Perhaps you recall that some of us voiced the view that the class of equitable owners represented by Farr should not be locked out from becoming candidates in the future.  

Yet the faction represented by Horne & others had no problem at all flaunting the court's finding, pushing thru its new bylaw, formalizing the exclusion from running.  They had no problems excluding an entire class of equitable owners, even though such class of owners are specifically recognized by the charter, for purposes of voting as an OP member.  One can be an OP voting member.  He/she can faithfully be paying our assessments.  Can buy annual amenity memberships.  But you can't run for the position of board member.  That's Horne's view, as well as the bylaws people's views, for example Jacobs. 

Leads to the question--Who are those board folks most actively demonstrating bias against fellow members of OP as defined by our charter ??   

Resembles an administrative sword thrown in Farr's and the court's direction.  You can surmise my views.   

And some folks here have admired how Farr has conducted himself on the board, after winning his case.  Yes, seems he's held no grudges at all, and he has given attention to the business at hand. Farr has demonstrated how a [former] equitable owner is a good choice as a board member.