Tag: Arizona

Supreme Court justices comment on Arizona judicial integrity

Former US Supreme Court Justice O’Connor and former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice McGregor speak of the outstanding integrity, impartiality and fairness of Arizona judges and on the oversight entity,  the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

In contrast, this writer presents the two incidents of unquestionable violations of judicial ethics and conduct as set forth in the Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, Code of Judicial Conduct.

The details of the two incidents can be found at If the watchdogs of the judiciary fail, it follows that the government also fails, and The State of Arizona will not protect buyers of HOA homes!

And HOA Justice for All

Where law ends, tyranny begins[i]

I was just released from jury duty yesterday.  I had submitted a Request for Exclusion due to Issues of Public Interest/Public Welfare, which went unanswered.  During the jury selection process, I so informed the judge of my request, which he had not seen.  I volunteered a copy that I had brought along.

After supplying the judge with a copy I was given a one-on-one with the judge and lawyers.  The short dialogue was as follows:

Judge:  You are saying that you cannot give a fair and impartial opinion on this case?

George:  No, I can’t.  As you have read, I was insulted and disrespectfully treated while attempting to provide for justice.  Now the court is asking for my valid opinions as a juror.  I cannot participate in a judicial system that acts in such a way.

Judge:  So let me clarify.  You are saying that, because of these incidents, that you cannot give a fair and impartial opinion?

George:  Yes, that’s right.  I spent over 10 years fighting for constitutional and legal rights for homeowners and have been treated as such.  I cannot participate.  Your Honor, it was just about a month since the Maxwell ruling that I received a jury summons.  I have not been called for jury duty in over 10 years.  I get the feeling that they are out to get me.

Hidden smiles from the judge and a lawyer.  I was excused.  I thank the judge for making my Request part of the record, not a common occurrence.  The strongly worded and angry Request can be read here.

[i] The motto on the façade of the Arizona Supreme Court building.

 

AZ class action against HOA management firms for unauthorized practice of law

A class action suit was filed in Maricopa County, AZ against numerous HOA management firms for the unauthorized practice of law resulting from their attempts to collect HOA debts.  The two plaintiffs allege against some 30 management firms, among other things,

Upon information and belief, the Defendants represented to the public and to members of the Class that they were acting with the full measure of authority reserved for licensed legal counsel for Defendants by negotiating debt on behalf of a third party, drafting, filing and/or preparing legal papers, including liens, debt collection letters, complaints, default judgment, judgments, and other debt collections activities which require the appearance of a licensed and authorized attorney; and charging fees for the foregoing activities. . . . Defendants actions directed at these Class Members constitute the unauthorized practice of law and are clear violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and Arizona law.

 

Crame v. 360 Management (Maricopa County Superior Court, CV 2012-095288, Sept. 10, 2012). The case has been moved to Federal Court.

A class action is undertaken when the number of victims is so numerous and who have basically the same allegations of wrongdoing. The two plaintiffs represent the class of homeowners who meet the following criteria,

 

All persons or entities who, at any time from August 1, 2006 to the present (the “Class Period”), were members of a Homeowners’ Association or like entity and who were pursued for an alleged debt owed to that Homeowners’ Association or like entity by any of the Defendants or other Community Management Companies who purported to pursue collections against said persons or entities without proper legal representation and/or on behalf of their third party HOA/Condo customers and/or who improperly held themselves out to be an attorney.

  

Related information

Class Action Filed Against AZ HOA Management Companies (Attorney Roger Wood blog)

UPL 12-01 – Scope of Legal Services to HOA’s (March 2012) (State Bar Advisory Opinion)

Final Order: HOA management firm engaged in unauthorized practice of law (AAM, LLC  was the defendant.  Still not made public info on the Supreme Court or State Bar web pages.)

 

PLEASE pass this on to others who may have claims against the HOA management firms.

A free speech ‘puzzlement’: tattooing vs. HOAs

Echoing the thoughts of Yul Brynner in the 1956 King and I movie (Anna and the King of Siam), I’ve encountered a “puzzlement.”  In the just released 27 page opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court in Coleman v. The City of Mesa, No. CV-11-0351-PR, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court must allow the tattoo artists to show that tattooing was a protected expression of free speech.  The City of Mesa had a discretionary zoning ordinance against tattooing establishments.  The higher court held that the trial court could not summarily dismiss the complaint as not having a questionable issue of law.

The complaint sufficiently sets forth claims for relief for alleged violations of the Colemans’ rights to free speech, equal protection, and due process. Whether they can prove those claims will depend on the course of proceedings in the trial court.

I will not go into the legal details of the court’s analysis, but allow me to make some comparisons with HOA free speech issues from the point of view of “consent to be governed” (not discussed in the opinion).  I refer to the pro-HOA arguments that continuing to live in your HOA is an implicit agreement to be bound by the ruling private HOA government under its pseudo-constitution and pseudo-laws. That argument, alone, the courts have repeatedly held, controls the homeowner’s consent to agree.

BUT, as we have in this case, shouldn’t operating a tattoo parlor in the City of Mesa be likewise viewed as an implicit consent to agree to city zoning ordinances, among other public laws?  And as such, haven’t the artists waived and/or surrendered their constitutional rights that they are now arguing that they still retain?  Like it is argued against HOA members? Apparently not, for the supreme court there are sufficient grounds to make such a legal argument (helped by the Goldwater Institute).

It’s a puzzlement.  Why two sets of legal doctrines?  One for the public and one for a class of citizens who live in HOAs?  A real puzzlement.

If the watchdogs of the judiciary fail, it follows that the government also fails

On May 30, 2012 I file a complaint against Judge Olson, No. 12-148, for illegally closing the files on the complaint against CAI attorney Maxwell by a court appointed Receiver[1].   (See Judicial misconduct complaint filed for sealing records in AZ case against HOA attorney).  The AZ Commission writes that it has no problem with Judge Olson’s sealing of the records.

 

ORDER

 

The complainant alleged that a superior court judge improperly sealed a case. The responsibility of the Commission on Judicial Conduct is to impartially determine if the judge engaged in conduct that violated the provisions of Article 6.1 of the Arizona Constitution or the Code of Judicial Conduct and, if so, to take appropriate disciplinary action. The purpose and authority of the commission is limited to this mission.

 After reviewing the information provided by the complainant, the commission found no evidence of ethical misconduct and concluded that the judge did not violate the Code in this case. The commission does not have jurisdiction to review the legal sufficiency of the judge’s ruling. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Rules 16(a) and 23.

 Dated: August 15, 2012.

FOR THE COMMISSION

 

Its first reaction to my complaint was to attack the messenger, asking how did I know about the case. (See AZ judicial conduct comm. on hidden HOA attorney case: who let the cat out of the bag?).

I am still trying to fathom the logic or rational that the judge did not violate Rule 123(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.  Rule 81 is the Code of Judicial Conduct that I referenced in my complaint.  Under Rule 81 there is at the very start, Rule 1.1, Compliance with the Law.   The act of sealing all the court record information by Judge Olson is prima facie evidence of a violation of Rule 123(d) (see Judicial misconduct complaint link above). 

How can the Commission say, with a straight face, “The commission does not have jurisdiction to review the legal sufficiency of the judge’s ruling.”  Who then watches the judges?    Their brethren?  Given the black and white issue here, the Code becomes a joke!

The entire beginnings of Rule 81 under Preamble and Scope speak to maintaining the integrity of the court, the confidence of the public, and avoiding the appearance of impropriety.  Words, simply words that have no meaning at all!

What is most offensive to the legitimacy of the court, and to the legitimacy of the government, is that the Commission, the watchdog of the judiciary, took a hands-off “not me” position and did nothing.  If the judicial watchdogs fail, what then of the judiciary itself that watches the government?  It, too, most fail, and so too the government.

[1] DC Lot Owners v. Maxwell & Morgan, CV 2010-004684, Pinal County Superior Court, AZ.