The following is a question for those readers here who live in an HOA (homeowners association) and/or CIC (common interest community): After you read it, please think about what type of a homeowner you
really are in your association.
As you think about that, please remember that you are currently living in
government mandated housing which allows your board of directors and their attorneys to, if they feel like it, force you to live in ways that
may not conform with the United States Constitution or our state laws which can be devastating to you and your family - individually, socially and financially. Jan http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/news/sub/article/action/ShowMedia/id/3469 AHRC NEWS SERVICES An Article PRIVATE PROPERTY PATRIOT vs. 'HOMEOWNER ADVOCATE'
An Attempt to Differentiate Between "Activists" and "Advocates" May 16, 2007
By A Concerned Citizen
Copyright A Concerned Citizen |
Phoenix, Federal - In reading the postings on the AHRC website from claimed 'homeowner advocates' and others, it is becoming more and more clear that there is a distinction between 'advocates' and 'activists' with respect to positions, approaches and constitutional interpretations with respect to the private property ownership rights.
In my opinion, nowhere was that more apparent than during last year's legislative sessions in the State of Arizona where, as an activist group, I felt many claimed was 'advocates' talked the talk, but when it came down to votes on crucial bills which were initiated and supported by 'the industries' and unconstitutional on their face (read: CAI affiliated attorneys, management concerns, insurance and the real estate industries) aligned themselves with the commercial interests, rather than the intent of the founding fathers to preserve and protect private property (home and/or money) from 'unlawful' seizure.
With respect to Arizona and other states facing these monumental violations of private property ownership rights my definition of a
'private property activist' as opposed to a
'homeowner advocate' is as follows:
A PRIVATE PROPERTY ACTIVIST;
1. Questions the validity of the enforceability of an 'adhesion contract' which is based on an unconstitutional original 'contract' between the government (city) and a private concern (the developer) as a 'condition of approval' for residental development. In so doing, it is apparent the state and municipal government is attempting to circumvent the U.S. Constitutional protections for private property owners with respect to eminent domain passing these seizures under the guise of 'consensual' contracts.
2. Stands firm on the unconstitutionality of shifting a disproportionate tax burden based these city/developer contracts to the 'successor owners' of these properties. These 'nonconsensual' owners are then paying a disportionate share of city/county/state taxes to provide for governmental services for which non-HOA owners only pay with their property taxes. The end result is non-HOA owners are deriving an unequal and preferencial tax benefit (a disportionate share of city/county/state property tax revenue).
3. Acknowledges and addresses the 'conflict of interest' and fraud of industry lobbyists and PACs in their stated positions as 'representives of the Associations,' when other than the indirect benefits they receive with their excessive fees and manipulations upon the owners in these communities, they are not financlially supported by a significant portion of the private property owners in these developments, and does not support any legislation giving them any further control or power through the Boards in these communities but recognize them for the leeches and profiteers that they are at the expense of the private property owner. (the CAI, management concerns, insurers, vendors, real estate industry, etc.).
4. Directs their primary focus on recission of the laws which have permitted this disparity over the years - recission of the UCIOA, penalty and foreclosure statutes and contractual provisions, needed court and campaign reform in order to reestablish the balance of power and 'common law' provisons of private property ownership as priority over the unconstitutional 'judge made' laws which have occurred.
5. Works toward reversing these laws and trends in order to preserve unencumbered private property ownership for future generations as priority over 'jobs and the economy' of the industries, and the special interests of the now for-profit municipal governments feeding off of the citzenry and private property owner.
6. Focuses on constitutional protections in these 'contracts' necessary for the private property owners. No contract, without proper and express CONSENT, can remove a citizen's constitutional rights under the U.S. CONSTITUTION. The Bill of Rights and Preamble, in actuality, precedes any 'obligation under contracts,' under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, and any state statute and/or provisions other than those which preserve those rights, other than those needed and necessary for 'corporate' regulation and control.
7. Regulation, control, sanctions and accountability of the 'professional' vendors, in their products and/or services. (regulation of the 'policies' offered by insurers banning the 'blanket' liability policies covering the for-profit vendors, or removal of their 'agent' status for purposes of liability when acting as 'authority,' i.e., attorneys, management concerns, accountants, etc. - i.e., if the Board, in using the membership funds to 'purchase' the services of vendors - vendors acting in their 'stead' with respect to the membership and not merely as 'agent' - should also be accountable for any 'third party' damage to an owner and/or his property. This also includes acts or omissions of realtor/title companies in the sales and/or 'collection' of fees and/or costs at time of transfer. (these now 'fraudulent' and non-contractual added 'transfer' fees most title companies are collecting claimed due by the management companies in excess of $500 to sellers/new buyers. | |