Tag: due process

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!

HOA liability: respondeat superior and agents as in Trayvon case

Orlando attorney W. Jeff Earnshaw, Esq. of Taylor & Carls, P.A. wrote in its Blog about, What the Trayvon Martin Case Can Teach Associations.  Some excerpts from this very informative article.

The case of Trayvon Martin demonstrates how something as seemingly innocuous as labeling a member of an association as the “Captain” of the neighborhood watch can open an association to possible liability.

Understanding how this designation in the association’s newsletter could ultimately lead to liability for the association can help HOA’s and Condominium Association’s limit their own potential liability for actions of others. . . . A well-established legal concept is respondeat superior, which literally means “let the master answer”. Respondeat superior provides the basis for a principal to be held responsible for the wrongful acts of their agent when those acts are performed within the scope of the agent’s duties.

While an employer-employee is the most common principal-agent relationship, with the employer being the principal and the employee their agent, an agency relationship can exist whenever someone acts on behalf of another. . . . The third element; the principal’s control over the actions of the agent, should not be overlooked. The general concept behind respondeat superior liability is that a principal generally controls their agent’s behavior, and therefore the principal should be responsible to the public for the agent’s actions while the agent is under the employer’s control.

See also What is an HOA’s duty of care liability to its members and to all others?

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.

HOA board education or indoctrination?

Donna DiMaggio Berger of Florida’s CAN HOA advocacy group wrote about the increasing numbers of board members seeking to be educated in HOA matters and in the affairs of HOA-Land (Do most Condo & HOA Directors want to be educated?).  I agree with Donna that these private government officials need to be educated, because unlike pubic government officials there is no long term infrastructure or institutional culture to guide them. 

Neither are there the penalties against wrong-doing as we have with laws holding public officials accountable.  Yes, not only must these private officials be properly educated, but be held accountable, too.  But, accountability is not discussed.

Sadly, in regard to the educational materials, the pro-HOA believers and groups ignore the fact that the “teachings” are really indoctrination courses into how to behave in HOA-Land under its unconscionable and oppressive adhesion contract, supported by pro-HOA laws and top-down UCIOA covenants. The materials flow from the pseudo-educator, the national lobbying trade group, which seeks to maintain the inequities of the HOA legal scheme.  They teach “how to behave as a good HOA member and avoid financial and emotional stress, and the good chance of losing your home if disobedient.”  And that is, is to follow the rules and to participate under procedures that thwart participation by “outsiders.”

There is no presentation of constitutional issues, of 14th Amendment violations, of the fallacies in the “consent to agree” argument, of no clean elections laws or of unacceptable due process procedures as a few examples.  Not even a discussion of the validity of my Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement argument.  Not even an invitation for attendees to proclaim their US citizenship status by signing the Declaration of US and State Citizenship form.

And why not?  Why aren’t these issue made public and taught by the great HOA educators?  Maybe, just maybe, as Col. Jessup shouted out in the movie, A Few Good Men, “You can’t handle the truth!”   Why are they afraid of the truth?

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.