Motion to Intervene by Arizona HOA member denied without reason!
With a simple statement, the Court has permitted a default judgment, that the OAH adjudication statute is unconstitutional, to stand! By a default decision, the national CAI/HOA lobbyists have struck down a statute without any argument by the real parties in interest, the homeowners, or by the Arizona Legislature, or by the Attorney General. In spite of the Attorney General’s brief in favor of constitutionality that was submitted in the underlying Waugaman case. Who will defend the people? As our President said during his campaign, “You are on your own!”
The HOA-landers of New America won a decisive battle, a battle where the State of Arizona failed to stand up and defend constitutional protections for “equal justice under the law.” With no rationale supplied, the judge makes it difficult to argue for an appeal.
“MINUTE ENTRY [2/18]
The Court has received and considered the Motion to Intervene by George K. Staropoli.
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.”
The Court has received and considered the Motion to Intervene by George K. Staropoli.
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.”
In my motion, filed as a member of an Arizona HOA, I wrote, in part,
“Furthermore, the failure of any of the defendants to respond and defend the constitutionality of the statute allows intervention under R 24(a), ‘unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.’ ‘Because an intervenor of right may be seriously harmed if not permitted to intervene, the court should be reluctant to dismiss a request for intervention.’ Winner Enterprises, Ltd v. Superior Court, 765 P.2d 116 (1988). The Winner court held that because the time frame was shortened by the special action [as this case] and that other parties would not be prejudiced, it allowed the intervention even though a judgment had been rendered.”
HOA Constitutional Government 
From my Pro Se (Pro Per) perspective, this case is still a default judgment. No discussion of my motion was supplied by the Judge, just a flat denial. The second required filing under the Rules, is my Answer to the HOA Complaint, and it’s not one that requires the judge to decide or to make a judgment. My Answer would make me another defendant in the case, the only bona fide defendant, for the judge to decide after time for the HOA to Reply.
These are two separate steps — first approve, then decide after HOA response.
As for the Legislature, repeated appeals have been made for corrective legislation, but no bill has been file this session.