Tag: government

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.

Columbia Association: the iconic HOA private government ploy to circumvent the Constitution

In the ExploreHoward.com letter to the editor, CA should not be exempted from Homeowners Association Act, the reader is told that this master, master HOA is seeking legislation to have it declared not to be an HOA.  The writer strenuously objects, saying,

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to immediately exempt CA [Columbia Association] from some of the protections afforded Columbia residents by the Consumer Protection Act, and to exempt CA from all future amendments to the HOAA [HOA act]. . . .  The real purpose of CA’s attempted subversion of the residents’ protections is based on CA’s refusal to disclose the annual compensation of all of its employees, as required by the Consumer Protection Act.

The CA attorney’s defense is, according to the letter, “that CA has enough protection for residents in its bylaws and other documents so that statutory protections are unnecessary.”  Didn’t we hear that in Twin Rivers where the NJ Supreme Court said homeowners were protected by the business judgment rule, so no need to get all riled about the loss of constitutional protections?

What is CA all about?  Howard County, MD contains the city of Columbia with its Columbia Association, a mega, mega, master association that resembles a large city rather than a subsection.  Its Pubic Information Guide refers to CA as

A nonprofit public benefit corporation” — which has no legal definition or standing — with “nine villages and Town Center are organized into 10 village community associations . . . . Each of Columbia’s nine villages and Town Center has a community association, which is an independent, incorporated, nonprofit civic association. 

 The Articles of Incorporation, along with the Covenants of the nine villages, provide CA with all of the rights, powers and authority it needs to carry out its purposes. The two documents empower CA to collect the annual charge and promulgate rules governing the use of facilities, the integrity of architecture and aesthetics, and so forth. The documents themselves can be consulted for further information. (Part II, How CA is Organized and How It Works).

 CA has a 2012 budget of over $67 million.

The way this private government works is that the HOAs are mandatory HOAs with covenants running with the land.  In their “Covenants,” CC&Rs for everybody else, there is the tie-in wording granting the non-profit corporation, CA, control over the HOA communities.  The HOAs elect representatives to the CA board.  It is similar to other master private governments.

Since all entities are private contractual arrangements, Columbia Association is an independent principality on the scale of the charter organizations of the 1600s through 1800s.  You may recall two of the most notable enterprises: The British East India Company (operating mainly in India) and the Dutch East India Company (controlled what is now known as Indonesia).

Here and now, CA makes use of the various subdivision HOA covenants running with the land, the CC&Rs, to entrap homeowners into bondage under their de facto but unrecognized private government.  And it has to resort to newspeak by referring to them as “villages” and the CC&Rs as “covenants.”

 

And the HOA Enlightenment Movement grows . . .

A few more enlightenment articles (see the age of HOA enlightenment is coming?) by the legal-academic aristocrats have appeared in the media and on the internet. Among these modern pretenders to Philosopher-Kings, the Adams-Kessler (Calif.) blog warns about HOA managers engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, Managers Practicing Law.  Then there’s the past president of CAI “Central,” Ellen Hirsch de Haan, at the infamous Florida lobbyist law firm of Becker & Poliakoff on the need for neighborhood watch group oversight. Guard yourself from lawsuits against your HOA.

And more websites and bloggers are adding to the coverage of the Real Stories of HOA-Land, like with, Think Twice Before Placing Blame on Owners.   Congratulations!   The media has also been providing increasing attention to the real happenings in HOA-Land rather than just mouthing the pro-HOA “party line.”    

And so must all those homeowner rights advocate websites join in the Enlightenment Movement today!  At least post these enlightenment articles.  Let your followers know that these legal-academics didn’t wake up a few days ago and say, My God!  Look what’s going on in HOA-Land!   That they have been deceived all these years!

the age of HOA enlightenment is coming?

I’m beginning to see more and more evidence of enlightenment by pro-HOA supporters. The dogmatic insistence on enforcing the CC&Rs is falling away to a proper concern for the principles of democratic government and the fair and just treatment of homeowners. The strict view of the covenants is weakening.   There is a growing awareness that HOA boards are governed by other laws and ethical and moral considerations, if indeed HOA regimes are to meet the CAI propaganda of vibrant and harmonious communities.

The Berding-Weil blog, Condo-issues.com (California), shows recent evidence of this enlightenment as is recent posts introduce a degree of reality of events. Now, Donna DiMaggio Berger in Florida reminds boards of good government practices with,

Lastly, when you poll your community members and they voice an opinion on a proposed course of action, boards who disregard that input do so at their own peril. This is not to suggest that the membership must be polled on every course of action, particularly on routine maintenance which is one of a board’s main functions, but if you ask for input on discretionary spending it’s probably best to heed the message your members delivered.

 Avoiding the appearance of self interest as an association director

 Wow! What a thought — poll your community! Why didn’t I think of that very democratic tool? As claimed, the HOA board is the representative of the owner-members. Gee, asking for input is a radical suggestion for an undemocratic corporate form of government. Long overdue as HOA regimes are de facto political governments. Congratulations Donna! Excellent message for HOA boards as HOA member servants.

Now, Mr. Berding, why didn’t you address the recognition of the HOA de facto government in your “Reform Community Associations?” post? After all, you do hold a PhD in Government from the prestigious Claremont School. Your message was that HOAs were too big to fail, and we all have to live with the way things are.

 Every year the California legislature, and the legislatures of other states tinker with the enabling statutes for homeowner’s associations, but these efforts are usually paternalistic, constituent-favoring amendments that do little or nothing to solve the fundamental problems.

 How about the simple amendment that would go a long way to solving problems by restoring the equal application of the laws and due process protections of the 14th Amendment to homeowners, as it should be, and create a unified country rather than a myriad of independent HOA principalities?

The association hereby waivers and surrenders any rights or claims it may have under law and herewith unconditionally and irrevocably agrees 1) to be bound by the US and State Constitutions, and laws of the State within which it is located, as if it were a subdivision of the state and a local public government entity, and 2) that constitutional law shall prevail as the supreme law of the land including over conflicting laws and legal doctrines of equitable servitudes.  

HOA member Declaration of US and State citizenship.