Author: HOAGOV

"The Voice for HOA Constitutionality". I have been a long-term homeowner rights authority, advocate and author of "The HOA-Land Nation Within America" (2019) and" Establishing the New America of independent HOA principalities" (2008). See HOA Constitutional Government at http://pvtgov.org. My efforts with HOAs took me to a broader concern that was deeply affecting the constituionality of HOAs. Those broad societal and plotical concerns caused me to start this new blog for my commentaries on the State of the New America.

Restoring American principles and way of life in HOA regimes

This is another HOA Enlightenment Movement article on speaking frankly and openly about HOA abuse, about common sense and reasonableness, about the rejection of the HOA attorney insistence on CC&Rs enforcement uber alles, and about legal decisions concerning the rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities of those living in HOAs who have not surrendered their US citizenship.  The fact that the media are publishing more and more about “the Truth in HOAs” signals the twilight of the unspoken alliance of  “No Negatives About HOAs.”  It’s about time!

I congratulate the author, Eve Samples, for spreading the word about this event where it cost an HOA $250,000 in legal fees over a homeowner’s screen doors.  I congratulate Martin County, FL Judge Roberts for her perspective that returns America to the people and not defend these usurper HOA private governments. I congratulate TCPalm for publishing this return to sanity incident.

Judge Roberts held that the HOA was

championing the letter over the spirit, evasion over the truth and quibbling over common sense. . . . The truth, despite evasive answers to the contrary, is that he [the homeowner] was never going to get approval, and rather than deal with that issue directly, the petitioner [HOA] chose subterfuge to create the impossibility.

The HOA president, a True Believer, said she would not change her attitude.   “[I would change] Nothing, to be honest with you, because the violation was there.” The new president, a Reformer, believes that,

it might be reasonable to ask residents to vote on legal action that exceeds a certain dollar amount. . . .  to have litigation reviewed by experts other than the association’s attorneys, to ‘see if the association’s position really is well founded.’ 

(This is a direct reference to the rules of civil court, generally R 11(a) requiring the attorney to make a reasonable inquiry into the facts.)

Those seeking justice and fair play in their HOA should spread this Commentary to all other interested parties to help them see the light.  We all are Americans living under the US Constitution, and must be subject to the equal application of the laws, not to special real estate laws.

And the HOA Enlightenment Movement grows . . .

A few more enlightenment articles (see the age of HOA enlightenment is coming?) by the legal-academic aristocrats have appeared in the media and on the internet. Among these modern pretenders to Philosopher-Kings, the Adams-Kessler (Calif.) blog warns about HOA managers engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, Managers Practicing Law.  Then there’s the past president of CAI “Central,” Ellen Hirsch de Haan, at the infamous Florida lobbyist law firm of Becker & Poliakoff on the need for neighborhood watch group oversight. Guard yourself from lawsuits against your HOA.

And more websites and bloggers are adding to the coverage of the Real Stories of HOA-Land, like with, Think Twice Before Placing Blame on Owners.   Congratulations!   The media has also been providing increasing attention to the real happenings in HOA-Land rather than just mouthing the pro-HOA “party line.”    

And so must all those homeowner rights advocate websites join in the Enlightenment Movement today!  At least post these enlightenment articles.  Let your followers know that these legal-academics didn’t wake up a few days ago and say, My God!  Look what’s going on in HOA-Land!   That they have been deceived all these years!

the age of HOA enlightenment is coming?

I’m beginning to see more and more evidence of enlightenment by pro-HOA supporters. The dogmatic insistence on enforcing the CC&Rs is falling away to a proper concern for the principles of democratic government and the fair and just treatment of homeowners. The strict view of the covenants is weakening.   There is a growing awareness that HOA boards are governed by other laws and ethical and moral considerations, if indeed HOA regimes are to meet the CAI propaganda of vibrant and harmonious communities.

The Berding-Weil blog, Condo-issues.com (California), shows recent evidence of this enlightenment as is recent posts introduce a degree of reality of events. Now, Donna DiMaggio Berger in Florida reminds boards of good government practices with,

Lastly, when you poll your community members and they voice an opinion on a proposed course of action, boards who disregard that input do so at their own peril. This is not to suggest that the membership must be polled on every course of action, particularly on routine maintenance which is one of a board’s main functions, but if you ask for input on discretionary spending it’s probably best to heed the message your members delivered.

 Avoiding the appearance of self interest as an association director

 Wow! What a thought — poll your community! Why didn’t I think of that very democratic tool? As claimed, the HOA board is the representative of the owner-members. Gee, asking for input is a radical suggestion for an undemocratic corporate form of government. Long overdue as HOA regimes are de facto political governments. Congratulations Donna! Excellent message for HOA boards as HOA member servants.

Now, Mr. Berding, why didn’t you address the recognition of the HOA de facto government in your “Reform Community Associations?” post? After all, you do hold a PhD in Government from the prestigious Claremont School. Your message was that HOAs were too big to fail, and we all have to live with the way things are.

 Every year the California legislature, and the legislatures of other states tinker with the enabling statutes for homeowner’s associations, but these efforts are usually paternalistic, constituent-favoring amendments that do little or nothing to solve the fundamental problems.

 How about the simple amendment that would go a long way to solving problems by restoring the equal application of the laws and due process protections of the 14th Amendment to homeowners, as it should be, and create a unified country rather than a myriad of independent HOA principalities?

The association hereby waivers and surrenders any rights or claims it may have under law and herewith unconditionally and irrevocably agrees 1) to be bound by the US and State Constitutions, and laws of the State within which it is located, as if it were a subdivision of the state and a local public government entity, and 2) that constitutional law shall prevail as the supreme law of the land including over conflicting laws and legal doctrines of equitable servitudes.  

HOA member Declaration of US and State citizenship.

 

AZ judicial conduct comm. on hidden HOA attorney case: who let the cat out of the bag?

In my June 10th post, Judicial misconduct complaint filed for sealing records in AZ case against HOA attorney, I brought to your attention the fact that the records on a case involving a CAI member attorney sued for aiding and abetting and disgorgement could not be found on the court’s public access website.   Not even a notice that the case was sealed.  The complaint alleged that the “disappearance” of the records from public view was a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 123(d).

A response was received from the Commission on Judicial Conduct Staff Attorney who was more concerned with “shooting the messenger” rather than with taking a few minutes, like I did, and verify from the court records themselves the truth of my allegations.  Not even mentioned in her response.

My reply to the Staff Attorney, in part, reads,

The tone of the letter gives the impression of another angry person filing wild and unsupported accusations against a judge. It is condescending, insulting and attacks the messenger without any reference to conducting a duty bound investigation into the easily verifiable facts — the court records themselves.

The information that I provided is more than sufficient for a bona fide investigation of the facts by the Staff Attorney.  Just 10- 20  minutes on the Internet Pinal County case public information web page, followed by a call to the Pinal County Superior Court Clerk, as I undertook, would quickly and  independently verify the complaint (Exhibit B) that the court records were sealed in violation of Rule 123(d) – public access has been denied and denied without notice. 

The entire reply can be read here . . .

 

What makes a good HOA lawyer?

A good lawyer is highly skilled in creating doubt and confusion through the use of semantic deconstruction.  By “deconstruction” I mean analyzing, dissecting and fragmenting the sentence grammatically to isolate individual words or phrases and to explore alternative definitions.  The poster child example was demonstrated by Pres. Clinton: “It depends on what the meaning of is, is.”

Other specific, well known examples are from the judiciary itself, where in the Kelo decision the court redefined “public use,” as found in the 5th Amendment, to mean “public purpose”; and in the Citizens United decision equating a corporation to a real person with rights to contribute to election campaigns.

A good way to understand this tactic is the forest and trees analogy.  The HOA attorneys ignore the description of the forest (the common meaning of the sentence statement) and attempt to redefine the individual trees that make up the forest (the words and phrases used in the sentence).  By redefining the descriptions of the trees, the attorneys create doubt and an alternative interpretation in their favor. And by doing so, they have redefined the forest to mean something else other than what was obviously intended. The statement, as commonly accepted, now has several alternative meanings.

My favorite example is CAI’s insistence that HOAs are not governments but businesses.  CAI makes use of the archaic Marsh v. Alabama public functions test that reduces the long held legal doctrine of a government (the sentence) to a test of a few factors (the trees). Does the HOA possess the functions of a government?  Well, the question can be reversed to ask: Does a government possess the functions of a business?  This approach gets us nowhere.  The “trees” have become the focus, the substitute legal meaning, of deciding the definition of what a government is, and the traditional legal doctrine is summarily dismissed as irrelevant.  It is a defect in our system of jurisprudence.

If you attempt to find the meaning of a vague concept in the dictionary by pursuing the words used to define it, say the word “government,” you quickly find yourself in a circular rut.  Justice Potter encountered this difficulty in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) when he wrote that the Supreme Court “was faced with the task of trying to define what may be indefinable,” referring to the difficulty of defining the broad concept of what is pornography.  He admits to not being able to intelligently define pornography, “But I know it when I see it.” 

This sums up the reality of attempting to define concepts that are well understood in our society, but escape a unique and distinguishing definition. Only by specifying examples that distinguish between what is and what is not can a society clearly arrive at an acceptable definition.

These “word games,” as I call them, this one shot redefinition of long held concepts (the court seeks some means to decide an issue and picks one, almost arbitrarily), is very dangerous and undermines a stable society.  It, along with “political correctness,” is Newspeak (from Orwell’s 1984) where a person can no longer make meaningful distinctions about reality, and where black can mean white.

Good lawyer play these word games very skillfully, and the judges follow along with redefinitions to suit the particular issue before them, rather than re-examining the whole concept that is in question.  Opposing lawyers for homeowner rights advocates must not lose sight of the broader picture, the forest.