1. Yes, it's a whole new look! Have questions or need help? Please post your question in the New Forum Questions thread Click the X to the right to dismiss this notice
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Seeing tons of unread posts after the upgrade? See this thread for help. Click the X to the right to dismiss this notice
    Dismiss Notice

2014 Southern Walk HOA Elections

Discussion in 'Broadlands Community Issues' started by cogs, Nov 23, 2014.

  1. hornerjo

    hornerjo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,332
    Likes Received:
    25
    Can't tell who the suit is brought by from county website but the SWHOA isn't mentioned. We'll find out more tomorrow perhaps.
     
  2. cogs

    cogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2012
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    57
    Yes, more than two years ago, when I started asking questions on the Facebook page and here in this forum, I was accused of being an OB agent. That's their way of diverting the attention away from the issues.
     
  3. Capricorn1964

    Capricorn1964 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,789
    Likes Received:
    54
    Its the county vs the individual that we all are familiar with. Case is currently under appeal per county court website. Case has to do with filing a false police report. :eek: Appeal will be heard on May 8th per county court website.

    This is NOT private information as its all public as the County publishes this information via their websites.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2015
  4. KTdid

    KTdid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,430
    Likes Received:
    148
    If it's a criminal case, I think the burden is on the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but if it's a Civil case (if Sashi sues), he would have to prove the allegations are false.
     
  5. JAGMAN

    JAGMAN Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    13
    It is a criminal (misdemeanor ) case and the District Court (bench trial) rendered a guilty verdict. The defendant has appealed to the Loudoun Circuity Court. The Circuit Court has jurisdiction over all appeals from general district, and appeals from the general district court is heard from the beginning, that is, as if no previous trial (de novo) had taken place. In Loudoun County, misdemeanor appeals cases are heard on the second Friday of each month at 9:00 am. When a defendant requests a jury trial for a misdemeanor appeal, the defendant will appear for scheduling only on misdemeanor appeal day, and will receive a date for trial at that time.
     
  6. T8erman

    T8erman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    249
    Let me rant a bit...

    With regards to cogs/shashi, my concerns are 2 fold. 1st - when shashi started to make "waves" on the FB page and got attacked by others and then got removed. Supportive or argumentative, I feel any homeowner has a right to voice their opinion. 2nd - when it appears the SWHOA changed the rules to specifically keep him off the Board.
    I know Erika was not please when VM cast their votes (only time they have done that I think) to keep her off the Broadlands HOA, but I am surprised she/board would stoop (allegedly) to the same level as VM. It gave me a serious impression that they were trying to hide something.

    I am extremely happy with the outcome, so far, with OB looking on the way out with regards to video and telephone. I think the SWHOA did an admirable job with regards to "results" but the lack of transparency and communication caused some serious issues/concerns within the community. Was the price worth it?
     
  7. cogs

    cogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2012
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    57
    My understanding is, VM casting votes may be an usual event but not illegal, no?

    All of us are. But there seems to be questions about the ownership of exclusive easements.

    Lets start by giving credit where it is due. In this case, the root cause whole thing is Landsdowne's success in getting a ruling declaring OB's video exclusivity rights are unlawful.

    After 4th Circuit court of appeals upheld Landsdowne ruling and dismissed southern walk appeal, SW went to the federal district court again. Judge dismissed SW's complaint on May 13, 2014 because (in part).... :

    ==============================================
    ii. The Court's Jurisdiction over Count I as to OpenBand Is Mooted by OpenBand's Voluntary Relinquishment of its Video-Exclusivity Rights in Response to an Applicable Fourth Circuit Ruling.

    The Court holds that no Article III case or controversy remains over video-exclusivity rights because OpenBand has voluntarily relinquished its rights not in an effort to evade judicial review but in response to an applicable Fourth Circuit decision invalidating OpenBand's video exclusivity rights over another development. The Court is persuaded that it would be unreasonable to expect OpenBand to reassert its video-exclusivity rights, when OpenBand recognizes that reassertion of its rights could trigger federal regulatory violations and when OpenBand has taken affirmative steps to dismantle its video-exclusivity scheme by reaching out to competitors and developing video-servicing contingencies.

    There is no question that Southern Walk and OpenBand were in a live dispute over the validity of video exclusivity. In the predecessor action, OpenBand vigorously defended, and Southern Walk vigorously contested, the ability of OpenBand to enforce its video-exclusivity rights. The question is not whether an Article III case or controversy ever existed over video exclusivity. The question is whether an Article III case or controversy remains. OpenBand argues that "the purported conflict over video exclusivity is both hypothetical and contrary to the current state of affairs," (Doc. 15, at 19-20), because it stopped enforcing its video-exclusivity rights over Southern Walk in response to a Fourth Circuit decision invalidating its video exclusivity rights over Lansdowne.
    ...
    OpenBand has met its burden. In April 2013, after the Fourth Circuit invalidated OpenBand's video-exclusivity rights over Lansdowne, OpenBand responded by ceasing to enforce its parallel rights over Southern Walk. {See Doc. 15, at 19.) The record does not reveal a single instance of enforcement occurring after issuance of the Lansdowne decision. {See Doc. 25, at 3-4.) Additionally, following oral argument on the Motions to Dismiss, OpenBand filed with the Court an acknowledgment that the Lansdowne decision applies to its rights over Southern Walk. {See Doc. 29.) Specifically, OpenBand "acknowledge[d] that the rulings of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [in Lansdowne] and the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [in Lansdowne] apply equally to the parallel agreements at issue in this case...
    ===============================================

    As you can see, long before SWHOA did any magic, Openband already relinquished video exclusivity rights in response to Federal Court ruling against it in Landsdowne case. Guess what would have happened if SWHOA did not engage in any litigation? OB would have still relinquished video exclusivity rights. Court ruling attached.

    Giving credit to SWHOA is fine, but lets acknowledge Landsdowne also at the same time.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: May 8, 2015
  8. hornerjo

    hornerjo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,332
    Likes Received:
    25
    A jury trail was requested, date set for 9/1/2015.
     

Share This Page