Establishing the New America: a new book

PRE-ANNOUNCEMENT BOOK RELEASE.

 

This 275 page paperback is expected to be available in August 2008.

book cover

Preface

 

Bill Moyers wrote about history and journalism (Moyers  On Democracy, Bill Moyers, Doubleday, 2008), saying that “Bad history can have consequences as devastating as bad journalism. . . . history is also what people think, and wish and imagine. ” He asked, “What happens if the vivid representation of particular characters and people impress on the mind not ‘general truths’ but persistent lies?

First, let me say that I’m not a lawyer, and this is not a book on the law although it draws heavily on the political and legal systems. This little volume consists of a selection of my writings, mainly my Commentaries on my HOA Local Government web page, and from my

numerous emails over the past eight years. During that time I was actively involved as an advocate for homeowners living in planned communities – HOAs or condos – in an attempt to clarify history and to inform the public, the media, the various state legislatures, and anyone who would listen.

My involvement has been primarily in two areas: constitutional reforms, and justice for homeowners living in these authoritarian regimes “sanctioned” by their state legislatures. Materials and incidents reflecting the fact that homebuyers are not told the whole truth about the loss of their rights and protections are provided in support of my arguments. When homeowners took possession of their restricted deeds, believing that the HOA was just like a social club, or part of this country under the laws of the land, the courts held them bound to the HOA-land constitution, the CC&Rs. Any onerous provisions where not given too much thought, because the buyers

believed that the laws would protect them or would not allow such onerous provisions. After all, the HOA takes care of everything, and this is America, the land of the free and of individual rights.

Without the protections of a bill of rights, homeowners live under the suffrage of their board. All usually goes fairly well until the homeowner disagrees with the board, or offends the “powers that be”, whereupon he quickly discovers that he has very, very little legal protections. And those that he still retains, requires digging into his own pocketbook to get the HOA to obey the laws, because the state doesn’t care. This could be within months, within a year or after 5 – 10 years. Your government considers it to be a private contractual matter – just between the parties without any affect on the interests of the public in  general, or on public policy.

Read the promo . . .

 

 

 

 

CAI opposition to Arizona’s SB1162 attacks the supremacy of the Constitution

The AP reports today on US Supreme Court ruling of unconstitutional imprisonment in violation of habeas corpus*.  Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”
 
CAI Central, on the record in its amicus curiae brief in the Twin Rivers appeal, objects to the application of the Constitution to homeowners associations.  In fact, today in Arizona, HOAs and their CAI member attorneys fiercely oppose access to the courts or administrative hearings for homeowners seeking justice as the Supreme Court tells all, “Equal justice under the law”. CAI believes that ex post facto CC&R amendments are proper in spite of the fact that these amendments are prohibited in the public sector by the Constitution.
 
CAI Arizona writes in its recent Call to Action on SB1162,
 
However, it is in reality a well-disguised “litigation machine” that restricts an association’s ability to solve problems with their CC&Rs, avoid additional costs and litigation, and may actually increase the number of frivolous lawsuits filed against Associations.  SB1162 would do two things: (1) prevent the awarding of attorney’s fees to the winning party in Superior Court, and (2) restrict certain types of amendments to the CC&Rs when a lawsuit against an Association is pending in court.

 

 

 

“Certain types of amendments” are ex post facto amendments used to cause the court to say the case is now moot, but will award attorney fees to the HOA.  Grossly unjust!  The homeowner is penalized for forcing the HOA act in a just manner by going to court.
 
“Restricts the association’s ability to solve problems with their CC&Rs” is an outrageously disgraceful statement reflecting a serious lack of good faith negotiating and candor to the legislators, and to the public.  The HOA attorneys, lead by the CAI national lobbying group’s attorney members, do not act to create harmonious, vibrant communities as proclaimed in the CAI propaganda, but take an adversarial, confrontational, divisive, and hostile attitude to all those who dare challenge the supremacy of the HOA board to act as it freely decides.
The many reasons homeowners are bringing the HOA to court is the fact that the HOA has not only disregarded their obligations under the CC&Rs, but  under state laws as well.  If the legislators were to insist on penalties against such intentional acts by the HOA, we would not be seeing all these problems.
 
Once again we see clear and convincing evidence that the CAI mission is the establishment of a New America of independent HOA principalities and their authoritarian form of government.  I ask the Arizona legislators to heed Justice Kennedy’s statement regarding the survival of the US Constitution and laws of the land. 
 
Put SB1162 into law!
 
 
* Habeas corpus, Art. I, section 9, clause 2 reads, “The writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in the cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”. It prevents authorities from imprisoning anyone without a judicial hearing.  That’s why there’s a 24 hour “initial appearance”  requirement before a judge if a person is charged with a crime.
 

CAI opposition to Arizona's SB1162 attacks the supremacy of the Constitution

The AP reports today on US Supreme Court ruling of unconstitutional imprisonment in violation of habeas corpus*.  Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”
 
CAI Central, on the record in its amicus curiae brief in the Twin Rivers appeal, objects to the application of the Constitution to homeowners associations.  In fact, today in Arizona, HOAs and their CAI member attorneys fiercely oppose access to the courts or administrative hearings for homeowners seeking justice as the Supreme Court tells all, “Equal justice under the law”. CAI believes that ex post facto CC&R amendments are proper in spite of the fact that these amendments are prohibited in the public sector by the Constitution.
 
CAI Arizona writes in its recent Call to Action on SB1162,
 
However, it is in reality a well-disguised “litigation machine” that restricts an association’s ability to solve problems with their CC&Rs, avoid additional costs and litigation, and may actually increase the number of frivolous lawsuits filed against Associations.  SB1162 would do two things: (1) prevent the awarding of attorney’s fees to the winning party in Superior Court, and (2) restrict certain types of amendments to the CC&Rs when a lawsuit against an Association is pending in court.

 

 

 

“Certain types of amendments” are ex post facto amendments used to cause the court to say the case is now moot, but will award attorney fees to the HOA.  Grossly unjust!  The homeowner is penalized for forcing the HOA act in a just manner by going to court.
 
“Restricts the association’s ability to solve problems with their CC&Rs” is an outrageously disgraceful statement reflecting a serious lack of good faith negotiating and candor to the legislators, and to the public.  The HOA attorneys, lead by the CAI national lobbying group’s attorney members, do not act to create harmonious, vibrant communities as proclaimed in the CAI propaganda, but take an adversarial, confrontational, divisive, and hostile attitude to all those who dare challenge the supremacy of the HOA board to act as it freely decides.
The many reasons homeowners are bringing the HOA to court is the fact that the HOA has not only disregarded their obligations under the CC&Rs, but  under state laws as well.  If the legislators were to insist on penalties against such intentional acts by the HOA, we would not be seeing all these problems.
 
Once again we see clear and convincing evidence that the CAI mission is the establishment of a New America of independent HOA principalities and their authoritarian form of government.  I ask the Arizona legislators to heed Justice Kennedy’s statement regarding the survival of the US Constitution and laws of the land. 
 
Put SB1162 into law!
 
 
* Habeas corpus, Art. I, section 9, clause 2 reads, “The writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in the cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”. It prevents authorities from imprisoning anyone without a judicial hearing.  That’s why there’s a 24 hour “initial appearance”  requirement before a judge if a person is charged with a crime.
 

HOAs and the media: Bill Moyers on the failure of the media to present all sides

 

Democracy without honest information creates the illusion of popular consent, and enhances the power of the state and the privileged interests protected by it.   Bill Moyers*

 

 

With respect to homeowner association issues and the lack of coverage of the substantive constitutional issues — the lack of due process, the imposition of a contract under claims of highly questionable voluntary consent, the unequal protection of the laws, and the overwhelming evidence of HOAs as state actors under current US Supreme Court tests, just to name a few — is not only avoided, but resisted by the established media.  Rather, isolated HOA stories, cast in terms of personal issues, are repeated across the country, more and more, without any coverage of the broader political, social and legal implications of these events.  Why is there this neglect of these serious substantive issues when HOA regimes privately govern some 20% of the population?  (Data according to Community Associations Institute, CAI, and US Census Bureau.)

 

To what extent has this “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” reporting by the media influenced the public interest firms like The Goldwater Institute with its opposition to Arizona HOA reform legislation, SB 1162, based on the simple statement of “contract interference”?  Two Arizona attorneys, who fight for homeowners and who have attended several legislative committees on behalf of reforms, have criticized the Institute as not aware of the reality of the HOA legal scheme; and that the awareness of this reality would call for the defense of, and not opposition to, the liberty of the individual homeowner against an imposed contract.  The Institute’s cry of “contract interference” and “voluntary consent” echoed the propaganda claims of the pro-HOA lobbyists as found in the media.

 

 

*Excerpts of Bill Moyers’ address to the National Media Reform Conference 2008, June 7, 2008. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y0r71L7cojE.

 

 

And yet the press remains in denial in its role of passing on the unverified claims as facts, while . . . blocking out any other narrative.  That’s the great danger.  It’s not that they dominate the story that we tell ourselves in publicly everyday, it’s that they don’t allow any alternative, competing narrative to emerge, by which the people could measure the veracity of ALL the claims.

 

When the state becomes the guardian to the power and privilege to the neglect of justice, to the neglect of the people who have neither power or privilege, you can no longer claim to have a representative government.

 

 

I would like to congratulate the VP and Publisher, Ginger Lamb, and Managing Editor, Matt Bunk, of The Arizona Capitol Times for their courage to remain a free press and to print both sides of this story. The Capitol Times is the sole Arizona media company to standby and uphold the media’s obligations for the proper functioning of our democratic system of government. 

 

This only happened once before in my eight years of homeowner rights advocacy, and that was in 2006 by CBS affiliate, KPHO-TV, with its reporter, Greg Mocker, with his hard questioning of the actions of legislative leaders opposing HOA due process reforms.  That reform bill did pass in 2006, and is once again the subject of due process issue of this bill, SB1162. A bill seeking to bring justice for homeowners by leveling the litigation playing field resulting from abuse of the system by HOA attorneys.  A concern for over 1 million people living in HOAs in Arizona.

 

 

 

 

Attorney Rebuttals of Goldwater Institute reform legislation as contract interference

The Goldwater Institute, a public interest firm that believes in protecting individual property rights, opposed Arizona HOA reform legislation SB1162 on the basis of contract interference. The Nick Dranias opinion stated:

This bill runs afoul of freedom of contract, the principle that the government should not interfere with agreements reached by willing parties. This principle recognizes that the state should not superintend the wisdom of contractual relationships.

Read more . . .

From the rebuttal letter by Steve Cheifetz, an attorney representing homeowners who also argued for reform legislation before Arizona legislative committees:

Your suggestion that it is inappropriate to seek to limit the powers of such associations because the relationship between the homeowner and the association is one of contract would be the same as suggesting that citizens of this country should not seek to limit the powers of our state, federal and local governments.

Read more . . .

From the rebuttal letter by Clint Goodman, another attorney representing homeowners who also argued for reform legislation before Arizona legislative committees:

As a trial attorney, I am witnessing a clear trend that concerns me greatly. Associations are using their “contract” to act in any way they please without fear of legal consequence. A few of the many cases I have encountered over the last year demonstrate this point.

Read more . . .

See this writer’s commentary . . .