Category: amicus civitas

friend of the state

Business Judgment Rule: an outstanding con job!

In short, the business judgment rule (BJR) is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers to a private entity.  The rule essentially allows the judge to defer to the HOA board as best to decide the matter,  denying the due process of law for citizens to be heard in court.  It is an unequal protection of the laws! However, the lawsuit was before the court to obtain an independent and supposedly unbiased application of the law. Think about it! The court is rubberstamping the BOD’s decision. Say what!

It’s nothing more than an understandingly successful con job fostered upon HOA members.  The BJR is a poster child for the need for advocates to be fully educated about the laws, government, and the courts.  STOP THE CON!

First, be aware that you will not find “business judgment rule” anywhere in state statutes and codes, that’s why it’s referred to as a “rule.”  What the reader will find are references to the duties and obligations of directors and officers to be fair, without conflicts, and acting in the best interest of the HOA. This is the basis for the misguided presumption.

Let me explain as best as I could and keep this complex issue as simple as possible. The courts’ adoption and continuing support for  the BJR avoids and ignores several constitutional issues at play: 1) delegation of legislative powers, 2) the HOA as a state actor, functioning in the place of municipal government, and 3) the judicial scrutiny doctrine testing the constitutionality of a laws. 

Read the full paper here: the con job

The Collected Writings TOC 1

Announcing “HOA Constitutional Government: the continuing battle,” is now available on Amazon as a Kindle eBook. See https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CSC5LCY8. Paperback to follow.

I have included a table of contents of 56-issues reflecting perspectives, views, opinions, and documentation that point the way to HOA substantive reforms.  Readers may not agree, accept, or like what is stated in these issues that have been essentially avoided over the years; they are of immense educational value  and necessary for a realistic picture of HOA-Land. Part 2 of the TOC to follow.

See: HOA Constitutional Government: collected posts.

I.  On Reform Legislation . . .

d.  Decl. of Indep. from HOA government — 2000 . . .

e.  A united, national front to HOA reform legislation (2023)      . . .

f.   Two distinct levels for HOA legislation (2019)   . . .

g.  Analysis of The Homes Association Handbook (2006) . . .

h.  America’s homeland: HOA law vs. Home rule law (2022)        . . .

i.   Preface to HOA Common Sense (2021)    . . .

j.   HOA Common Sense, No. 1: The New America of HOA-Land (2013) . . .

k.  the NJ Supreme Court opinion in the Twin Rivers HOA case (2008) . . .

l.   CAI firmly supports the New America of HOA-Land (2011)     . . .

m. Authoritarianism in America; authoritarianism in HOA-Land (2022) . . .

l.   AZ bill, SB 1148, seeks to restore OAH adjudication of HOA disputes (2011) . . .

m. Arizona’s new “Take That George!” law: defend HOA statutes (2010)           . . .

n.  AZ Rep. explains failure of HOA reform legislation (2013)      . . .

o.  The Florida (HB 1397): police powers and the loss of fundamental rights (2009)  

p.  Landmark FL HOA law imposes criminal conduct (2023)       . . .

q.  Colorado senator’s guide to effective HOA legislation (2013)  . . .

r.  NC reform bills need your support (2023)          . . .

s.  North Carolina: second battleground for people’s rights in HOAs (2013) .  .

t.  CA bill AB 1410 –  a step backwards for HOA homeowner rights (2022)       .  .

u.  Substantive SC HOA reform bill – end foreclosure (2019)       . . .

v.  Effective HOA reform legislation (2023) . . .

w. HOA member Declaration of US and State citizenship (2015) . . .

HOA Constitutional Government: collected posts

Before the AZ Supreme Court

The purpose of this book is to educate the people — the general public, the HOA members, the media, state legislators, and those learned authorities — who have been subjected to disinformation presenting a misleading view harmful to the Constitution and our democratic system of government.

The posts contained in Collected Writings have been selected from my Commentaries posted in HOA Constitutional Government (http://pvtgov.info).  There are over 1,300 posts dating back to 2004 discussing issues, and dealing with events, legislation, statutes, and state court appellate cases that came to my attention.  The Commentaries are short, to the point, and contain related notes, references, and links to complete papers and provide authoritative documents for further study. They are the original Commentaries with some technical adaptations.

Available shortly will be a 145-page paperback on Amazon. In draft is a Kindle eBook version also available on Amazon. There are 4 main areas covering countrywide events – developments as far back as 2000:

  • On Legislation
  • On the Bill of Rights
  • On the Judiciary
  • On Civics  

On this 2023 New Years Eve, resolutions to move forward on effective HOA constitutionality challenges and reforms would be very appropriate, and necessary.

HOA lawyers take heed! Federal judge chastises lawyers

The NY Times Opinion by retired federal Judge Luttig*, while speaking to the national Trump Era crisis, well applies to HOA lawyers. I am completely mystified by the lack of defense and silence by state attorney generals, constitutional think tanks like CATO Institute, The Heritage Foundation, The Federalist Society, and constitutional lawyers and law schools. Read on!

“Leaders of the legal profession should be asking themselves, ‘What role did we play in creating this ongoing legal emergency?’ But so far, there has been no such post-mortem reflection, and none appears on the horizon.  Many lawyers ‘have instead stood largely silent, assenting to the recent assaults on America’s fragile democracy.’

“More alarming is the growing crowd of grifters, frauds and con men willing to subvert the Constitution and long-established constitutional principles for the whims of political expediency. . . . Any legal movement that could foment such a constitutional abdication and attract a sufficient number of lawyers willing to advocate its unlawful causes is ripe for a major reckoning.”

The Opinion is concerned about what, if anything, is being done to rectify this attack on democratic institutions.

“The Federalist Society, long the standard-bearer for the conservative legal movement, has failed to respond in this period of crisis. . . . Principled voices [must] speak out against the endless stream of falsehoods and authoritarian legal theories that are being propagated almost daily. To do otherwise would be to cede the field to lawyers of bad faith. We have seen in recent years what the unchecked spread of wildly untrue and anti-democratic lies gets us.”

Addressing law colleges failure to educate students, a movement is called for.

“The movement will focus on building a large body of scholarship to counteract the new orthodoxy of anti-constitutional and anti-democratic law being churned out by the fever swamps. The Constitution cannot defend itself; lawyers and legal scholars must.”

In the past I’ve written about the failure of law colleges to include the numerous views and positions on the constitutionality of the HOA legal structure. See “Is CAI’s ‘lack of candor to the tribunal’ intentional?”

*          “The Trump Threat Is Growing. Lawyers Must Rise to Meet This Moment,” NY Times Opinion, Nov.23, 2023. By George Conway, J. Michael Luttig and Barbara Comstock.  “The writers are lawyers. Mr. Conway was in private practice. Mr. Luttig was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 1991 to 2006. Ms. Comstock represented Virginia’s 10th District in Congress from 2015 to 2019. They serve on the board of the newly formed Society for the Rule of Law Institute.”

Activist judge interpreting the law

I have presented my case many times, saying that many judges have become activist and in doing so have violated long-standing legal doctrine on the interpretation of contracts and laws.

“The Constitution should be construed so as to ascertain and give effect to the intent and purpose of the framers and the people who adopted it. We give effect to the purpose indicated, by a fair interpretation of the language used, and unless the context suggests otherwise words are to be given their natural, obvious and ordinary meaning.”

. . . .

An example of this misconstruing of the law — of the 14th Amendment, Section 3 —  

can be seen in the controversial Trump court battles.

“No person shall . . . hold any office, civil or military, under the United States [who]  shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

This CNN opinion by Dean Obeidallah quotes Colorado District Court Judge Sarah Wallace:

“[Wallace] ruled last week that former President Donald Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection’ on January 6, 2021, as defined by Section 3 of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment. She didn’t disqualify Trump from the state’s ballot, however, finding that the ‘insurrectionist ban’ in the 14th Amendment does not apply to US presidents.”

Wallace added,

“At the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, an insurrection was ‘understood to refer to any public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the execution of law.’  The ‘events on and around January 6, 2021, easily satisfy this definition of ‘insurrection.’” [However,] ‘for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three [of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution] did not intend to include a person who had only taken the presidential oath.’”

. . . .

To clarify, her decision is unreasonable and lacking in legal support. She interjects her opinion, my view, that she didn’t think the drafters intended to include the President although the wording of this 14th Amendment, Section 3 speaks to “no person.” That’s plain and simple.  If, as many courts have held when attempting to assert a missing clause into the law, “if the legislature wanted the clause it would have added the clause,” rejecting the lame defense that it was simply an oversight.