[billlaur]

Originally Posted by 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….

[billlaur]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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]

Originally Posted by 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".

Originally Posted by billlaur

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]

Originally Posted by bark4me

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

No one thanked you for your service? 😁

[mjfmicheal]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Chellybean

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.

Originally Posted by Chellybean

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

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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

Originally Posted by Chellybean

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

Originally Posted by Chellybean

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]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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]

Originally Posted by 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".

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


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

Originally Posted by Maker

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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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

go on you tube search jeff gray