as blocking a car's view of a stop sign). They said invalid reasons are content, location, size, quantity, types, style...

SCOTUS also said any part of a government cannot enforce any unconstitutional restriction. CDD operates as an extension of the government. So (for discussion's sake) even if one were to accept your theory that deed restriction are actually valid, CDDs are 100% barred from enforcement.
Don't like that? Go petition SCOTUS for a change in their ruling.

[adirenzo010]

By any chance is there a link to a video so we can all see what happened? go on you tube search jeff gray

[bopat]

Sounds like a mental illness to me.

[Taltarzac725]

go on you tube search jeff gray

The Sumter County cop was very professional, polite and did a good job handling the man with sign on Villages' property. Jeff Gray on the other hand seemed to be trying to antagonize the officer.

[BrianL99]

Go re-read the SCOTUS case. It was specifically about SIGNS, and how ALL signs are 100% protected 1st amendment speech. Those protections apply to everyone.
Protected rights cannot be permanently given up, one may recover those rights at any time. That's basic constitutional law. A deed restriction is giving up that right, and can be recovered at anytime.
The protected class here is all people in the country.
Signs can be with words, or with images, or symbols (such as objects presented as to convey a message). Examples are garage sale; arrows; KFC's chicken bucket.

Governments often adopt sign laws, however most are generally not enforceable by this SCOTUS decision. But they look good, and some people actually fall for those unconstitutional restrictions.
SCOTUS said if you need to read a sign to decide if a law applies to it, then that law is unconstitutional. Their example was a law limiting dates when a political sign can be put up. SCOTUS said legal laws must fit very narrow limitations, such as construction not dangerous to others, can not block view of critical areas creating a safety issue (such as blocking a car's view of a stop sign). They said invalid reasons are content, location, size, quantity, types, style...

SCOTUS also said any part of a government cannot enforce any unconstitutional restriction. CDD operates as an extension of the government. So (for discussion's sake) even if one were to accept your theory that deed restriction are actually valid, CDDs are 100% barred from enforcement.
Don't like that? Go petition SCOTUS for a change in their ruling.

I don't need to do that. I deal with this stuff for a living and have a very good understanding of how it works.

Unlike many on this thread, i don't have to run to Google and decide what my opinion or position is.

You apparently have little or no experience with real estate property rights, because your conclusion is dead wrong. I can sell a parcel of land, with a restriction that "No Billboards" be erected. What I can't do, is sell a parcel of land and prohibit only billboards that attack LBGQT folks. Sometimes you don't have to run to AI to get a Constitutional question answered, one can sometimes rely on simply common sense.

Also, if you're going to quote the Supreme Court's decision in Reed, you perhaps should read it again. The Decision says that signs absolutely can be regulated by government, provided regulations are "content neutral". The Decision says sign regulations cannot be based on message or subject (content).

[golfing eagles]

I don't need to do that. I deal with this stuff for a living and have a very good understanding of how it works.

Unlike many on this thread, i don't have to run to Google and decide what my opinion or position is.

You apparently have little or no experience with real estate property rights, because your conclusion is dead wrong. I can sell a parcel of land, with a restriction that "No Billboards" be erected. What I can't do, is sell a parcel of land and prohibit only billboards that attack LBGQT folks. Sometimes you don't have to run to AI to get a Constitutional question answered, one can sometimes rely on simply common sense.

Also, if you're going to quote the Supreme Court's decision in Reed, you perhaps should read it again. The Decision says that signs absolutely can be regulated by government, provided regulations are "content neutral". The Decision says sign regulations cannot be based on message or subject (content).

So once again, welcome to TOTV, where amateurs argue with experts. I feel your pain.

[Taltarzac725]

Talk of The Villages Florida - Easements question Talk of The Villages Florida - Easements question (https://share.google/NhjIGcNZnGhGE57Mm)


This is interesting.

I was curious if the sidewalks in the Villages are private or public property?. And who maintains them? The County or the Villages? Probably depends on part on where it is the Villages.

[billlaur]

And at the end the day the actual effort for “homeless vets” is hidden behind this nonsense. It’s hidden panhandling because who wins but the YouTuber with followers and paid advertisement.
You are wrong

[billlaur]

He wouldn't have to be a vet to hold up that sign. Also, a pat down in this situation would be a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The rest of your statement is QUITE a leap!

FredF

He is a vet

[billlaur]

Sounds like he was soliciting $$. No soliciting is a neighborhood rule, not a law so Police have to charge with trespass.

He was not soliciting

[billlaur]

Was this guy accepting "donations"?

Florida doesn't have a statewide law prohibiting panhandling, but many local government units have ordinances prohibiting or regulating it.

Soliciting is freedom of speech…

[billlaur]

Was this guy accepting "donations"?

Florida doesn't have a statewide law prohibiting panhandling, but many local government units have ordinances prohibiting or regulating it.

No he was not..he doesn’t break the law…

[billlaur]

A start with Florida Statue would be 316 and 316.2065
Villages in Sumter landing try to enforce sidewalks across the streets from the square, which is public sidewalks even during a event. The square where entertainment happens is under a use permit from 4 pm to 9 pm under statue 190. The village team event people have NO Police power or Authority on public side walks where all the stores are located! Wake up people are constitution rights are be attacked every day by the powers to be!

BRAVO:BigApplause:

[billlaur]

I'm guessing the person holding the sign was doing so to silicate money from drivers at an intersection, etc.? I don't know if this is illegal but I for one don't care for this practice. As a former Georgian, this was widespread around Atlanta plus the occasional "windshield cleaner" downtown.

Well you guessed wrong

[billlaur]

The Sumter County cop was very professional, polite and did a good job handling the man with sign on Villages' property. Jeff Gray on the other hand seemed to be trying to antagonize the officer.

He was just asserting his rights,,police officer was wrong on several points..

[Bill14564]

He was just asserting his rights,,police officer was wrong on several points..

Doubtful

[billlaur]

Talk of The Villages Florida - Easements question Talk of The Villages Florida - Easements question (https://share.google/NhjIGcNZnGhGE57Mm)


This is interesting.

I was curious if the sidewalks in the Villages are private or public property?. And who maintains them? The County or the Villages? Probably depends on part on where it is the Villages.
C
Sidewalks are public..if no sidewalks available then rite of way comes into play…:BigApplause:

[bopat]

It’s mental illness not rights

[Taltarzac725]

HOA Sidewalks: Who's Responsible? | PPM HOA Sidewalks: Who's Responsible? | PPM (https://share.google/g3mBwnGJoKsYbJVI1)


I did find this which seems to imply that the Sumter County police officer was right. Or, maybe he is with Lady Lake. Or, even maybe Marion. Things are a little complicated
around here.


One thing seems certain though is that this has little to do with homeless vets and a lot more with trolls seeking money from lawsuits.

[Topspinmo]

And IMHO God bless them all! Government, at all levels, increasingly violates citizens' Constitutional rights unceasingly. Many cops are totally ignorant on many aspects of the laws they are paid to enforce and frequently violate many rights they have sworn to protect, particularly Constitutional law/rights; others just don't care. Hand them a gun and badge and some quickly become tyrants. And this abuse is increasing at an alarming rate. And NO, I am not anti-cop - I am anti BAD cops. These "auditors" provide VALUABLE education to police departments across the country and do yeoman's work in helping to keep our rights intact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTz1SwRdldw

FredF

IMO

once arrested and accused you are guilty till prove your innocences…..think about it? You have to get lawyer prepare defense and go to justice system and plead your defense/case.

How many read/watch videos on accused crimes and already prejudiced?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Yeah, I saw that the other three times it was posted. Thanks for making my point though; he was asked to leave District property due to his actions.

He was standing on public property. There was nothing about his actions that would warrant being asked to leave it. He wasn't soliciting for donations, he wasn't trying to stop anyone to engage with them, his sign didn't say anything offensive (unless you're anti-god, anti-homeless, or anti-veteran I suppose). He wasn't blocking the sidewalk or preventing anyone else from using it in any way, he wasn't littering. He was literally standing there holding up a "God Bless The Homeless Vets" sign and giving a friendly wave to people passing by.

I'd give him points off for the low quality of the sign, he probably should get it printed professionally if he's going to use it in further videos, but that's just me being critical of hand-made signs on cardboard.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

HOA Sidewalks: Who's Responsible? | PPM HOA Sidewalks: Who's Responsible? | PPM (https://share.google/g3mBwnGJoKsYbJVI1)


I did find this which seems to imply that the Sumter County police officer was right. Or, maybe he is with Lady Lake. Or, even maybe Marion. Things are a little complicated
around here.


One thing seems certain though is that this has little to do with homeless vets and a lot more with trolls seeking money from lawsuits.

The sidewalk isn't in an HOA. And there's nothing on that website that covers the USE of a public sidewalk on a public street, or the rights or responsibilities of pedestrians.

[Bill14564]

He was standing on public property. There was nothing about his actions that would warrant being asked to leave it. He wasn't soliciting for donations, he wasn't trying to stop anyone to engage with them, his sign didn't say anything offensive (unless you're anti-god, anti-homeless, or anti-veteran I suppose). He wasn't blocking the sidewalk or preventing anyone else from using it in any way, he wasn't littering. He was literally standing there holding up a "God Bless The Homeless Vets" sign and giving a friendly wave to people passing by.

I'd give him points off for the low quality of the sign, he probably should get it printed professionally if he's going to use it in further videos, but that's just me being critical of hand-made signs on cardboard.

You call it public property and I call it District property. You counter that it is adjacent to a public road and I point out that the road was built by the Villages on land owned by the Villages and while maintenance was probably turned over to the county that doesn’t necessarily mean that ownership of the land was turned over to the county.

The sign is part of his schtick, not a mistake in any way.

[Taltarzac725]

You call it public property and I call it District property. You counter that it is adjacent to a public road and I point out that the road was built by the Villages on land owned by the Villages and while maintenance was probably turned over to the county that doesn’t necessarily mean that ownership of the land was turned over to the county.

The sign is part of his schtick, not a mistake in any way.


Good points!

The address for the call for help came from a Villages office in Lake Sumter Landing. That does look like Villages' property including the sidewalk.


This guy tries to provoke a response that allows him to take it to his lawyer or lawyers.

[BrianL99]

IMO

once arrested and accused you are guilty till prove your innocences…..think about it? You have to get lawyer prepare defense and go to justice system and plead your defense/case.

How many read/watch videos on accused crimes and already prejudiced?

So what would be the alternative? Complaining is great, but without a solution or alternative, it's merely noise.

[ffresh]

He is a vet

I already knew that; I have seen some of his videos on YouTube. My point is he doesn't have to be a vet to express that sentiment :thumbup:

FredF

[Maker]

I don't need to do that. I deal with this stuff for a living and have a very good understanding of how it works.

Unlike many on this thread, i don't have to run to Google and decide what my opinion or position is.

You apparently have little or no experience with real estate property rights, because your conclusion is dead wrong. I can sell a parcel of land, with a restriction that "No Billboards" be erected. What I can't do, is sell a parcel of land and prohibit only billboards that attack LBGQT folks. Sometimes you don't have to run to AI to get a Constitutional question answered, one can sometimes rely on simply common sense.

Also, if you're going to quote the Supreme Court's decision in Reed, you perhaps should read it again. The Decision says that signs absolutely can be regulated by government, provided regulations are "content neutral". The Decision says sign regulations cannot be based on message or subject (content).


The ruling says that blanket restrictions against signs are unconstitutional. Content neutral is only part of the ruling. Also says no random arbitrary restrictions are allowed. Your example would not float.

It shows that you "don't need to read the decision" yet are pontificating it incorrectly. I guess you know it all and there is no reasoning possible because you continue to advocate an opinion that is contradicted in the actual examples SCOTUS published.

[BrianL99]

The ruling says that blanket restrictions against signs are unconstitutional. Content neutral is only part of the ruling. Also says no random arbitrary restrictions are allowed. Your example would not float.

It shows that you "don't need to read the decision" yet are pontificating it incorrectly. I guess you know it all and there is no reasoning possible because you continue to advocate an opinion that is contradicted in the actual examples SCOTUS published.

The Developer & The Villages spend millions of dollars a year on legal fees. They continue to sell 1000's of homes every year, with Deed Restrictions.

The Developers (Uihlein family) of Lakewood Ranch in Sarasota, sell even more, all with Deed Restrictions.

It makes me wonder why the Morse's & Uihlein family spend millions on attorneys, when the answers are right here on ToTV.

"No More Deed Restrictions, per ToTV".

[billlaur]

:BigApplause:I follow him on YouTube. He will get the trespass rescinded, send an intent to sue, and ask for the sheriffs dept to have additional 1st and 4 th amendment training, and ask for $1788 to be donated to a veterans homeless shelter (the year the constitution was ratified)
He wins all the time because he is allowed to do what he did and where he did it.

Finally:BigApplause:

[billlaur]

:BigApplause:

And IMHO God bless them all! Government, at all levels, increasingly violates citizens' Constitutional rights unceasingly. Many cops are totally ignorant on many aspects of the laws they are paid to enforce and frequently violate many rights they have sworn to protect, particularly Constitutional law/rights; others just don't care. Hand them a gun and badge and some quickly become tyrants. And this abuse is increasing at an alarming rate. And NO, I am not anti-cop - I am anti BAD cops. These "auditors" provide VALUABLE education to police departments across the country and do yeoman's work in helping to keep our rights intact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTz1SwRdldw

FredF
Hooray:BigApplause:

[billlaur]

This is the Villages video URL everyone is asking for... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xou1Spau5DE


Did some research. Yes, It was Jeff Gray. He's a retired truck driver and vet. He runs a Youtube channel called HonorYourOath. He tests municipalities and city's to make sure your 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights are being protected. I watched at least 30 of his vids. He is NEVER rude, unless the police are. He litigates the cities/police who are either ignorant or blatantly violate the amendments with local unconstitutional ordinances. URL of the channel below.

HonorYourOath Civil Rights Investigations - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/@HONORYOUROATH)

This additional vid below will explain his purpose. Also in this vid (at 2:20) is Officer Jake Hillier from the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office greeting and shaking Jeff Gray's hand because he supports what Jeff is doing. I know Officer Hillier personally and he is an incredible person and police officer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr5f4E8l2WU

I'm assuming most of you believe police encounters are positive as I do; even that speeding ticket :). But there are still too many government authorities (police or otherwise) who get offended and violent if you simply challenge your detainment verbally. Furthermore, those authorities are often backed by a system that will protect them no matter if it's absolutely clear there corrupt. If you don't think so; watches these vids.

Joffrion Can’t Recall BodyCam Policy - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cVRYfqHGlpw)
Joffrion Can’t Recall Trespass Laws - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Qt4-LFoBjtI)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Y7KgTltTUjc

Thank you:bigbow:

[billlaur]

I believe the intent of the auditor's actions are to drive visitors to his page and money into his pocket.

To the OP: Most of the roads are public/county but the sidewalks are either on private land owned by Sumter Landing CDD (SLCDD) or they are owned by the municipality which is the SLCDD. He wanted to draw attention to himself and provoke the police. He succeeded in that but it seems he didn't do quite enough due diligence.

Wrong:boxing2:

[billlaur]

[QUOTE=Bill14564;2459179]Did they or did they exercise their right to choose the activities allowed on District properties?[/QUOTE

That corner is not district property.. And the Cop should of investigated that.. Not just listen to the dispatcher. He can be held accountable, and lose his qualified immunity.

:wave:thank you

[retiredguy123]

Most sidewalks that are located adjacent to a county or state road are located on public property. That is because, if they use Federal funding, they need to comply with the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). This Federal law often requires sidewalks to be contructed in areas where they are not needed and are seldom used. People will often blame the county or state for wasting money on unnecessary sidewalk construction, when the sidewalk is required to comply with a Federal law. Courtyard villa areas in The Villages have private streets that are owned and maintained by The Villages or districts and they do not have sidewalks.

[Bill14564]

Most sidewalks that are located adjacent to a county or state road are located on public property. That is because, if they use Federal funding, they need to comply with the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). This Federal law often requires sidewalks to be contructed in areas where they are not needed and are seldom used. People will often blame the county or state for wasting money on unnecessary sidewalk construction, when the sidewalk is required to comply with a Federal law. Courtyard villa areas in The Villages have private streets that are owned and maintained by The Villages or districts and they do not have sidewalks.

I believe you mean that most county roads are required to have sidewalks so the county acquired the land and then built the sidewalks. First the land, then the roads, then more land, then sidewalks.

The sidewalks in the Villages were in place before the county had anything at all to do with the roads.

The Villages bought the land, the Villages built the roads, the Villages built the sidewalks, and only then did the county come into play. Some agreement was made that the county would maintain the roads. Perhaps the county purchased the roads that had been built or perhaps the roads were paid for through our bonds and then just turned over for maintenance. Perhaps the agreement was that if the county would maintain the roads then the Villages would install little red buttons so anyone could use the roads.

Turning over maintenance of the roads may not have included turning over ownership of the land the roads sit on OR turning over ownership of the adjacent land that the sidewalks sit on.

[bopat]

If you want to pray for the homeless and/or veterans, just pray for them. Or, if you want, do it in a socially acceptable way, like in a church or faith setting.

Signs with polarizing content, or internet services like Facebook and TikTok, amplify mental illness.

[Slainte]

Sumter County has a Veterans Court. Maybe they’d find help for him & dismiss the trespass (if there’s any validity to such as a misdemeanor charge). It sounds as though whomever said he was guilty of trespass just wanted him to move on. Normally, it’s at a business’s request and issued by police as an ‘advisory written notice that if you are found in that location again, you can be arrested & charged’. If he’s outside a business, they’d probably take him in next time if they actually gave written notice. The VA may be able to help him get the message across differently. I don’t know if there’s a Vet Center near the Villages. If he was a combat vet, they’d help.

[mraines]

Mid afternoon on a public sidewalk.the sign was handwritten on a piece of cardboard,size was approx 12x16 it’s said got bless the homeless vets….:bigbow…
Are the sidewalks really public? I think the Villages owns everything. The streets are public. The Villages would not be "enhancing" the sidewalks if they were public. By the way, for the last two protests, we were not allowed to park in the Aldi parking lot as it was "private" property. In this last protest, I was told we could park there as it was public property. So, which is it?

[Slainte]

After seeing the YouTube video of him, it’s just a scheme to get publicity & money by threatening a lawsuit. Sumter should ignore him & dismiss any ticket that may have been issued. Shyster. Not the best way to help the many homeless veterans.

[Taltarzac725]

After seeing the YouTube video of him, it’s just a scheme to get publicity & money by threatening a lawsuit. Sumter should ignore him & dismiss any ticket that may have been issued. Shyster. Not the best way to help the many homeless veterans.

You have that right. He does the same scam many places. He tries to get a response from the police departments and then sues them if they take the bait. Hopefully the Florida police departments are on to this con man.

He is taking advantage of people's concerns for homeless veterans.

[BrianL99]

Are the sidewalks really public? I think the Villages owns everything. The streets are public. The Villages would not be "enhancing" the sidewalks if they were public. By the way, for the last two protests, we were not allowed to park in the Aldi parking lot as it was "private" property. In this last protest, I was told we could park there as it was public property. So, which is it?

The sidewalks are public. The roads are public and The Villages does not own everything.

The Aldi's parking lot is "privately owned". What's that mean? It means that the owner of the Aldi's property (The Villages) can determine who gets to park there or doesn't get to park there.

Except it's not that simple.

Aldi's (or a parent company) holds a Lease on the property, that includes access to the parking lot. That access is likely not "exclusive", but shared with other tenants and perhaps with others.

But there's more.

The owner (The Villages) *may* have granted "rights" and or "licenses" for other people to use the parking lot or conceivable have granted a general easement to residents of The Villages and/or the county.

Just because a property is owned by a private entity, you can't assume no one else has the right to use it ... it's more complicated than that.

[Maker]

The Developer & The Villages spend millions of dollars a year on legal fees. They continue to sell 1000's of homes every year, with Deed Restrictions.

The Developers (Uihlein family) of Lakewood Ranch in Sarasota, sell even more, all with Deed Restrictions.

It makes me wonder why the Morse's & Uihlein family spend millions on attorneys, when the answers are right here on ToTV.

"No More Deed Restrictions, per ToTV".

Since your conclusion is from someone who "doesn't need to read the court's decision" then I'll take your advice as rubbish based upon fictional opinions without gathering any facts.

No more sign restrictions per Supreme court. Didn't say anything else about other deed restrictions. Maybe that part wasn't read either.

[BrianL99]

Since your conclusion is from someone who "doesn't need to read the court's decision" then I'll take your advice as rubbish based upon fictional opinions without gathering any facts.

No more sign restrictions per Supreme court. Didn't say anything else about other deed restrictions. Maybe that part wasn't read either.

Here's some reading material for you:

Municipal Bans on Yard Signs (https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt/olr/htm/98-R-1189.htm) ("In his decision, Justice Stevens acknowledged that towns have the right to regulate signs,"

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Two Decisions Impacting Local Sign Regulations and Flag Policies (https://bbklaw.com/resources/u-s-supreme-court-issues-two-decisions-impacting-local-sign-regulations-and-flag-policies) (City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin (Signs)
This decision involved the Supreme Court’s revisiting of its holding in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona.

Just a moment... (https://www.freedomforum.org/political-signs/) (In homeowners’ associations: Even if it’s your own house, the rules for displaying political signs in your yard if you live in an HOA may be different than in other communities. That’s because these are technically private corporations (often nonprofits) governed by a board of directors that can set rules for signs.)

Sign Language: Can an HOA Restrict Political Yards Signs? | Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C. (https://www.flblaw.com/sign-language-can-an-hoa-restrict-political-yards-signs/) ("One of the fundamental precepts which we recognize, however, is the individual’s freedom to contractually restrict, or even give up, those rights. The Cappuccios contractually agreed to abide by the provisions in the Declaration at the time of purchase, thereby relinquishing their freedom of speech concerns regarding placing signs on this property""

Sign Language: Can an HOA Restrict Political Yards Signs? | Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C. (https://www.flblaw.com/sign-language-can-an-hoa-restrict-political-yards-signs/) (Can I Post my Political Yard Signs?

"Given the nature of the issues involved, before enacting or enforcing covenants relating to signs or political signs, an HOA should consult with legal counsel. Similarly, before an owner in an HOA posts a political sign, they should review any condominium and planned community documents carefully (possibly with an attorney) to fully understand the scope and nature of the restrictions. Ideally one should know this before they purchase the home as a part of their due diligence. In many ways, you are surrendering what you may perceive to be your rights, which may include posting any signage in your yard or even window. "

https://www.hoamanagement.com/hoa-political-signs/ (Is an HOA really stifling your First Amendment rights when they prevent you from displaying a political sign?

"The answer is no. To put it briefly, the First Amendment limits federal, state, and local governments from doing things that stifle freedom of speech. That includes taking action or making laws that would inhibit the rights guaranteed by the U.S. constitution.

However, your HOA is not a part of the government. It’s a private entity, albeit a non-profit one in most cases. Sure, your HOA is subject to the governing rules enacted by government entities. But the First Amendment, by itself, does not stop your HOA from restricting HOA political signs.

A homeowner, as a party to a binding agreement with the HOA, also agrees to adhere to the regulations imposed by the association.)

https://www.siegfriedrivera.com/blog/florida-community-associations-tread-carefully-restricting-political-signs/ ("The key for associations to remember is that restrictions on freedom of speech under the First Amendment apply only in governmental or public settings, so community associations, as private non-governmental entities, are allowed to restrict signage, including political signs, in accordance with their corresponding state law. Some states have enacted legislation specifically addressing the issue, but Florida has not and neither has the state’s Supreme Court addressed the issue specifically."

& before you say that The Villages doesn't have HOA's, that's not a relevant issue. The District did not take possession of ANY private property in The Villages, and were not a party to the contract everyone signed, agreeing to be bound by the Deed Restrictions & Covenant to benefit the Developer. Despite your assertion that you can "reclaim a right you signed away", you can't just "change your mind" about a private contract you signed.

The District would likely be prohibited from adopting a sign regulation that ran afoul of Reed vs Gilbert. The District is not a party to the agreements signed by homeowners in The Villages.

[Maker]

Here's some reading material for you:

Municipal Bans on Yard Signs (https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt/olr/htm/98-R-1189.htm) ("In his decision, Justice Stevens acknowledged that towns have the right to regulate signs,"

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Two Decisions Impacting Local Sign Regulations and Flag Policies (https://bbklaw.com/resources/u-s-supreme-court-issues-two-decisions-impacting-local-sign-regulations-and-flag-policies) (City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin (Signs)
This decision involved the Supreme Court’s revisiting of its holding in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona.

Just a moment... (https://www.freedomforum.org/political-signs/) (In homeowners’ associations: Even if it’s your own house, the rules for displaying political signs in your yard if you live in an HOA may be different than in other communities. That’s because these are technically private corporations (often nonprofits) governed by a board of directors that can set rules for signs.)

Sign Language: Can an HOA Restrict Political Yards Signs? | Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C. (https://www.flblaw.com/sign-language-can-an-hoa-restrict-political-yards-signs/) ("One of the fundamental precepts which we recognize, however, is the individual’s freedom to contractually restrict, or even give up, those rights. The Cappuccios contractually agreed to abide by the provisions in the Declaration at the time of purchase, thereby relinquishing their freedom of speech concerns regarding placing signs on this property""

Sign Language: Can an HOA Restrict Political Yards Signs? | Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C. (https://www.flblaw.com/sign-language-can-an-hoa-restrict-political-yards-signs/) (Can I Post my Political Yard Signs?

"Given the nature of the issues involved, before enacting or enforcing covenants relating to signs or political signs, an HOA should consult with legal counsel. Similarly, before an owner in an HOA posts a political sign, they should review any condominium and planned community documents carefully (possibly with an attorney) to fully understand the scope and nature of the restrictions. Ideally one should know this before they purchase the home as a part of their due diligence. In many ways, you are surrendering what you may perceive to be your rights, which may include posting any signage in your yard or even window. "

https://www.hoamanagement.com/hoa-political-signs/ (Is an HOA really stifling your First Amendment rights when they prevent you from displaying a political sign?

"The answer is no. To put it briefly, the First Amendment limits federal, state, and local governments from doing things that stifle freedom of speech. That includes taking action or making laws that would inhibit the rights guaranteed by the U.S. constitution.

However, your HOA is not a part of the government. It’s a private entity, albeit a non-profit one in most cases. Sure, your HOA is subject to the governing rules enacted by government entities. But the First Amendment, by itself, does not stop your HOA from restricting HOA political signs.

A homeowner, as a party to a binding agreement with the HOA, also agrees to adhere to the regulations imposed by the association.)

https://www.siegfriedrivera.com/blog/florida-community-associations-tread-carefully-restricting-political-signs/ ("The key for associations to remember is that restrictions on freedom of speech under the First Amendment apply only in governmental or public settings, so community associations, as private non-governmental entities, are allowed to restrict signage, including political signs, in accordance with their corresponding state law. Some states have enacted legislation specifically addressing the issue, but Florida has not and neither has the state’s Supreme Court addressed the issue specifically."

& before you say that The Villages doesn't have HOA's, that's not a relevant issue. The District did not take possession of ANY private property in The Villages, and were not a party to the contract everyone signed, agreeing to be bound by the Deed Restrictions & Covenant to benefit the Developer. Despite your assertion that you can "reclaim a right you signed away", you can't just "change your mind" about a private contract you signed.

The District would likely be prohibited from adopting a sign regulation that ran afoul of Reed vs Gilbert. The District is not a party to the agreements signed by homeowners in The Villages.

Your examples are great. However, since a CDD is not an HOA, everything related to HOA rules is not relevant here. Conclusions made based upon that information are wrong.

A CDD exists a subpart of state government as a regulated agency. Therefore it does fall under the scope of Reed v Gilbert. Therefore a CDD cannot do anything to restrict speech, and therefore lacks legal authority to take any enforcement actions. The government, and all it far reaching agencies and related organizations, are bound by Reed. Opinions against that are simply wrong.

As far as I am concerned, this issue is closed. Tired of your mis-quotes, invalid arguments based upon invalid criteria, and your attacking attitude (that violates the rules here). The law is clear, and if you choose to ignore it, that's your problem.

[ffresh]

Your examples are great. However, since a CDD is not an HOA, everything related to HOA rules is not relevant here. Conclusions made based upon that information are wrong.

A CDD exists a subpart of state government as a regulated agency. Therefore it does fall under the scope of Reed v Gilbert. Therefore a CDD cannot do anything to restrict speech, and therefore lacks legal authority to take any enforcement actions. The government, and all it far reaching agencies and related organizations, are bound by Reed. Opinions against that are simply wrong.

As far as I am concerned, this issue is closed. Tired of your mis-quotes, invalid arguments based upon invalid criteria, and your attacking attitude (that violates the rules here). The law is clear, and if you choose to ignore it, that's your problem.

:clap2: :a040:

[Taltarzac725]

Here's some reading material for you:

Municipal Bans on Yard Signs (https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt/olr/htm/98-R-1189.htm) ("In his decision, Justice Stevens acknowledged that towns have the right to regulate signs,"

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Two Decisions Impacting Local Sign Regulations and Flag Policies (https://bbklaw.com/resources/u-s-supreme-court-issues-two-decisions-impacting-local-sign-regulations-and-flag-policies) (City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin (Signs)
This decision involved the Supreme Court’s revisiting of its holding in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona.

Just a moment... (https://www.freedomforum.org/political-signs/) (In homeowners’ associations: Even if it’s your own house, the rules for displaying political signs in your yard if you live in an HOA may be different than in other communities. That’s because these are technically private corporations (often nonprofits) governed by a board of directors that can set rules for signs.)

Sign Language: Can an HOA Restrict Political Yards Signs? | Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C. (https://www.flblaw.com/sign-language-can-an-hoa-restrict-political-yards-signs/) ("One of the fundamental precepts which we recognize, however, is the individual’s freedom to contractually restrict, or even give up, those rights. The Cappuccios contractually agreed to abide by the provisions in the Declaration at the time of purchase, thereby relinquishing their freedom of speech concerns regarding placing signs on this property""

Sign Language: Can an HOA Restrict Political Yards Signs? | Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C. (https://www.flblaw.com/sign-language-can-an-hoa-restrict-political-yards-signs/) (Can I Post my Political Yard Signs?

"Given the nature of the issues involved, before enacting or enforcing covenants relating to signs or political signs, an HOA should consult with legal counsel. Similarly, before an owner in an HOA posts a political sign, they should review any condominium and planned community documents carefully (possibly with an attorney) to fully understand the scope and nature of the restrictions. Ideally one should know this before they purchase the home as a part of their due diligence. In many ways, you are surrendering what you may perceive to be your rights, which may include posting any signage in your yard or even window. "

https://www.hoamanagement.com/hoa-political-signs/ (Is an HOA really stifling your First Amendment rights when they prevent you from displaying a political sign?

"The answer is no. To put it briefly, the First Amendment limits federal, state, and local governments from doing things that stifle freedom of speech. That includes taking action or making laws that would inhibit the rights guaranteed by the U.S. constitution.

However, your HOA is not a part of the government. It’s a private entity, albeit a non-profit one in most cases. Sure, your HOA is subject to the governing rules enacted by government entities. But the First Amendment, by itself, does not stop your HOA from restricting HOA political signs.

A homeowner, as a party to a binding agreement with the HOA, also agrees to adhere to the regulations imposed by the association.)

https://www.siegfriedrivera.com/blog/florida-community-associations-tread-carefully-restricting-political-signs/ ("The key for associations to remember is that restrictions on freedom of speech under the First Amendment apply only in governmental or public settings, so community associations, as private non-governmental entities, are allowed to restrict signage, including political signs, in accordance with their corresponding state law. Some states have enacted legislation specifically addressing the issue, but Florida has not and neither has the state’s Supreme Court addressed the issue specifically."

& before you say that The Villages doesn't have HOA's, that's not a relevant issue. The District did not take possession of ANY private property in The Villages, and were not a party to the contract everyone signed, agreeing to be bound by the Deed Restrictions & Covenant to benefit the Developer. Despite your assertion that you can "reclaim a right you signed away", you can't just "change your mind" about a private contract you signed.

The District would likely be prohibited from adopting a sign regulation that ran afoul of Reed vs Gilbert. The District is not a party to the agreements signed by homeowners in The Villages.

I am not a real property lawyer licensed in Florida but this poster's position looks like the most likely to follow the law.

[BrianL99]

Your examples are great. However, since a CDD is not an HOA, everything related to HOA rules is not relevant here. Conclusions made based upon that information are wrong.

A CDD exists a subpart of state government as a regulated agency. Therefore it does fall under the scope of Reed v Gilbert. Therefore a CDD cannot do anything to restrict speech, and therefore lacks legal authority to take any enforcement actions. The government, and all it far reaching agencies and related organizations, are bound by Reed. Opinions against that are simply wrong.

...


The lesson here folks, is don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Do your own research, without an agenda, and find the truth.

Everyone who's bought a home in The Villages, has Deed Restrictions and Covenants they signed and agreed to. We all made an agreement with our Seller, who made a contract with the Developer. We're bound by.that contract, unless and until the State of Florida changes their statutes or some court issues a contrary opinion.

The truth be told, the vast majority of Villagers bought in TV, for just those reasons. We liked what it was like when we shopped and most of us would prefer it stays exactly as it was, the day we bought. Those who believe we shouldn't have rules and restrictions, shouldn't have bought here and should perhaps move somewhere else.

[Road-Runner]

Well you guessed wrong

Perhaps, that's what guesses are after all. Strange that I see people holding these signs up at the 44/Morse intersection all the time accepting money? I 'guess' those are just tips.

[Taltarzac725]

Perhaps, that's what guesses are after all. Strange that I see people holding these signs up at the 44/Morse intersection all the time accepting money? I 'guess' those are just tips.

That is a County road. Not outside the parking lot of the Villages' office with all the various tour buses going in-and-out of the parking lot.

[Maker]

The lesson here folks, is don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Do your own research, without an agenda, and find the truth.

Everyone who's bought a home in The Villages, has Deed Restrictions and Covenants they signed and agreed to. We all made an agreement with our Seller, who made a contract with the Developer. We're bound by.that contract, unless and until the State of Florida changes their statutes or some court issues a contrary opinion.

The truth be told, the vast majority of Villagers bought in TV, for just those reasons. We liked what it was like when we shopped and most of us would prefer it stays exactly as it was, the day we bought. Those who believe we shouldn't have rules and restrictions, shouldn't have bought here and should perhaps move somewhere else.

Some court (actually the supreme court) has already made a decision contrary to your OPINION. It is published with detailed examples and is quite clear, indisputable, and is in full force for the entire country (even here).

Why do YOU think you "speak for the vast majority" of anything? Who appointed your OPINION as the truth? We must have missed that election.

Therein lies the problem.

[BrianL99]

As far as I am concerned, this issue is closed.




Why do YOU think you "speak for the vast majority" of anything? Who appointed your OPINION as the truth? We must have missed that election.

Therein lies the problem.

Or not closed.

The problem arises in that some folks with an agenda, seem to think their interpretation of what they read, is the only interpretation.

I don't think you "missed the election". 70,000 property owners in The Villages have spoken. They chose to buy a home, with restricted rights and agreed to abide by those restrictions.

Not only did 70,000 folks agree, folks continue to do so every day, at an astounding rate.

Anyone who bought a home in The Villages, thinking the restrictions were going to be relaxed, is in the exact same boat as the woman who married me and thought I was going to change. It doesn't work that way.

[Maker]

Or not closed.

The problem arises in that some folks with an agenda, seem to think their interpretation of what they read, is the only interpretation.

I don't think you "missed the election". 70,000 property owners in The Villages have spoken. They chose to buy a home, with restricted rights and agreed to abide by those restrictions.

Not only did 70,000 folks agree, folks continue to do so every day, at an astounding rate.

Anyone who bought a home in The Villages, thinking the restrictions were going to be relaxed, is in the exact same boat as the woman who married me and thought I was going to change. It doesn't work that way.

Once again, you missed the point.
Agree somewhat that people LIKELY did not think the rules would change.
But SCOTUS did CHANGE the rules, and your opinion against that change has no standing. Ruling is done, and like it or not, the rules are now different. No matter how much you bring up ridiculous invalid examples (your opinions about what purchasers want, how your wife views your attitude), the ruling still wins.

Perhaps, since you disagree with SCOTUS, go petition them for a clarification.

Condolences to wife. I have some great associates that might help her out.
Go ahead and post again. You seem to like having the last word on everything.

[Taltarzac725]

I remember a Mexican -American couple or maybe of some other Hispanic heritage on the corner of Belvedere ( CR 101) and CR466 with a sign that they really needed work. They also had a quite young boy with them.


They were still there after I had done my grocery shopping.

[Taltarzac725]

Once again, you missed the point.
Agree somewhat that people LIKELY did not think the rules would change.
But SCOTUS did CHANGE the rules, and your opinion against that change has no standing. Ruling is done, and like it or not, the rules are now different. No matter how much you bring up ridiculous invalid examples (your opinions about what purchasers want, how your wife views your attitude), the ruling still wins.

Perhaps, since you disagree with SCOTUS, go petition them for a clarification.

Condolences to wife. I have some great associates that might help her out.
Go ahead and post again. You seem to like having the last word on everything.

SCOTUS is rarely clear about anything. They usually leave a lot of work for the lawyers and judges.


Yard signs | The First Amendment Encyclopedia (https://share.google/kl4vGG08QxWYkKqs2)