Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Whispered Rumors

Chew on these. Fact or Fiction?

People who love "deed restricted" communities place controlling their neighbors above theirs Constitutional rights.  They would rather see a senior move to a convalescent hospital or drop dead  than live on a block with a house in need of landscaping or minor repair. These "good" people would never consider offering some hands on help to the failing senior. They are too busy imagining their property values are increasing--which they are not.  These same people continually vote against their own best interest.  They are aiders and abettors of their own tyranny.People who love HOA's are people who imagine themselves above reproach, therefore they have the right to control the rest of the membership--you and me.

First it was said the sale of Corbett Park was approved by only one vote. When I published that information on the web site they published some idiotic numbers claiming that was the vote count. How can we believe them? They can't even get their lies straight.

When the Civic Association assumed management of Sun City from the Del Web Corporation in the mid '60's, it was required the CC&R's be put to the membership for vote. It is said it was never done. Is it possible the CC&R's with which residents have been badgered are not legal? Is this why the board put them on the special election ballot?


By SCCA's board own admission there have been death threats, irate people that border upon violence. This would never happen if they properly managed our business. The bullet proof wall is a silent monument to SCCA's mismanagement. This wall symbolizes to Sun city residents what the Berlin wall symbolized to the world. Dissolve SCCA and take down the bullet proof wall. The end of tyranny is now!

It cost $87,097 of membership dues for the salaries of three code' enforcement officers to process approximately 1500 alleged CC&R violators over the height of their oleander bushes, visitors ages, location of trash cans, calling California poppies weeds, and general harassment over trivia. How many residents actually cared whether or not the oleander bushes were 12" higher than the CC&R limit? You can add to that the cost of writing letters and postage. Sun City is a designated blighted area. Other than the codes enforcement officers creating a self perpetuating payroll, what did the members of S.C. Core get for their $87,000 but harassment and intimidation?

When Sun City was first developed by Del Web, it was an adult community only. It wasn't until Jean Roberge petitioned residents door to door that it became a 55+ senior community. Wouldn't it be great if the age limit were dropped.

If people who file CC&R complaints against their neighbor, know they would be identified to the neighbor, 80% of the frivolous complaints would never occur. What these puny people don't realize is the alleged miscreant already knows who complained.

The arrogance of the board never ceases to amaze me. After all that has been exposed about them and their very bad management, they haven't showed one sign of willingness to take a single corrective measure--like terminating Donald Miller, reviewing the CC& R's in order to diminish the stupid and trivial ones, or take a more compassionate attitude towards the core seniors. They absolutely refuse to admit they do anything wrong. That is what I call jaded.

Would someone please tell me what benefits 98% of the members receive from SCCA Home Owners Association for their $286 yearly dues? What supreme or not so supreme benefits do we get from this association? As far as the swimming pools and hobby shops, how many members actually use them? Why does the majority of members have to pay for the minority of users?

CC&R's were written by lawyers over 45 years ago based upon condominium standards. With a few exceptions, the majority of the membership is made up of single family detached homes. The condominiums have their own separate home owners association that work for their homeowners. Most of the issues in the CC&R'S are stupid, ridicules, invasive, too restrictrive, and violate human rights. The CC&R'S used by the SCCA are not divine. They are neither Gospel nor the Bible. What is created or written by man can be changed by man or members. The CC&R's have been the major source of conflicts between neighbors and the SCCA for years. They have been used as a sword and a whip against residents and made their lives a living hell. This has robbed members of the quiet enjoyment of their home. The SCCA claimed they do so to protect property values. This is a lie. Sun City is declared a blighted area. Under SCCA leadership, Sun City has gone down in value in relationship to the new communities that are built to our borders. It is time to put a moratorium on these stupid CC&R's and start planning to bring Sun City into the Twenty First Century and eventually the City of Menifee Valley.
A supporting SCCA member spoke at the August general membership meeting. He got up to make big points with the SCCA Board. He was such a good guy I wanted to invite him home for dinner. He proclaimed in very loud tones: "I don't get it. Rules are rules. Why can't everybody just obey the rules." It was a great thought and I agree with him. So why is it the SCCA Board fails to obey its own rules--rules such as the association laws and by laws, rules such as every American's constitutional rights. It's O.K. for them to break the rules, but they want members to vote them powers to penalize us for the smallest infraction of very arbitrary rules. Well, dear rule follower, you are right. Let's obey the rules starting with the SCCA board.

(sing to jingle bells)

Cityhood, Cityhood is on its way.

No more code compliance or SCCA

No more dues, no more fools

Trespassing in our yards

Cityhood, yes, you should

Send SCCA to Mars!

by Dete Shaw

Dissolve the SCCA. We do not need their management. They need our money.

The Issues - Sun City, Oppression City, Fear City

Since the mid '70's the residents of Sun City have been living behind an iron shroud of oppression. They have been told by the power players it is needed to protect their property values. For years the SCCA Board of directors have been running Sun City as they pleased with little to no opposition from its membership. The few brave souls who did oppose them were so crushed by the SCCA Board, they never raised a voice in oppostion again. This is why so many seniors live in fear of retaliation if they speak about their abuses.When I realized I could no longer ignore the oppressive action of this board, I knew I would have to find a way to crash through the iron shroud that has hung over the silent and defeated souls of the people of Sun City Core. Something had to come forward to give people hope again. That is when I created SHOUT. It worked and is working.

First, we must stop them from doing this. Second, we must join together in the single purpose of dissolving SCCA. Third, we must dissovle SCCA. It is time seniors stop living in oppression and fear.

Boycott CAI. Boycott CAI.

The CC&R's which control the SCCA Core are 45 years old. They are obsolete and in conflict with twentyfirst century life style. The CC&r's as they have been written are contradictory, vague, trivial, and left to interpretation of whomever? They have become a bone of contention among residents, and cause conflicts betweem members and the SCCA. The codes enforcement officer, Donald Miller, has used his position to excessively harass, intimidate and otherwise abuse the senior residents over alleged violations. Donald Miller abuses his power with the complete approval and support of the board.

Sunday, July 1, 2007

Sun City Villas-- Board mismanagement & intimidation to title holders

$7,464.73 -- Where are the receipts? ? ?

The Sun City Villas Board of Directors gave checks from SCV bank accounts to the following SCV Board Members. This is the third time I am asking for them.

Where are the receipts for the monies spent?

Date Amount Check number Payee

01/14/05 $ 178.00 1151 Wren Rose

04/29/05 200.00 11223 Wren Rose

08/15/05 490.50 11281 Wren Rose

Total $ 868.00

01/21/05 241.69 1159 George Martin

05/13/05 $ 62.56 11229 George Martin

05/31/05 92.32 11239 George Martin

02/28/05 298.57 11183 George Martin

08/31/05 200.00 11294 George Martin

09/15/05 93.13 11303 George Martin

11/30/05 1,340.41 11309 George Martin

12/15/05 140.65 11351 George Martin

01/05/06 $ 450.00 11363 George Martin

01/05/06 150.00 George Martin

02/15/06 297.37 11388 George Martin

Total $3,125.01

01/23/06 497.47 11379 Janice Long

04/28/06 696.59 11439 Janice Long

06/30/06 601.92 11476 Janice Long

12/05/06 701.92 11578 Janice Long

Total $2,497.90

06/30/06 276.81 11506 Marguerite Price

08/11/06 547.01 4017 Marguerite Price

Total $823.82

03/31/05 $ 150.00 1160 Ann Kuta

This is not the total as it does not include the checks for 2007. This is a quick over view. We need to know what this money purchased for SCV.

$7,464.73 of SCV member’s money without receipts? ? ? ? Where are the receipts

Wake up titleholders of Sun City Villas. Do not reelect this Board. It's time for you able and willing titleholders to step forward and run for office .

Open your minds and don't let ignorance lead you. We are in serious jeoapardy of soon to be facing law suits, loss of property value, and exhorbitant monthly dues.

It is unbelievable!
July 24 meeting was illegally run with Emma from Slam who prepared the agenda, writes the minutes, seconded the motions, and adjourned the meeting to an "executive session" when she wanted to cut off me off from completeing another titleholder's question. I pointed out that property management companies are not allowed at "executive session" meetings. Of course, one well intentioned but ignorant member tried to say the property managemenr company had the right to attend an "executive session" meeting. Why were they going to hold an executive meeting after the board had already completed its regular board meeting is another suspiscious act. It is also interesting that Emma announced at the meeting "from now on we will be checking the community to see every one is in compliance, we are pro active so it will be a happy place to live." They want the titleholders to comply but they can't even hold a legal meeting.

The titleholders of Sun City Villas (SCV) will be in serious crisis if action isn’t taken this year! Wake up before it is too late!

Response to Marguerite Price’s open letter, June 26, 2007 to the SCV titleholders re: my requests of the board via letter March, 2007 suggesting six items to which Marguerite addressed

SCV Board Has a Fiduciary Duty to the Membership

They have breached their fiduciary duty, they fail to act in the best interest of the titleholder. They take actions that put the association into liability. They refuse to learn from others who know. They should either resign or be removed.

Civil Codes 1350 to 1378 Fiduciary duty, Corp. Code 309, 723

“. . . .So serious is each board director’s duty to those entrusting their loyalty, that, “Most acts by an agent in breach of his fiduciary duties constitute constructive fraud.” And a careless misstatement may [also] constitute constructive fraud even though there is no fraudulent intent..”#1

A Board of Directors of a deed restricted community has the duty to manage the community’s affairs as a business and not as a social club. It must be responsible and accountable to all titleholders of the community—resident or non resident. It has the duty to give information to the members truthfully and accurately without a convolution of the facts. Its leadership must be in the highest and best interest of all titleholders. This board has failed in all of the above duties.

SCV board signed four separate contracts of which they didn’t even realize they signed two with the Emmons Company when they signed a third with S&L. They had to hire an attorney to clean up their mess at the titleholders’ expense. Marguerite Price claimed it is because the second contract was signed by the previous board and they didn’t tell the new board about it. That’s really odd. The previous board and the current board are basically the same people except for Mr. Anas. Don’t they communicate? They signed a contract with a security company and didn’t even know there was a $4000 penalty to cancel it. Ms. Price claims they accepted without question Emmons statistics on the number of rented units in the Villas. When she did her own check,(which was her fiduciary duty in the first place), she discovered she had been misinformed. The meeting notices, the minutes, and how the meetings are run fail to meet the California Corporate Codes specifications. A property management company is a vendor of the association the same as any other vendor—gardener, pool cleaner, handy man, etc. It is the fiduciary duty of the board to properly supervise the management and not the other way around. There is no end to their bungling of SCV association business. The board illegally authorized George Martin to be the SCV architectural committee of one, thus placing the association into more liability.

The board has illegally authorized George Martin to be the architectural committee of one, thus placing the association into more liability.

“Boards that convene committees consisting of one person could incur a risk that the committee’s actions and recommendations may be found ineffective and unenforceable. Such committees may also pose additional liability for the board that allows it. Omission from the statutes of any provision for the creation of a committee consisting of one person implies that there cannot be a committee of one.” California Common Interest Home Owner’s Guide

“. . .A committee for the control of structural and landscaping architecture and design, or an architectural control committee, shall consist of not less that three (3) nor more than five (5) members.” Cal. Code Regs., tit 10 *2792.28 (a)

The Board insists upon having a representative from a property management company at the open board meetings. Because a property management company is only a vendor of the association, it is very, very poor judgment to have a representative from the management company attend the meetings. Yet this board wants all the power and glory to run things without the willingness to be responsible and accountable. Ms. Price writes open letters in an obvious attempt to discredit me for challenging their management. By Ms. Price’s own admission, she and the board were not doing their job and don’t know what they’re doing. Yet, they want to be on the board and run SCV. Is this the kind of management that is in the best interest of the titleholder?

Marguerite Price wrote; “. . . I am bringing this response up at the board meeting and in front of any and all homeowners because Mrs. Daniels has seen fit to put many accusations against myself, George Martin and the 2007 board on her web page on the internet.”#2

Therese Daniels response; “Accusations” are one issue. Facts about their performance and track record are what is published on the web site. As a titleholder since 1998, I have paid over $22,000 in HOA dues. My mother has lived at the Villas since 1982 and has paid over $60,000 in HOA. We both have an investment here as do all titleholders in the Villas. We have every right and moral responsibility to challenge the management of the SCV board of directors. Telephone calling Marguerite or any of the board is impossible for me. They don’t pick up the phone or return calls. They try to pass it to the management company. Any of you who dealt with Emmons when they were around know that is telephone tag and buck passing. I have written very polite letters to Marguerite Price stating “I would welcome a telephone call from her to discuss some of the vital issues to the titleholder.” As usual, she never had the courtesy to call. It is in the best interest of all the titleholders to challenge the decisions and spending of the SCV Board. It is your money! In the spirit of due political process and free speech I am entitled to get necessary information to all titleholders. However, that is no longer possible, thanks to George Martin’s poison pen petition he delivered to me with 54 signatures (one signature was a tenant) asking me to take their names off their mailing list. This left me no choice but use my web site in hopes that those few SCV titleholders who are connected to the internet would see it, print it, and pass it on to the other members.

Marguerite Price wrote; “Mrs. Daniels States that we “ sabotage your rights”, “brainwash the homeowners,” and Mismanage the association that we try to hide things from you. . .”#2

Therese Daniels response; All titleholders have the right to receive information from each other about association management. Why do they need George Martin advising them to sign a petition to stop any information titleholders may need to know. That should be their independent choice. Isn’t that trying to hide information from you? Is George Martin censoring the information of the titleholders? Telling people to not read or get information from another titleholder is blocking their rights to obtain—perhaps—much needed information. It isn’t hard to understand that whatever George said to persuade some members to sign a petition that was not in the best interest of the home owner to sign— had to be brain washing or maybe slander. Other wise why would a titleholder sign anything against his own best interest? Anything George Martin does with the knowledge and approval of the Board makes the Board part of his actions by condoning them. Getting a titleholder to act against his own interest by preventing information to be received from another titleholder is “Sabotage of the titleholder’s rights” by the leadership of SCV. This is another breach by this board of its fiduciary duty.

Marguerite Price wrote: “I don’t know if she realizes that by placing six pages of negative insinuations and guess work on her web page she is doing what she can to sell people on the idea of not buying in the Villas and by so doing, depreciates the value of the villas.” #2

Therese Daniels response; It always amuses me to hear how many people think they are experts in real estate who are not now nor ever have been in the business of real estate. If Marguerite knew anything about property values she and her cohorts would not have amended the CC&R’s with a rental restriction. I am currently an active and licensed Realtor. I practiced real estate in Los Angeles (where the big money is) for over twenty of the past thirty years. During that time I negotiated large and complex transactions, earned millions of dollars for clients, became a certified property manager and managed hundreds of units, donated hours to community service. My calling attention to the bad attitude and management of SCV on my web site will not depreciate the value of SCV since potential buyers don’t even know the web site exists. However the ignorant and malevolent decisions made by the board that affect the titleholder’s pocket books and their property rights which must be disclosed to potential buyers does affect the value of the Villa’s. My web site gives SCV titleholders information about the board and its long track record of bungling titleholders need to know. Remember if they do what they are doing to me for challenging them, they will just as readily do it to you.

Marguerite Price wrote: “1. Reduce the monthly HOA dues to under $200 per month.

Paying HOA dues of $246.24 per month--$73,259.40 goes into the reserve account each year. Paying only $200 per month only $27,059.40 goes into the reserve. . .assessments for any major repairs such as painting all units. . .And God forbid anything should happen to the pool.”#2

Therese Daniels Response: In the last three years, the exteriors have been painted and given a new face lift, the roads have been slurried, the trees trimmed, the pool maintained, etc. How much more does SCV have to spend on major maintenance? The life of all those projects should be good for the next five years! However in about four years the dues went up from $180 to $246. That is about a 36% increase. The cost of living has gone up—but not by 36%. The $200 figure in the letter was a suggestion. It was a “point of departure” to open discussion, which they refused to do. It’s not just about a reserve fund—it’s also about perpetual over maintenance. ( For the nit pickers and hair splitters who will challenge 1%, six vs. ½ a dozen, blue vs. blue green, let me say I know the numbers are not accurate to the penny. They are rounded off and approximated as nearly as I could.) Accounting is not my field but here are a few areas of the Board’s spending that could be added to the reserve fund to reduce the monthly HOA. By the way, whatever happened to the missing $12,000 the Board was dickering with the Emmons company? If we got an independent accountant and checked really close, I bet we could find other ways to build up the fund without more cost to the home owner. The numbers below could reduce the HOA to $212.00 a month. If we looked a little harder, we might even find other ways to save expenses. Numbers below are based upon the year.

Emmons Management (not necessary) 18,516+

Monthly extra charges by Emmons 3,842

Unnecessary Lawyer’s fees--approximately 5,500

Karen Nye + plants titleholders didn’t like 5,000+

Security contract 8,400
Total $39400

39400 – by 12 = $3283 per month -- 97 = $33.85 per titleholder per month
$246.46 – 34.00 = $212.00 per month

27,000 + 40,000 = 67,000 + $12000 missing = $79000 to add to the reserve fund.

Marguerite Price wrote; “2 & 3 Cancel services of new mgmt company and manage Villas without added cost of unnecessary mgmt company. We on the board are all retired and thought by volunteering for this board we would oversee the work of the management company, supervise the work of the gardeners. . .Make final decisions on contracts and handle maintenance problems. None of us feel we have the expertise to handle the finances, nor do we have the knowledge of the various laws pertaining to a retirement community. . .They know the laws, whatever we run into they have been there before and can best advise us how to proceed.”#2

Therese Daniels response; By Marguerite’s own admission, they are retired and don’t know what they are doing. (They should remain retired) Under California civil and corporate laws it is the fiduciary duty to over see all vendors—including the property management company. If they, by her own admission don’t know what they are doing—then how can they professionally over see the property management company? Is this a case of the tail wagging the dog? The cover page of the management contract with S&L, who want to refer to themselves as “SLAM” has a major mistake on it and one minor mistake. The mistake continues throughout the language of the contract. Neither the board nor “SLAM’ realizes it. Yet, the Board states it is better to use a management company. The Board is telling us it is capable of overseeing contracts, after it has already bungled four contracts at the expense to the titleholder-- and fails to see the mistakes in Slam’s contract. How safe are the titleholders of SCV with this kind of flaming ignorance? They want to “over see contracts!” What is wrong with this picture? They want you and me to believe they know what they are doing. We have to accept everything they say as Gospel. They take the posture we are dummies who don’t know. “It ain’t necessarily so.”

1. The villa’s was successfully run for many, many years without the use of a property management company. It can be done so today. There are no new management problems in the 2000’s.
2. If this board claims they can’t do the job without the services of a property management company, then they should resign or the titleholders should remove them from office. Why should the titleholders be made to pay for their incompetence?
3. They did not—I repeat—did not volunteer for the board. They campaigned to be elected. They clearly desired their positions on the board. When they took office, they entered into a fiduciary relationship to the titleholders and breached it ever since.
4. I am very knowledgeable on the subject of deed restricted communities and have repeatedly offered my services verbally and in writing. I am also knowledgeable about contracts. Is there any particular reason they failed to take advantage of my offer?
5. I not only offered my services, I offered them resources written by California’s foremost authorities on deed restricted communities. I sent legal and scholastic articles to them and all the titleholders. I included the bio of one of the best experts who has the distinct honor of one of her books chosen by committee to be included in the permanent law library of the California Supreme Court. They rejected all the information.
6. It takes no special training to manage SCV. Any one knows how to call a roofer, a gardener, or a plumber. Keeping a list of vendors doesn’t require a property management company, it requires a rolodex. The finances can be handled by a simple book keeper and an accountant. A secretarial service can handle the paper grunt work at half the cost and no intimidation to the titleholder.

I have read the contract SCV Board signed with S&L Management Company. SCV Board sold the SCV titleholders down the river. There is nothing in that contract in the best interest of the titleholder. There are several items in the contract which are legally questionable and may put the association in liability. This contract is written purely

the association in liability. This contract is written purely for the benefit of S&L Management and ultimately creates an adversarial position between the titleholders, the board and the company.

The Board bragged they saved about $4700 a year in management fees by hiring SLAM.#3. S&L is only charging a monthly fee of $1150 which will go up 5% each consecutive year. They didn’t tell you about “Exhibit A” (a list of 23 items of everything extra the titleholders will have to pay!) Here are some of the additional charges to SCV that will easily bring SCV’s monthly cost to $1600 to $2000 or more a month. “Exhibit A” attached to the contract has listed items of extra charge-- All of it at the price of the titleholders. Here are just a few:

* Processing returned checks $ 45.00
* Special mailings to membership cost + $75,00
* Word Processing 7.50 per page
* Additional meetings or meeting exceeding 1 hour 75.00 hr.
* Site inspection with landscaper at Board’s request 75.00 hr.
* Scanning and e-mailing invoices for approval 20.00 Per scan
* Collected late fees-50% association & 50% SLAM*

*(this puts the board in partnership with the management company)


Take a look at some of the terms in the contract. SLAM takes no responsibility for any of its actions. What is SCV paying them for? What benefits to the titleholders do they bring so the Board doesn’t have to do so much work—so it thinks.

page 3. 2. Fiscal Services:

2.1 “. . .SLAM shall not be responsible for any discrepancies between the budget and actual expenses, the budget being an estimate to be used only as a guide. The budget is to be adopted by the Board prior to distribution.#4

Page 4 3.3

“. . .SLAM shall also purchase on behalf of the Association such equipment, tools, appliances, materials and supplies for the property maintenance of the Community. All such purchases and contracts shall be in the name and at the expense of the Association.” (What has SCV done with all the equipment George Martin, Woody, and the others have bought in the past three or four years?)#4

Here are some quotes from Villa Appalling written by a legal expert about property management companies:

“After more than a decade of research we are of the opinion that management companies are not worth the money they charge. It is a waste of homeowner funds.”5

“Most management companies are not interested in doing it right as much as they are keeping the projects going and chasing their checks. If they finish the project, you won’t need their services anymore. Management companies usually use a smorgasbord of vendors who provide the largest kickback and who will “play ball” by the company’s terms. . . .”#5

“When the industry (referring to management companies) say that boards are “confused” by the law and its constantly changing nature, it is really because the industry wants them to be. If board’s are confused, then they will have to hire management companies, thus relying on the industry to interpret law the industry creates. These laws were designed by the industry to protect boards, not homeowners.. . .”#5

“If you believe that the company can or will protect your association, before you hire them, ask who pays in case the association is held liable for any of the management company’s acts or omissions. The management’s company answer is predictable: The association pays because all we do is what the board tells us to do.”# 5

Marguerite Price wrote; “4. Repeal the rental restriction amendment. This was explained at a previous board meeting. There are 97 units. At this time 13 are rented, 2 are for rent and 6 are for sale. The only time a problem would arise is if 4 of the six units that are for sale, sold and became rentals then we would to put the rental restriction amendment into effect. Again may I remind you that this was voted on by the homeowners. I wrote Mrs. Daniels a letter and explained this to her.”#2

Therese Daniels response; Marguerite’s argument is misplaced. It fails to justify the existence of a rental restriction amendment. Whether or not the number of units are at the rental restriction cap is moot. The issue is; there is a rental restriction amendment to the CC&R’s which is now a legally required disclosure to all potential buyers. Sellers must disclose to potential buyers there is a rental restriction along with the very excessive, increasing HOA dues, 55+ only restriction, and loads or other restrictions. How many 55+ only buyers do you think there are? How many other 55+ communities that offer many more amenities are competing for their purchases? How attractive do you think all these disclosures are to potential buyers who may still believe in the rights to private property? Bad board decisions are what depreciates the value of the Villas. SCV isn’t exactly the most desired location in California where people are flocking to live. Furthermore, the rental restriction will become grist for any current titleholder who needs to rent his unit over the rental restriction quota. There is also the issue of association liability if the rental restriction interferes with a titleholder’s need to sell or rent his unit and can not because he would be over the quota. There is also an issue of violation of a private property owners’ Constitutional rights. Most shameful of all is a silent but very real dirty little secret. Bigotry is the motivation for this amendment. What a can of worms with HUD that can open. Ms. Price claimed at a meeting last year that 80% of the titleholders voted for it. That is not so. According to the information I have, the actual number of votes for the rental restriction amendment was only 47.

I also challenge the legality of that amendment since I have good reason to believe proper legal procedure was not followed by the board, Emmons Company, or the attorney retained prior to sending that ballot to the titleholders. An investigation needs to be made regarding the methods in which they used to obtain this amendment. I am seriously considering challenging it in the Riverside County Superior Court along with a petition to the Court to remove this board for repeated breach of fiduciary duty.

Marguerite Price wrote; “5. Cancel the Villas membership with SCCA.. . .Since Mrs. Daniels doesn’t live here she has no idea who might benefit from the activities that are offered. Excersize classes, the swim club, lawn bowling, horse shoes, shuffle board, paint and ceramics classes, the travel club, bridge and pinochle. People came to Sun City to retire and have fun things to do and no have to travel too far. Quite a few Villains do take advantage of what entertainment is offered.#2

Therese Daniels response; I live in SC Core about 2 miles away from the Villas. Out of 4762 units in the SCCA Core approximately only 500 people actually use the obsolete facilities.#6 Most S.C. residents don’t want anything to do with SCCA Campus. Truly, the activities of the campus are not what attracted people to Sun City. Marguerite doesn’t seem to have a handle on reality. 4762 people have to pay $246 a year so the minority can use them. Out of 97 titleholders at the Villas approximately only 6 or 7 actually use those facilities. The rest of the 90 or so are penalized so those chosen few can have their fun at the expense of others. Many of the activities at the SCCA Campus could be held at the Clubhouse. Canceling Villas membership with SCCA would save $246 a year now. That means you are currently paying $20.50 a month + $246.24 = $266.44 a month or $3197.28 a year for two associations. SCCA and SCV can raise your dues up to 20% a year without your vote. I heard it said at one of the SCV board meetings I attended last year that the board plans to raise the dues 15% a year. That means between the two associations you could be paying as much as $600+ a month in HOA dues or $7200+ a year within the next three years! Is that O.K. with you?

Marguerite Price wrote; “Mrs. Daniels seems to be upset because some of you do not wish to hear from her.”#2

Therese Daniels’s response: With all due respect, it is not upsetting to me if some people don’t wish to hear from me. Civilized people agree to disagree all the time. They do so agreeably. This board used George Martin to demonize Therese Daniels and denies responsibility in having done so. This is literally a case of “let George do it.” If some people don’t want to hear, let them call me, write me, or say so when they see me. They don’t need be talked into signing some poison pen petition at the behest of George Martin. The question is, would any of them really have even cared if George wasn’t out doing his dirty work? The question is, if titleholders were not brain washed by the whispering campaigns about me, would they have been so willing to sign that petition? Still, another question is, if titleholders really knew their legal rights and how associations are properly run, would they have signed that petition? What is really weird about this is; Marguerite is trying to suggest SCV home owners are totally satisfied with the way the Board is running SCV and love to pay excessive monthly dues that will go up every year, love to have their properties depreciate, glad to see sale’s in the Villas halt, and their rights violated by bad board decisions. The titleholders don’t want anyone presenting information to help them. She is insinuating, all the “resident titleholders” think the board is made up of five infallible card playing saints. How stupid is that? The issues I am dealing with are the very essence of private property ownership and the cost of economic survival in the 21fst. Century. Ms. Price is suggesting home owners don’t want to know about that????

Marguerite Price wrote;“.First I wish she had listened to what I said when I mentioned the percentage of homeowners that signed the petition. I said when I mention the percentage of homeowners that signed the petition. What I said was RESIDENT, RESIDENT HOMEOWNERS.” 2

Therese Daniels response; that I wasn’t listening is a false accusation by Marguerite. I was listening. I take notes. Marguerite Price did not say Resident Homeowner. I repeat. She did not say “resident homeowner” By claiming 71% of the “resident home owners” is a convolution of the truth that gives her the last word-- she thinks?? Even if she had said “resident”, it is moot. Ms. Price makes an issue about my not being resident of the Villas and therefore—though she hasn’t actually come out and said it to my face-- suggests I shouldn’t be permitted the same privileges as the resident titleholders. It was especially apparent when the board thought I might run to be elected last year. The first thing they claimed “must be a resident to serve on the board.” I could have moved into my mother’s residence if it was important enough for me to run. The reality is that recent amendment to the association bylaws is illegal. They can not prevent a non resident from running for or serving on the board merely because he doesn’t live there. If the Board feels that resident titleholders and non resident titleholders don’t have equal rights in this association then, would Marguerite like to discount my monthly HOA dues since I am a non resident? All titleholders-- resident or not-- are entitled to the same rights, courtesy, privileges, information, and opportunities. Is Ms. Price distorting and convoluting the facts again? What the board doesn’t know is I lived at the Villas for almost a year in 1998 after my father passed away and my mother nearly died. That is when this association was very well run without the necessity of a property management company and the dues were only $180. The only thing that has changed since those good old days is the quality of the people on the board. Other wise the villas has the same maintenance, landscaping, and management problems it always had since was built.

The board needs to recognize it isn’t legally correct to continue making an issue over residents vs. non residents. Here’s what is written in the California Common Interest Guide by D. Vanitzian

“Aside from elementary arguments regarding the labeling titleholders as “absentee”, “resident”, or “non resident” and, but for the private nature of the property owned, the treatment of these so-labeled titleholders if disparate from those un-labeled titleholders could raise issues not only of equal protection, but of a “talkings.”#1

“. . .titleholders’ rights vest on purchase. The issue is not one an association’s “intent” to disenfranchise, it is an issue of the association’s creation of a class. Sub-class, or underclass of titleholders who, by virtue of their purchase in a common interest development are each given “equal share” on vesting. . .”# 1

Marguerite Price wrote; quoted from me “. . .some remain silent out of fear of negative repercussions from the Board.”

Therese Daniels response: There are several residents and non resident titleholders who are very unhappy with the management of SCV who had agreed the March letter should be sent. Some asked me not to put their name on it. Out of respect for their request, I excluded their names. A couple of them helped pay for the printing and postage so the entire burden wouldn’t be on me. If these titleholders who asked to not have their names included didn’t fear the board, they would have gladly kept their name on the letter. After seeing what George Martin a past board president, did to me with all five current board signatures on that petition, I now know why these people fear the board. Actions speak louder than words. It was pure malice on George’s part to circulate that petition.

This is a good time bring up the Angelo Longo controversy. Angelo Longo was not only informed about the letter to the Board in March, he was given a copy of it prior to my listing all the names. He very clearly gave me permission to use his name. Otherwise, I would not have included it just as I omitted the others who didn’t want their names. After certain residents who are either on the board or very friendly with the board called him and admonished him for it, he denied he gave me permission. I have had many conversations over the years with Angelo about his own disgust of the board calling them “housewives”, “crazy” and “old ladies”. Was Angelo talking out of both sides of his mouth? ? ?

Marguerite Price wrote; “. . .She feels there is a possibility that Marguerite Price, George Martin, Wren Rose and Jan Long may be dishonest. . .”#2

Therese Daniels response; “Me thinks, Thy Protest too loud?” Let Ms. Price show me where in my letter of June 11, 2007 that I hinted, suggested, accused, or speculated as to the honesty of the above mentioned board members in their use of money they received from SCV. Is this another distortion and convolution of the truth by Marguerite Price? I merely asked for an explanation and receipts of the checks that were written by SCV Association to these people. She still hasn’t produced receipts. She tells me to deal with S&L. Where in my SCV documents does it say I have to deal with a vendor? That is the board’s job—not mine. Ms. Price is chairman or president of the board. It is her fiduciary duty to deal with me. Her explanation of what she did with the money makes me wonder. If SCV is paying S&L to do the grunt paper work, etc., why on earth does the office need all the equipment Marguerite Price recently bought. Has the board no regard for the titleholder’s money? Do they think they can just continue raising the monthly dues and make the titleholders pay, pay, and pay? They have an attitude they are above question and do no wrong. Is it any wonder I challenge the competency of this group.


This is not about a popularity contest. It is business. SCV titleholders are being harmed by the management of the current Board. We are entitled to have better representation. It is our money, investment and legal rights that are in jeopardy. They have bungled over four contracts we know of, distort reality, fail to follow proper procedures running meetings, taking minutes, sending notices and appointing committees of one. Their only solution to anything is to hire property management companies who also fail to give proper advice and raise the monthly dues. One property management is the same as another. They went to the same school and operate under the same laws.

The information in this response needs to be read by all titleholders in the Villas. However because of George’s petition, I am only sending it to the titleholders whose names were not on the petition. If you agree all SCV titleholders should have better management, then give a copy of this response to your neighbor who didn’t get this statement, call me, or send a letter to the board asking them to terminate the management company, rescind the rental restriction and/or resign. If they had any integrity, the would resign voluntarily. They were elected by the titleholders and they can be removed by us. As much as they want you to believe so. they are not the only five titleholders in the Villas who could serve on the Board. I can not say it strong enough. It this isn’t the first time in SCV history that inept boards were removed from office by the membership. It is you, the title holder who pays the ultimate price for bad management. It’s time we protect our assets and take control of our own destiny.

Sources of Information

1. California Common Interest Development—Homeowners Guide by Donie Vanitzian

2. Open letter written by Marguerite Price and read at the June 2007 Board Meeting

3. Villa Voice, past minutes, copies of SCV contracts, and SCV bank statements

4. Contract between SCV and S&L Management Company

5. Villa Appalling ,Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living, Vanitzian & Glassman

6. 2002 Survey by a SCCA committee on actual number of people who use SCCA facilities.


A copy of the open letter and Smiling George Martin's statement were promised to my mother since Therese wasn't at the June meeting. Marguerite Price did not even have the courtesy of ringing my mother's door bell and handing the letter to her. My mother found it on the ground at her door step. Since her front gate is always locked, it had to be thrown there. Is this any way for a Board of Directors to do business with titleholders?

wall of Shame
signatures on petition circulated by George Martin

* George Martin Elyce Elyra Ardine Young
* Jeanie Vasquez Hilda Jensen Laura Keyes
* Judy Smith Janice E. Long Marjorie Chase
* Marguerite Price Angelo Longo Janice Bell
* Pat Flecky Judy Appell Toyoko Shafer
* Ann O Dubois Diana Ward Anna May Welsh
* Dollie D. Learn Frieda Prushansky
* Lione S. Ried Vernon Anas Shirley Burger
* Arthur Ortiz Edward M. Gross Kathie Atwell
* Marie Southard Luela Schuelky Barbara M. Neiier
* Jacquelyn Stephener Stephen Eliseudo Katherine Helms
* Wren Lane Marvan Hothan Liz Busch
* Dorothy Gray Marion Woods Eula Comyns
* Roger Hirth Edward Kuta Rosemary Allinson
* Gwen Long Lillian Diefenndorf Vaela Johnson
* Mary Kuenzie Helen Smith Alora Lee Bobzien
* Carolyn Smith Nancy Conz Robert Roner

Help stop child abuse--support the Museum of Innocence--go to www.museumofinnocence.org

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Take These Bills And Shove IT! We AIN'T TAKIN IT NO MORE!

By Donie Vanitzian (View author info)
Sacramento, California -

URGENT - HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION HOMEOWNERS AND CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE PROPERTY OWNERS! There is currently loads of housing and other legislation spinning its way through the California Legislature. BE INFORMED!! Your Pocketbook depends upon it. It seems like more and more legislation these days is designed to extract more and more money from "Joe Taxpayer". Hold your legislator accountable!

The following flyer representing 33,000 unit owners in a 60 page fax apparently hit the California Senate and Assembly hard!!

Take These Bills And Shove IT! We AIN'T TAKIN IT NO MORE!

These are BAD BILLS !

NO on Senate Bill 670 L LOU CORREA, DIST. 34

NO on Senate Bill 948 L TOM HARMAN, DIST. 35.

NO on Senate Bill 127 L SHIELA KUEHL, DIST. 23

NO on Senate Bill 528 L SAM AANESTAD, DIST. 4

NO on Assembly Bill 563 L MICHAEL VILLINES. DIST. 29

NO on Assembly Bill 567 L LORI SALDANA, DIST. 76

NO on Assembly Bill 952 L GENE MULLIN, DIST. 19

NO on Assembly Bill 980 L CHARLES CALDERON, DIST. 58




Donie Vanitzian, co-author of the book "Villa Appalling! Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living and author of The California Common Interest Development - Homeowner's Guide", wrote the following regarding the shenanigans of bad bills and how they morph and materialize into something other than what people thought they would be.

They slammed the legislators with 33,000 unit signatures and a 60 page fax opposing bad bills (see below). Lou Correa's SB670 was successfully defeated.

1. Management companies and industry parasites have perfected the art of writing such bills so they APPEAR AS IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE HELPFUL TO OWNERS when they are not.

2. Lobbyists (the majority of lobbyists are lawyers) have perfected drafting bills that SOUND as if they are helpful and useful, BUT ARE ANYTHING BUT THAT. [that's the problem with these eight bills, they sound great, but they suck] Only a lawyer would know the legal effect such bills will have on individual property owner rights.

3. Unlike some of the other bills the industry has been successful in passing under the radar, these particular bills are tandem bills - they piggyback onto each other, meaning, they are far more insidious - if one bill fails, its wicked sister picks up and propagates right where the other left off. An unsuspecting public would likely not catch these problems, and that's just the way the drafters of the bills like it.

These bills place liens on property - not just CID property - and the liens live forever in perpetuity. The money extracted from the liens is extracted EVERY TIME A TRANSACTION RELATED TO THE PROPERTY IS CONDUCTED -- wait here's the rest of the bad news -- the money goes to the developer, OR groups like tree huggers and environmentalist groups and affordable housing groups and homeless groups and g-d knows what else kind of groups -- you don't get a tax write off, you can't fight it, you just have to pay. They can take upwards of 15% on UP of any of your property transactions and divert the money to whoever is listed on the lien. So, if the developer wants income for life on that empty lot even, he gets it. He can foreclose on you if you don't pay. Its really worse than this, but that's the shorthand version.

4. Unlike other industry bills, these bill affect commerce i.e., sales - i.e. REAL ESTATE SALES AND REAL ESTATE SALESPERSONS. This is a bit unusual because the California Association of Realtors (CAR) is sponsoring much of these. Over the weekend I was flooded with angry letters from real estate agents and brokers who were blitz-e-mailed a dose of hysteria by CAR "instructing" agents and brokers to contact special 1-800 numbers to REGISTER SUPPORT FOR THESE BILLS.

Many real estate agents and brokers unfortunately, did not read the bills, and accepted the fact that CAR was representing their interests. When they found out that was not the case, they were red hot damn mad as hell. These bills will increase liability, lawsuits, and other problems for real estate professionals. It will also make the home sale excruciatingly difficult for anyone who is not a lawyer. Most real estate professionals are not lawyers.

5. Sponsors of such bills have also perfected the art of "amending" these bills in order to get them passed by garnering owner approval of the final version -> BUT, once they pass, the "amendment" is waiting in the wings and the FIRST INSIDUOUS VERSION IS REINSTATED! In 3 words, we get screwed. Owners who purchase residential deed-restricted properties in common interest developments are never "safe." It has become impossible to let your hair down and relax with all of these deceitful and prejudicial actions going on behind our backs that serve to do nothing more than cost us money, relegate our purchases to a sub-class category compared to others, and disenfranchise our rights.

Constituents of these legislators should be informed! Contact them and let your voice be heard!

California State Legislators


Sunday, May 6, 2007

Fact from Fiction about SCCA & SC history

SCCA can't get its facts right! Who wrote the "SCCA Organization" published on SCCA Web site? ? ?

Stop believing the lies!

Check it out!

If SCCA can't even get its historical information right, what else can't SCCA get right?

SCCA's latest flim/flam trying to get members
to vote on a recall rule that isn't even legal!
They are counting on your ignorance!
Read this expert's opinion!
Donie Vanitzian, J.D. Arbitrator

May 6, 2007

Ms. Daniels
26020 Ridgemoor Road
Sun City, California 92586

Dear Ms. Daniels,

Thank you for writing to me at the Associations column appearing in the
Real Estate section of the Los Angeles Times. Please be advised that we
do not answer individual letters, but instead strive to address topics
for print where many readers who likely share the same or similar
problems may benefit from the answer. Our book Villa Appalling!
Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living, does address
numerous situations, not unlike the ones you describe, and was touted
“The Best Buyer Beware Book.”

In my latest book, Common Interest Developments—Homeowners Guide
(Thomson/West, 2006-2007, Expert Series) (hereafter “West”) the topic of
elections and Civil Code Section 1363.03, are addressed at length.
Legal analysis related on that same topic, is greatly expanded in the
2008 edition.

Relying on interpretations and analyses located in our Los Angeles
Times columns, the Thomson/West book, and my other legal treatises on
the subject matter of “elections;” in my opinion the “Proposed Recall
Rule” described in your letter, would likely be void on its face because
there is no such statute in the Davis-Stirling Act. The legal term
would be “removal.” Could it be possible that those responsible for
circulating the “Proposed Recall Rule” meant “Removal?” Because the
wording in the “Proposed Recall Rule” is legally inaccurate, that vote
would be void (See West, § 4:10. See also California Law Revision
Commission, Staff Memo H-855, Statutory Clarification and Simplification
of CID Law: Member Elections, Apr. 18, 2007 Exhibits 5–24). Do the
covenants, conditions, and restrictions use the term “recall?” Who
drafted the covenants, conditions, and restrictions? Maybe try for a

If, as you state, there are 4,762 units in a particular common interest
development, and an association expends $40,958.79 in connection with a
recall [sic] -- it doesn’t take a genius -- lawyer or not -- to figure
something appears to be seriously amiss. We tell our readers to use
their common sense. How does an association substantiate expending
$40,958.79 on a board election?! Think how many mortgage payments could
have been made. How many utility bills could have been paid. How many
foreclosures would be prevented. How many hospital bills and medication
prescriptions could have been paid for. How many air-conditioning units
could have been installed. If something like that happened at the
State-level, voters would be screaming foul.

You write that “the new voting requirements imposed by the Civil Code
[means that the] association will spend between $10,000 to $15,000, not
including necessary attorney’s fees, every time a recall is initiated.”
First, the quote fails to state a Civil Code or statute “section
number.” Are the owners supposed to guess which code that
correspondence is referring to? Circulating half-baked and inaccurate
information and instructions, and then expecting titleholders to vote on
mere speculation, is incompetent. Second, the statement itself is,
ridiculous. Nowhere in statute or case law, are such expenditures
mandated, nor are they necessary. Civil Code Section 1363.03 was
devised to prevent such needless expenditures. Nowhere in Civil Code
Section 1363.03 does it state an association must hire an “attorney” for
the purpose of conducting an election. One would have to question the
motives of a board that feels this is necessary. Third, why would any
owner vote to eliminate protections that exist in the law? Voting FOR
this “Proposed Recall Rule” will have the effect of eliminating options
that are available to owners to protect their property and assets. How
crazy is that!

Simple? Do not be fooled. There is nothing “simple” about that
“rule.” It will have far-reaching consequences for all that must live
under it. Why would any owner want a board in power that wants to pass
a rule like this?
Very truly yours,

*Nothing in the aforementioned is intended to relay legal advice, real
or imagined. Always seek qualified legal advice prior to making a decision.

On SCCA web site, paragraph 2, in the S.C. Organization, it states:
"Sun City was developed in 1964, breaking new ground by providing a community reserved for senior residents, with central meeting and recreational facilities designed for their exclusive use. Sun City became and remains today a bright haven for people 55 years and older who have worked long and hard for casual retirement among others with similar interests and goals.

This is pitiful. People unfamiliar with S.C.history read this and believe it. This is how more ignorance to over come is perpetrated by SCCA. People are entitled to real facts not lies.

Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong

Sun City was never developed as a 55+ community. It was intended only as an adult community of age 18+. I have a copy of an original Del Web promotional document. I would publish it on this web site but lack the technical skills to do so. Del Web's promo letter clearly states:

"Children are welcome as visitors any time, as are all your family and friends, but they must be over 18 to become permanent residents. Outstanding among the advantages of an adult community are the low taxes, as a result of the increase in tax revenue to the area without increasing the need for school facilities, and a desire of adults for the elements of a community designed exclusively for them."

Doug Gibson did win his law suit regarding the 55+ status SCCA claims is legal. SCCA has been denying Mr. Gibson's victory for years. The reality is SCCA's 55+ status is illegal!

More Lies

The greatest fiction being perpetrated by SCCA is that the enforcement of CC&R's keep up property values. This is a myth created by developers selling homes in deed restricted communities. It is not true. If it were true then properties would have not dropped below $100,000 in S.C. Core in the '90's.CC&R's and their enforcement would have kept property values up in Sun City and all over America where there are deed restricted communities! If it were true then run down properties in the worst LA neighborhoods shouldn't be selling for over $750,000 to over 1,500,000 while S.C. well kept properties have dropped in value to under $200,000. CC&R's do not determine property value. They create an excuse to control you.

Lies, myths and misinformation people have come
to believe as Gospel
CC&R's Keep up property values (lie #1)

It began over forty years ago---
. . . when builders began developing "deed restricted communities". In order to sell their product they had to first sell the concept "deed restricted commmunities" were a good idea. "They keep up your property values" is the idea they sold. Don't all good people want to keep up property values? Americans, at that time, had insufficient experience with "deed restricted communities" to predict their evils. They had know way of knowing what hell was about to be unleashed upon them.

Here is another lie!

Is a 55+ community really a good thing ? ? ?

Are the imaginary benefits you think you are getting worth the very real price you are paying ----
(like reporting your proof of age to the office every two years, invasion of your privacy with SCCA spying on you and any guests, the keeping of property values down, the having to beg permission for a care giver when in need--even if the care giver is a family member, the threat of a SCCA law suit if the codes compliance department decides--right or wrong--there might be a person living under the age of 55 in your home longer than one month)----
Is it really worth it?

There is nothing more dangerous than ignorance!

Thursday, May 3, 2007

Stop Shoving the Facts Under the Bed

Stop Shoving the Facts Under the Bed

Recently there was an article in The Californian about the SCCA recall movement organized and led by a small group of residents who supported the old finally departed SCCA regime. The article is well written pablum. Both sides of the recall effort conspicuosly ignored the real and heinous problems of members of SCCA. Both sides via Brian's writing painted a false portrait of a illegal 55+ community, owning property at bargain prices, living happily ever after as if in Camelot. They carefully avoided why Christine McReynolds was terminated, or why Donald Miller is still in charge of codes compliance, that only 10% of the over 5000 members actually use the undefined services SCCA offers for its "terrific price of $291 per year." Both sides ignored mentioning all the law suits SCCA has on going against its members for such trivia as falsely accusing members of having under age children living with them or operating a home business, or other harmless to any one accusations. Both sides ignore the fact that the way Sun City is designed, it is stupid to even have a civic association. Why aren't the real facts discussed and exposed? Tidy little statements about the value of a 55+ community are made while ignoring the price every member has to pay for it--like invasion of privacy, violation of member's Constitutional rights, being spied upon via the mail, having to report to the office every two years. keeping of property values down*, or abuse of senior citizens by SCCA management in the name of "codes enforcement". (However in Riverside County neither the judicial system nor residents seem to think violating resident's Constitutional rights is too important). Why doesn't Brian write about the real issues in SCCA?

Information Requested from Attorneys and from the Public
Los Angeles, California

The Law Offices of Gottschalk & Associates announced today that it is launching a RICO investigation of attorneys and management companies for homeowners associations in California.

RICO stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Congress initially passed this legislation to combat organized crime. However, subsequent Federal and State case law has significantly expanded the use of the RICO Act.

There is an existing complaint in the Orange County Superior Court under the RICO Act and other claims that is set for trial in July 2007 against the law firm of Swedelson & Gottlieb, David Swedelson and Sandra Gottlieb individually, Association Lien Services and others. The complaint has been sustained against demurrer. Gottschalk & Associates have been retained to file a further potential RICO Act complaint, including other claims against Swedelson & Gottlieb. Attorneys who have knowledge of potential RICO Act claims or any other claims or who have filed such claims against Swedelson & Gottlieb are requested to contact Gottschalk & Associates.

Homeowners who currently live or formerly lived in homeowners' associations that have information of potential claims against Swedelson & Gottlieb and Peters & Freedman are requested to forward debt collection letters, bills for excessive fees not due and copies of their complaints and lawsuits and to advise whether you wish to be considered as a Plaintiff Class Representative in a class action. Homeowners who already are represented by an attorney are requested to have their attorneys contact Gottschalk and Associates with the information.

Gottschalk & Associates has pending cases representing homeowners against homeowners associations or their representatives in California. If you have information you believe could be valuable to the investigation please contact Gottschalk & Associates.

Gottschalk & Associates will treat all information as confidential. Please fax your information and supporting documents for this investigation toll free to Gottschalk & Associates at:

Fax 877-284-3067

Gottschalk & Associates
Main Office:
803 25th Street
Santa Monica, California 90403
Phone: (310) 476-3197 Fax: (877)284-3067
Email: Gottschalk & Associates

Disclaimer: The materials and content provided by this posting is for general infomational purposes only and should not be relied upon or considered as legal advice. If you seek legal advice or representation by Gottschalk & Associates, you must first enter into a formal agreement. Transmission of the information contained or available through this posting is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Receipients of this information, including internet subscribers and on-line readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
Please click the link below to •View Article •View Comments(0) •Post Comments

The Communist Revolution in America

HOA 'Communities' Fit Clear Communist Doctrines

May 03, 2007

By Linda Gehring
Copyright Linda Gehring
Phoenix, Arizona -

In furtherance of the Constitutional positions taken previously with respect to the 'new' form of government almost 50 million Americans are now subjected to due to city/state/developer mandates sweeping across the nation, and especially after the New Jersey Twin Rivers case in which the CAI (Community Association Institute) submitted its amicus curai brief to the New Jersey Supreme Court in support of the 'voluntary' removal of Constitutional free speech provisions due to their purported 'voluntary' purchase of an HOA controlled property, please note below the unconstitutional form of government our cities/states have treasonously created with government initiation and support of these communities throughout the nation:

com•mu•nism (k m y -n z m)
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Insofar, then, of then even supporting Constitutional citizens provisions for the 'redress' of grievances to our government for these blatant treasonous acts, you might also find the article posted on the Jail4Judges website with respect to 'sovereign immunity' and the judiciary also of interest. It can be viewed at www.jail4judges.org/goals/JudicialImmunityDoctrine.html.

Wake up, America........our government under its current leadership is now a law unto themselves, and apathy and acquiescence is not going to change the dangerous path that is now becoming almost irreversible.

Write your U.S. Congressmen and state legislators today, that this is unacceptable, and a violation of their sacred duty and blatant violation of their oaths of office.

Tuesday, May 1, 2007

Smiling George Martin

A copy of the open letter and Smiling George Martin's statement were promised to my mother since Therese wasn't at the June meeting. Marguerite Price did not even have the courtesy of ringing my mother's door bell and handing the letter to her. My mother found it on the ground at her door step. Since her front gate is always locked, it had to be thrown there. Is this any way for a Board of Directors to do business with titleholders?

wall of Shame
signatures on petition circulated by George Martin

* George Martin Elyce Elyra Ardine Young
* Jeanie Vasquez Hilda Jensen Laura Keyes
* Judy Smith Janice E. Long Marjorie Chase
* Marguerite Price Angelo Longo Janice Bell
* Pat Flecky Judy Appell Toyoko Shafer
* Ann O Dubois Diana Ward Anna May Welsh
* Dollie D. Learn Frieda Prushansky
* Lione S. Ried Vernon Anas Shirley Burger
* Arthur Ortiz Edward M. Gross Kathie Atwell
* Marie Southard Luela Schuelky Barbara M. Neiier
* Jacquelyn Stephener Stephen Eliseudo Katherine Helms
* Wren Lane Marvan Hothan Liz Busch
* Dorothy Gray Marion Woods Eula Comyns
* Roger Hirth Edward Kuta Rosemary Allinson
* Gwen Long Lillian Diefenndorf Vaela Johnson
* Mary Kuenzie Helen Smith Alora Lee Bobzien
* Carolyn Smith Nancy Conz Robert Roner