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.
L ALLEN LOWENTHAL, DIST. 27
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
WHAT PART OF "NO" DO YOU LEGISLATORS NOT UNDERSTAND? ATTENTION SENATORS AND ASSEMBLYPERSONS: RIGHT HERE! RIGHT NOW! REPRESENTING 33,000 OWNERS
WHO VOTE SAY NO TO YOUR BILLS AND NO TO YOUR NONSENSE
THERE'S MORE ON THE WAY ...
=================================
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
VIEW COMMENTS
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
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
"Associations"
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
refund?
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!
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
"Associations"
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
refund?
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?
LAW OFFICES ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATION OF RICO ACT AND OTHER CLAIMS AGAINST HOA ATTORNEYS AND MANAGERS
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
LAW OFFICES ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATION OF RICO ACT AND OTHER CLAIMS AGAINST HOA ATTORNEYS AND MANAGERS
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)
n.
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.
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?
LAW OFFICES ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATION OF RICO ACT AND OTHER CLAIMS AGAINST HOA ATTORNEYS AND MANAGERS
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
LAW OFFICES ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATION OF RICO ACT AND OTHER CLAIMS AGAINST HOA ATTORNEYS AND MANAGERS
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)
n.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)