My response letter to Commission’s finding of ethical behavior (For background info see The State of Arizona will not protect buyers of HOA homes!)
View letter at
May 6, 2009
March 31, 2009
Judicial bias in HOA cases
Political scientists and public opinion organizations are looking to the judiciary to fulfill its constitutional role as a separate and equal branch of government, and to establish justice in HOA-land. Others argue that the independence of the judiciary, in general, has been tainted over the years, and justice with respect to legal principles is tainted by the personal preferences of the judges themselves. Why else is there the highly controversial debate on the selection of new Supreme Court Justices? America is no longer a land under the rule of law, but a land under the rule of the men in black and their political leanings; where the doctrine of stare decisis, itself, falls victim to the preferences of the judges.
Stare decisis is the rule of law that imports the aura of legitimacy on the judicial process by holding future decisions to be bound by prior decisions that serve as “precedent.” The doctrine of stare decisis
Based on the above, it is not too difficult to understand why court decisions have, in general, favored homeowners associations over homeowners. State public policy is replete with HOA protectionism, which has an influence on the judges, and there’s a long history of HOA favorable decisions to serve as precedent. The negative precedent history is a direct result of the adhesion nature of the HOA governing documents and the state laws that deny, by commission and omission, homeowner protections. In short, no wonder the odds are against the restoration of individual liberties and freedoms.
For more, see Judicial precedent and HOA bias.
March 25, 2009
Judicial transparency and the public trust
A complaint was filed against Maricopa County Superior Court Judge McMurdie for his conduct subsequent to his default decision in Phoenix Townhouse HOA v. AZ Off. Admin. Hearings [OAH], LC 2008-000740 — the decision holding the statute that allowed for the OAH adjudication of HOA disputes to be unconstitutional.
It is inconceivable that my submitted information would be summarily dismissed, kept from the public, not acted upon, and the default decision allowed to stand. A decision that would be declared void ab initio based on my submitted materials, and where Judge McMurdie had the power to so act under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60(c): “This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from judgment, order . . . or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.”
The Code of Judicial Conduct holds “that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust” and that “a judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.“ For the Court to do justice and maintain its integrity, my “letter of fact” and supporting materials must be made part of the case. There must be transparency if the judiciary is to justify its claim to independence in upholding the laws of the land.
March 14, 2009
The Saga of OAH constitutionality continues
There are a number of appeals possible: the default decision it self; the denial of my motion to intervene for failure provide an explanation for the denial; the appeal of the denial itself based on the explanation from the judge. The deadline is 30 days from the decisions to file a notice of appeal, around the end of March.
On March 4th Judge McMurdie had filed a Minute Entry that raises questions concerning the integrity of the Maricopa Superior Court. The “filings” are my letter of facts and exhibits.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2008-000740-001 DT 03/02/2009 CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PAUL J. MCMURDIE
PHOENIX TOWNHOUSE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
v.
ARIZONA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS (001)
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING
AND LIFE SAFETY (001)
HONORABLE BRIAN TULLY (001)
RON MERITT (001)
JOHN HERNANDEZ (001)
GEORGE K STAROPOLI
CAMILA ALARCON
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received Intervener’s, George Staropoli, miscellaneous filings.
IT IS ORDERED striking these filings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall not accept any filings from
George Staropoli in this case.
February 28, 2009
Wild west justice for HOA owners
The Arizona Superior Court special action appeal of an administrative law judge decision upheld, and affirmed last week, the order that the administrative hearing adjudication of HOA disputes was unconstitutional. This affirmation was made one day before the time limit for a response set by the Superior Court Judge, and on the same day a letter introducing new facts in the case was received by the judge. The facts showed that there were no real parties in interest prior to the filing of the appeal and that the case was “fictitious.” There is no acknowledgement of the letter nor a response to these important facts by Judge McMurdie. This is a gross miscarriage of justice!
It is the policy of Arizona to favor the HOA industry with special laws and privileges that deny its citizens “fair trial” due process and the equal application of the law. Perhaps in these times of financial hardship on the state, and on developers, homebuyers should speak out with their pocketbooks and buy homes at substantial discounts that are not in HOAs. Homebuyers, avoid the mismanagement of HOAs; the blind adherence to arbitrary rules by “political machine” ruling boards; the divisiveness caused by the HOA attorneys who insist on enforcement, with no compassion; the lack of support and protection from your public government; and without having to be married to your neighbors who will not join in your just fight for fair treatment against board abuse. Ask yourself, “Who needs it?”
See The State of Arizona will not protect buyers of HOA homes!
