An Opinion By Jan Bergemann

Posted July 31, 2004

I'm getting furious when people trample on our First Amendment Rights! And I get even more furious when officers of the court are quoted in a newspaper article saying: "Most condos have an antisolicitation rule of some type," Mezer said. "It's in their declaration of rules and regulations." He argues that those rules supersede even constitutional rights.

Recently this e-mail has been circulated on the Internet:

Until reading the article "Condo calls newsletter a nuisance", I was under the impression that the note about sending our constitution abroad like our soldiers was just a joke. But it seems it has to be taken seriously. When I grew up after WW II in Germany, headlines accused Communist Russia of banishing citizens to Siberia -- those Russian citizens who dared to speak up. And in school we were told that the USA is the great example in this world for protecting citizens' rights and "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"!

It seems these association attorneys use every possibility to trample on our constitution with their magic interpretation of "contract law".

But last I heard is that a contract is "a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties, in which all parties enter voluntarily.”  And this contract can only be changed by agreement of all parties involved.

But here you have a clear case where even the appointed arbitrator of a government agency decided that the owner is within his rights -- obviously a decision the board and the attorney didn't like. What's easier than just changing the "contract" and going after the distributor of the newsletter again?

The distributor of the newsletter has a contract, I guess? Was he asked if he agrees to change this contract, which suddenly includes prohibition of distribution of a newsletter?

If he agreed to this change, the board is definitely within its rights to go after him again. But if he didn't agree, so what?

According to the attorney, this contract definitely supersedes our constitution!

And listen to this generous offer: "Turner said the board has offered to include Ludwig's bulletins in its quarterly newsletter - but he added that they would be edited for content and length."

Welcome to censorship! I think I missed the actual name of the association newsletter. Maybe it is called "PRAVDA?"

Actually, I sometimes wonder why these specialized association attorneys haven't yet  found a legislator willing to sponsor a bill allowing these attorneys to banish these few "disgruntled homeowners" to Siberia? In recent times, they even dared to ask legislators to reform the governing statutes and give owners back certain rights? Gee, what is this world coming to?  Daring to challenge the absolute authority of boards and attorneys?

But I find it remarkable that always the same names pop up when ugly headlines are making the news. Just a funny coincidence?

I guess we wasted a lot of time during recent Florida HOA Task Force meetings trying to figure out good wording for the proposed DISCLOSURE FORM.

Somebody made a last minute change to the bill, so Paragraph 7 now reads:

"THE DEVELOPER MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP OR THE APPROVAL OF THE PARCEL OWNERS."

That would definitely be a contract people should NOT sign, unless they don't mind signing away their rights -- and their money!

I would say the Task Force members should have just made it quick and have the disclosure form read: