Tag: FBI

HOA advocate credentials are lacking

Should the FEDS get involved in HOA-Land abuse even though HOAs are controlled by state laws?  It would need to come under the approach that state laws are so varied that uniform laws must be adopted, and not by ULC that is steeped in the past and promotes more bad laws. This “what state are you in and that’s the law” has been a general argument for federal law and is a reason for federal intervention in the courts.

With all due respect for the hard work of several reform social media groups, getting the attention of state legislatures and DOJ/FBI depends upon the credentials of advocates. Can they make arguments at the level where the courts and lawyers will stand up and take notice? This is a longtime failure of HOA reform efforts even though they have obtained important reforms here and there over the years.

These reforms, for the most part, are rooted in “operational” reforms that affect the laws now on “the books” —  the overwhelming bad laws dealing with day-to-day operations and functions of the HOA. This reform legislation is needed to bring  a fair and just treatment under the constraints of the HOA legal scheme until reforms of substance are adopted.

Allow me to explain with an example.  There are many “good” laws that are designed to protect the homeowner and his rights, and put restrictions on the HOA. They may even have strong enforcement provisions with criminal violations.  Great? On the surface yes because enforcement is still the task not of the state, but the homeowner who has to bring such charges. The state – district/county attorneys and attorney generals — are not obligated to act. BUT, by definition, a crime is an act harmful to the state beyond one person. “Crime is “the intentional act usually deemed socially harmful or dangerous . . . prohibited and punishable by law.”

This “not my job,” hands-off posture constitutes an error of omission by the state that, under the obligations of the Constitution.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility . . .  promote the general Welfare . . ..”

Stay with me.  What is necessary is to rewrite the CC&Rs that is based on The Homes Association Handbook, as the Founding Fathers did when they threw out the Articles of Confederation for the US Constitution.  There has been and is little support for this approach, which I believe is the result of a lack of understanding and a fear that their HOA would be abolished —  a very successful fear mongering by CAI. And that includes a fear of CAI.

Over the years I filed an IRS tax-exempt complaint against CAI for having the customers of its members also a member of the business trade group in violation of its tax-exempt status. In 2005 CAI had to drop HOAs pe se from membership. Earlier this year I filed a 40-page complaint with the antitrust division of DOJ arguing that CAI was a monopoly, and has acted to thwart competition and the free entry into the HOA education market. 

Recently I asked for support of my appeal to the Federalist Society  to encourage and promote dialogue on the constitutionality of and loss of citizen rights in an HOA. The Society’s mission is educational for lawyers and student lawyers, and has a national  program of local law school chapters to debate issues. (Notable attorneys and government officials attend these meetings. My grandson had the opportunity to meet the Governor.)  I argued that new lawyers sally forth lacking the truth about HOA-Land serving to perpetuate the unjust laws.

HOA reformers and groups must present themselves as knowledgeable advocates, united nationally, who understand the law and the judicial process.  Reformers need to be able to stand up before CAI, the courts, and state legislators and win!  As I posted elsewhere, I am still waiting for an answer to my 2006 challenge to debate the CAI “elite” lawyers who are members of CAI’s CCAL.

As the renowned international management consultant Peter F. Drucker made clear, “A mission statement has to be operational; otherwise, it’s just good intentions.“

Apple vs. FBI: is Apple politcally motivated?

Below is a copy of the 3 page actual court order, in relevant parts.  While the order includes modifying the device’s software to accomplish the task, if necessary, it clearly and explicitly narrows the search to one particular device.   The order does not require Apple to modify its operating system, iOS, for use by everyone else.  The control of that modified software remains in the hands of Apple who could then seal it away or “burn” it at Apple’s discretion.

Having been involved in the computer software industry for some 50 years — since the dawn of commercial computers and continuing to personal computers and smart phones of today, and having modified operating system software — Apple’s arguments are without merit.  In my opinion, Apple is playing politics.

 FBI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. ED 15 – 0451M, Feb. 16, 2016

[PROPOSED] ORDER COMPELLING APPLE, IINC. TO ASSIST AGENTS IN SEARCH

Note:  The capitalization below appears in the actual court filing and was not added.

For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

  1. Apple shall assist in enabling the search of a cellular telephone, Apple make: iPhone 5C, Model: A1532, P/N:MGFG2LL/A, S/N:FFMNQ3MTG2DJ . . . in obtaining access to the data on the SUBJECT DEVICE.”
  2. (2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port . . . .”
  3.   Apple’s reasonable technical assistance may include . . . signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File (“SIF”) that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF . . . will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device’s flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE.

 

 

APPLE 

Below is a copy of the Introduction section of Apple’s 65 page motion. Contrast Apple’s arguments that seem to be a response to issues not warranted by the order and raising issues that are under Apple’s control.  Apple’s opening sentence reads, “This is not a case about one isolated iPhone,” setting the tone of Apple’s opposition of the order. Apple raises issues of forced speech – compelling a private entity to do something – in violation of the 1st Amendment. It broadens and extends the issue to that of modifying its software would imperil the rights of all owners having Apple’s iOS operating system.

 Furthermore, an apparent political motive of Apple comes forth by its criticism of the government for not first going to Congress to change the laws, as it so believes is necessary, and stifling public debate on the issues not warranted by the court order (see last quote paragraph below).

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION

ED No. CM 16-10 (SP), Feb. 25, 2016

APPLE INC’S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER COMPELLING APPLE INC. TO ASSIST AGENTS IN SEARCH, AND OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ASSISTANCE

This is not a case about one isolated iPhone. Rather, this case is about the Department of Justice and the FBI seeking through the courts a dangerous power that Congress and the American people have withheld: the ability to force companies like Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of individuals around the globe. The government demands that Apple create a back door to defeat the encryption on the iPhone, making its users’ most confidential and personal information vulnerable to hackers, identity thieves, hostile foreign agents, and unwarranted government surveillance.

 There are two important and legitimate interests in this case: the needs of law enforcement and the privacy and personal safety interests of the public. . . . But rather than pursue new legislation, the government backed away from Congress and turned to the courts, a forum ill-suited to address the myriad competing interests . . . .

 The order demanded by the government compels Apple to create a new operating system—effectively a “back door” to the iPhone—that Apple believes is too dangerous to build.

 This would make it easier to unlock the iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of passcode combinations with the speed of a modern computer. In short, the government wants to compel Apple to create a crippled and insecure product.

 But rather than pursue new legislation, the government backed away from Congress and turned to the courts, a forum ill-suited to address the myriad competing interests, potential ramifications, and unintended consequences presented by the government’s unprecedented demand. And more importantly, by invoking “terrorism” and moving ex parte behind closed courtroom doors, the government sought to cut off debate and circumvent thoughtful analysis.

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this written or electronic communication, and our associated web sites and blog, is provided as a service to the Internet community and does not constitute legal advice or opinion. We perform legal research and case analysis services, but we make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in any report, finding, recommendation or any communication, or linked to this web site and its associated sites. No document prepared by HALRIS or George K. Staropoli is to be considered a legal document to be filed in a court or in a legal proceeding. Nothing provided by HALRIS or George K. Staropoli should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. George K. Staropoli and no person associated with HALRIS, AHLIS, or Citizens for Constitutional Local Government are attorneys nor are employed by an attorney.