Tag: supreme court

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.

 

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.

Court decisions: HOA Enlightenment Movement vs. the Dark Ages

In this “groundbreaking decision”, as described by Evan McKenzie in  his Privatopia Blog, the Illinois appellate court made a ruling consistent with the HOA Enlightenment Movement.  Neglect by a condo asociation to make repairs affecting a unit is a defense against continued payment of assessment.  This is a major step toward homeowner justice that removes the “pay no matter what, or lose your home” doctrine of the authoritarian HOA governments.

The case, Spanish Court Two Condominium Association v. Lisa Carlson (2012 IL App (2d) 110473), involved a demand for assessments owed plus a possession — forcible entry — of the unit that was alleged to have suffered damages due to the condo association’s neglect.  (Understand that the condo sued under the Forcible Entry Act to repossess the unit). The court held the condo in the same position as a landlord under the landlord-tenant laws, which allow a tenant to withhold rent as a defense against forcible entry.

 We hold, by analogy to the case law on actions brought under the Forcible Entry Act by landlords for possession of leased property due to unpaid rent, that the unit owner may claim neglect as a defense to the board’s suit under the Act.

 And of very important significance for case law precedent is the holding on the mutual obligations of the CC&Rs contract, my emphasis, (p. 13,14),

 “Plaintiff suggests that a board’s right to collect assessments is absolute and that a claim for nonpayment of assessments is not subject to any affirmative defense.”

[The court replied,] “nowhere does the . . .  Condominium Act suggest that the right is absolute.”  The Condominium Act appears to set the rights of unit owners on par with the rights of the board of managers. Moreover, the rights arise from mutually exchanged promises—on the one hand to pay assessments, on the other hand to maintain the common elements—and so the Declaration and the Bylaws are best seen as contracts.

[T]he condominium instrument indicates (as presumably most do) that the unit owner’s promise to pay assessments is in exchange for the board of managers’ promise to use those assessments for the repair and maintenance of the condominium property, the unit owner may claim, as a justification for nonpayment of assessments, that the board of managers breached its duty of repair and maintenance.

 Contrast this decision with the recent California Supreme Court opinion, reflecting a culture still in the Dark Ages sorely in the  need of enlightenment, Pinnacle Museum Tower  v. Pinnacle Market Development( No. S186149, Aug. 16, 2012 ).   Here the court validated the binding arbitration clause with (my emphasis),

 [T]the Davis-Stirling Act ensures that the covenants, conditions, and restrictions of a recorded declaration — which manifest the intent and expectations of the developer and those who take title to property in a community interest development — will be honored and enforced unless proven unreasonable.

 Under its Discussion, B. Contractual Nature of Terms in a Recorded Declaration, the court gives an instructive presentation on the preferential treatment of the declarant/developer, consent to obey, waiver of rights, “for the common good,” and the open-ended amendment process.  Section C explains what constitute an unconscionable contract clause, rejected in this instance.  Very informative of the Dark Ages culture.

 

The HOA Enlightenment Movement is rolling on, and will gather momentum as the truth, justice, and the American way shall once again prevail.

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.”