America Revisited – My Country Was of Thee

America Revisited

 

My country was of thee.

Now with no liberty,

whose loss I sing.

Land where your freedom died

 Constitution aside

where HOAs reside,

profiteers bring.

 

Government by the few

Is Constitution through?

Sadly I cry.

My private property

is mine no longer free.

Accepted as it be,

freedom will die. 

 

Private contracts decide

writ by a few who hide.  

It cannot be.

Aristocrats control,

the people lost their soul

gave up their noble goal,

this do I see.

 

HOAs override

democracy they hide,

of this I sing.

Legislators  agree

no evil do they see.

From sea to shining sea,

let freedom ring.

                                

                                 George K. Staropoli

                      Oct. 21, 2010

 

 

 The national homeowner rights advocacy  patriotic  song.   Recite same as America (My Country Tis  of Thee). 
  
 

 

Unrecognized, de facto government: the State of Frankland should have written CC&Rs

 
And you thought that unrecognized de facto goverments, like HOAs regimes, were a figment of my imagination.

The State of Franklin was set up in 1784 out of the westerly portion of the colonial state of North Carolina. Shortly after the War of Independence the original colonies were asked to pay for the war efforts and create a country with a sound financial policy. Since the taxing the population was difficult and cash was in short supply North Carolina ceded the western portion of the state to the federal coffers. Before the Congress could accept the offer North Carolina withdrew the offer. The citizens of the region decided that federal rule in the meantime was probably a good idea since North Carolina as a state had given this remote region little support in its fight with the Indians or protection from criminal refugees. They saw other benefits as an independent state in terms of taxation, representation and an understanding attitude toward local problems. Representatives of the North Carolina counties of Sullivan, Washington, Greene, and Davidson accepted the offer of cessation to federal territory. The state of Franklin existed for only four years to finally merge with the new state of Tennessee. 

http://www.next1000.com/family/GRUBB/sullivan.tenn.html

Attempt at statehood
  
The State of Franklin, known also as the Free Republic of Franklin or the State of Frankland (the latter being the name submitted to the Continental Congress when it considered the territory’s application for statehood[1]), was an autonomous United States territory created in 1784On May 16, 1785, a delegation submitted a petition for statehood to the Continental Congress. Seven states voted to admit what would have been the 14th federal state under the proposed name Frankland. The number of states voting in favor of statehood, however, fell short of the two-thirds majority required to admit a territory to statehood under the Articles of Confederation. Late the following month, the government again convened to address their options and to replace the vacancy at Speaker of the House, which had been held by the late William Cage. Addressing the vacancy, Joseph Hardin was elected to the Speaker of the House position. Then, in an attempt to curry favor for their cause, delegation leaders changed the proposed name to “Franklin” (after Benjamin Franklin), and even initiated a correspondence with the patriot to sway him to support their cause. Franklin politely refused, writing:

I am sensible of the honor which your Excellencey and your council do me, but being in Europe when your State was formed I am too little acquainted with the circumstances to be able to offer you anything just now that may be of importance, since everything material that regards your welfare will doubtless have occurred to yourselves. …I will endeavor to inform myself more perfectly of your affairs by inquiry and searching the records of Congress and if anything should occur to me that I think may be useful to you, you shall hear from me thereupon.[4]Franklin’s letter to Governor John Sevier, 1787

Independent Republic

After the failed statehood attempt, the now de facto independent republic was ‘officially’ re-named Franklin.

 Up to this point, the government had been assembling at Jonesborough, mere blocks from the competing (although idle) North Carolina seat of government. Because of this, Greeneville was declared the new capital. The first legislature to meet there did so in December, 1785. At Greeneville, they finally adopted a permanent constitution, known as the “Holston Constitution”,[5] a decree which was modeled on that of North Carolina with few changes.

The new legislature made treaties with the Indian tribes in the area, opened courts, incorporated and annexed five new counties (see map below), and fixed taxes and officers’ salaries.[6] Barter was the economic system de jure, with anything in common use among the people allowed in payment to settle debts, including federal or foreign money, corn, tobacco, apple brandy, and skins (Sevier himself was often paid in deer hides). Citizens were granted a two-year reprieve on paying taxes, but this lack of currency and economic infrastructure slowed development and created confusion.

The year 1786 was the beginning of the end of the small state. Franklin was placed in a precarious position by not having been admitted to the United States. Because it shunned North Carolina’s claims of sovereignty over it, Franklin did not have the benefit of either the national army or the North Carolina militia. North Carolina offered to waive all back taxes if Franklin would reunite with its government. When this offer was rejected, North Carolina moved in troops under the leadership of Col. John Tipton and re-established its own government in the region. The two rival administrations competed side by side for many months. Loyalties were divided among local residents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Franklin

  

HOA Syndrome reaction: you knew what you were getting into

Professor Gary Solomon held his seminar describing a collection of physical and emotional disorders collective named, the HOA Syndrome.i In the Las Vegas FOX5 News coverage of the eventii, Solomon said “dealing with a homeowners association is enough to cause physical and emotional harm, including stress, anger, fear and paranoia.” He added, “Harass the neighbors enough, keep them in line and set them up with fine after fine after fine.”

It may be a surprie to some, but this is not new stuff. Viewing these same symptoms from a legal standpoint, Donie Vanitizian, JD, wrote about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in her 2002 book, Villa Appalling!iii Part II of this 519 page book is devoted to these issues and the causes of these issues. Examples include:

“Toxic Turmoil – “Because there is no viable means for homeowners to express their frustrations with the conditions under which they are forced to live, they are plagued with acute stress. . . . With no government agency interested in their plight or the problems created by these developments in general, homeowners are left to their own devices.” (p. 225).

 Vanitizian goes on to say that, Homeowners very foolishly trust that board members automatically have a ‘conscience.’ They don’t. Homeowners blindly look to the association as a ‘figurehead’ that somehow oversees that justice and truth prevail. It doesn’t.” (p. 233).

As expected, denials came from association managers who are at the heart of the HOA Syndrome, as HOA boards defer the operation of the HOA to these persons. In a statement by one manager, speaking about the homeowners, we see the truth of the matter when the manager states, “Homeowners shouldn’t complain because they knew what they were buying into. You know what the expectations are.”  This a frank admission of the oppression and intimidation caused by HOAs that produce anxiety, fear, emotional stress, and the obvious loss of one’s home and financial conditions. Does this person really believe that Americans are demented and masochistic, relishing injuries to be inflicted upon them? And freely, openly, and willing accept these conditions while giving their home as collateral to the survival of the HOA, and forgoing any semblance of due process protections for the greater glory of the HOA? Really!

I ask this manager and all managers, especially those trained by the national HOA “educator” Community Associations Institute, CAI, “How come you by this falsehood?” This attitude reflects a “You’re damn right we consider the harsh, unjust strict enforcement of arbitrary rules as the way of life in an HOA.” Most of these so-called professionals do not understand the origins and intentions of the profit-seeking individuals who created this legal scheme, where these authoritarian and draconian methods were necessary for the survival of this new, untried approach to housing in 1964. And is still carried forward today where state legislators see no evils with authoritarian, private governments protected by state legislation — no enforcement by means of penalties for HOA board violations, but the homeowner can lose everything — and operating outside constitutional protections. The HOA, for some unstated government interest, must survive and the Constitution can be denied when necessary!

So, what do HOA boards and managers have to fear if they are unethical, violate state laws, and are grossly unjust and arbitrary in their dealings with their members? A slap on the wrist, maybe, if the homeowner is principled enough to spend his time and money just to get the HOA to do what it’s supposed to do. Apparently, our government doesn’t think that the compliance by private government HOAs with their statutory and contractual obligations is not a matter of general public concern. Apparently, they, too, believe in a masochistic and demented American population who cherish living under such conditions and need no protections.

Welcome to the New America of HOA-Lands.iv


References

 i  See “Psychologist defines the HOA Syndrome caused by oppressive HOAs”, HOA Constitutional Government, October 7, 2010.

ii  See “Professor: Homeowners Get Ill From HOAs”, Fox5 News, Las Vegas, October 1, 2010.

iii  Villa Appalling! – Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living, Donie Vanitizian and Stephen Glassman (Villa Appalling Publishing, Inc 2002).

iv  See Understanding the New America of HOA-Land, George K. Staropoli (StarMan Publishing 2010).

Mortgage industry – developer cooperation for HOA survival

Does the mortgage industry collusion extend beyond just foreclosure to a broader tit-for-tat, “one hand washes the other” cooperation with HOA developers? Ever wonder why your CC&Rs contain a 20 -30 year “no terminate” clause? Or why your CC&Rs contain archaic and ignored wording that the first lender must approve any CC&R changes? Or why there’s that PUD rider attached to your mortgage?

In order to understand the “why” we must go back in time to the period of the original promoters of the legal scheme for planned developments with homes associations. That was in 1964 with the publication of the HOA mass merchandising document, the Homes Association Handbook, Technical Bulletin #50, by the Urban Land Institute. (For an analysis of this document see Part I of The Foundations of Homeowners Associations and the New America). The document was one that spoke of a utopian scheme for better communities, which would also make tons of money for the developers and promoters. In 1964, HOAs were a new concept that had to be sold to all the “players” in order for the concept to succeed and, as with any new venture or concept, it came with high risks. One question for these mass marketeers was how to get funding from banks and mortgage companies to finance the development of planned communities, and subsequent HOA home mortgages. It was a question of insuring the survival of the HOA and, consequently, its marketing success.

First, the right to foreclose. One way was to come down hard on homeowners who didn’t pay their “fair share” and threatened the survivability of the HOA: create covenants that run with the land granting the HOA automatic liens for assessments and the right to foreclosure for non-payment. And, since there may be instances where there would be insufficient funds, as they recognized the second position status of the HOA, it was necessary to include a grant of right to seek a personal judgment against all of the assets of the non-paying homeowner. All in the name of survivability of the HOA for the future success of the promoters. (See Section 12.3 and 12.31 of the Handbook).

They were not concerned with constitutional and legal issues relating to democratic governance and protecting the rights, freedoms, privileges or immunities of the member-owners. They could not tolerate democratic protections by means of independent tribunals and so gave themselves, as Declarant, dictatorial rights over the community. The developers had to stay in control to protect their investments and profits.

 Second, “sweeteners” for the lenders. With these strong measures to protect the HOA income stream from non-payers, who, by the way, may dislike the way the HOA was operated and want to withhold payments, they could now approach the mortgage companies and banks. They gave the lenders additional protections to get them on board – the HOA cannot be terminated until after the first 20 -30 years of operation, even though the developer no longer had any obligations to the lenders – he was long gone and had paid off the lenders.

So, why this “no terminate” clause? Why the PUD rider on individual home mortgages not owned by the HOA, that holds no title to the individual home? Why should the lenders want additional assurances when they got none of these with traditional, non-HOA homes? Why were they given these “sweeteners?” As an inducement so they would make loans in support of this unproven concept?

It appears that this was all for their mutual benefit, at the expense of the unsuspecting home buyers.

Stop your HOA foreclosure –demand the HOA to prove title

The real issue as I’ve pointed out is:  Does the foreclosing party hold the deed?  That’s what all the “robosigning” and “document irregularities” are all about — saying that they held the title.  The MSNBC Dylan Ratigan show at 1:00 PM MST described the problem quite well.  You can track it down by going to the internet and viewing the segment online. (View http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/).

Ratigan asked if the foreclosure fraud was intended to cover-up the larger mortgage “give away” fraud.  Ohio AG said foreclosures  “involved filing fraudulent evidence” in the foreclosure process – “fraudulent affidavits.”  Ratigan said it quite clearly: “the banks to bypass the normal court procedures  to force the mortgage holder to prove they own the property in order to foreclose.”

 HOAs DO NOT HAVE TITLE TO FORECLOSE!   

While the CC&Rs  and state laws allow them to foreclose, most must follow the laws regarding mortgage foreclosures.  Homeowners facing foreclosure should get an attorney to stop any pending HOA foreclosure, ASAP!

And, have you asked yourself, why didn’t the HOA attorneys know about holding title?  Why didn’t the national HOA education and lobbying group’s College of Community Association Lawyers (CAI’s CCAL) know about holding title?  Why not?

See HOA foreclosures illegal under “no title” rulings?