Email

Complaints

User Account

Login/Logout

Search

Talk Back

Tools

Information about Linda Gehring Linda Gehring Phoenix, Arizona 00000 Trademember: Pro-homeowner writer - Published on AHRC News Services Supports Homeowner Issues Rank: No ranking. Summary: Author and homeowner advocate Other Information:

4. I did want to express my thanks to AHRC for 'getting the word' out on homeowner associations     In light of all the below comments and commentary, I did want to express my thanks to AHRC for 'getting the word' out on these communities, and the inherent problems contained within them, and state sanctioned property theft with this faulty concept. Getting the word out itself is a major accomplishment. As a resource center for owners living in them, and for many who have but are not now due to either personal civil or property rights abuses, or loss of their homes and equity, in my opinion until there is a mass demonstration at the door of each and every state legislature throughout the nation calling for a ban on anymore, the powerful industries will prevail, and homes will continue to be taken more frequently, and with less public outrage, which is actually already beginning to occur. Please don't misunderstand the previous comments made, as a 'resource center' first and foremost, again, getting the word out is a major effort and service to the homebuying public, so that more and more will say, hopefully, 'NO WAY HOA.' And again, my fear more than any other, is that future generations won't even have an option, between this and Kelo, in any freedom for future generations to build wealth or even security by clear ownership of their land. While we are so concerned about the 'bullying behavior' that occurs to our children at school, this 'gang' mentality and abuse has now carried through to our neighborhoods now themselves. Instead of getting beat up on the playground over milk money, owners are getting beat up, harassed, assessed, fined, feed and abused over their rights of ownership to their homes, and while our 'governments' espouse concern for the future of America and Americans, ignore all evidence and blame for this disaster. The price is high for private property activists in what is going on in this state/developer madness, and can only hope and pray with your continued exposure, that the tide will shift in either limiting their future development, or at the very least, reviewing these overly restrictive charters at the outset, and provide adequate, inexpensive and impartial redress for owners living in them. Until then, thanks for keeping what is going on in the public eye. Posted Aug 23 2007 9:13PM CEST     Linda Gehring Phoenix, Arizona   3. I feel that these documents are not 'one size fits all' and this 'state interference' in a federal issue,     A Note from Linda Gehring I have posted a few comments but it does appear these communities have been 'politicalize' by both the industries and some of the owners who 'claim' advocacy but with my experience in the Arizona legislation did not appear 'homeowner' friendly at all in some of their positions (as I have repeated previously especially with the 'reserve' bill, when there were many, many homeowners opposed to it, those that 'officially' identify themselves as 'advocates' supported it, or were not opposed to it if it could be 'fixed.' I feel that these documents are not 'one size fits all' and this 'state interference' in a federal issue, with the exception of homeowner protective laws (such as minimum foreclosures, penalties allowed only upon member consensus of gross neglect) is what has created this situation. And unilateral assessment powers, or mandated reserves, with the fraud and theft and lack of accountability, with blanket indemnification also for the industries, will up the ante in the violence and discord in these communities. Many of these members are elderly on fixed incomes to start with, or singles and first time buyers in Arizona at least in some of the 'cheaper' forms of housing. They were non-profits intended with strict accountability due to the fact that they are adhesive AND non-profits....and homeowners are not demanding tax credits or rescission of those unconstitutional laws, most of the advocates only appear to wish the 'Boards' were more accountable, when these Boards actually 90% of the time are only doing what the management concerns or HOA attorneys direct them to do. Anyway, as I said it is apparent that the advocates don't appear to think there is something inherently wrong with the entire concept nor interested in getting them banned....and until there are some large federal actions, the CAI has the states in their pockets, and the rub is, the money they are using to bribe is coming from the thefts of the owners in these properties (which most likely is why Arizona has a man on death row) Linda Gehring Posted Jul 14 2007 3:50PM CEST     Username withheld , California   2. Judges who issue these unconstitutional orders should be immediately removed from the bench     Thank you for the response. As indicated, from the last two years in submitting, what occurred in my case, and experience I had through our legislature on the bills in the 2006 session, my position is based on a 'constitutional' interpretation regarding these communities, while many others posters and 'advocates' I encountered in my attendance at sessions don't wish to 'ban' them altogether as 'unconstitutional' on their face as 'corporate' ownership and dictatorships based on a 'tax and takings' scam between the developers and municipal governments which will eventually result in 'socialistic' land ownership stripping the founding fathers 'home of the free' concept through governmental collusion, but actually like their misery but just would like the state legislatures to pass even more unconstitutional laws (such as mandatory reserve laws), etc., since it appears they don't have the support in their communities to amend the documents on their own. Many advocates are doing just what the CAI is doing, promoting illegal legislation for all communities because they haven't been able to go through the amendment process of the documents themselves. The CAI is doing it because they didn't like the older documents which had some protections in them for the owners, banned foreclosures except as 'last resorts' and required membership votes for most monetary issues, so that they could remove the owners from the equation and gain further control in these communities through these Boards. Those are the unconstitutional laws which are the problem, so they also throw out piddly 'bones' in the form of parking bills, solar panels, etc., to take the focus of the legislature and the outraged homeowners off the statutes they passed these past ten years which have resulted in all the problems (Davis-Sterling, penalty statutes, nonjudicial foreclosure laws - most foreclosures in these documents were to be undertaken in the same manner as a foreclosure on a mortgage, which does require a foreclosure proceeding - the CAI are the entity responsible for removing the judicial process from these foreclosures in violation of many of the existing laws and documents for mortgage foreclosures. Anway, as I said my stance is clearly - these communities are 'unfixable' in that it is Big Brother living next door, with a lien right to your property without even eminent domain protection with powers even greater than the U.S. Supreme Court. But many are still focused on what they can do to 'fix' them, or have them formally acknowledged as 'governments' now, which they quite clearly are due to the additional removal of rights which have occurred - and with the excess and lack of accountability at every other level of government which has occurred in the federal, state, and municipal governments - what 'purpose' is there in having them acknowledged as 'governments' when even the state has now given them 'sovereign immunity' in the form of the insurance policies, and 'good faith' and 'business judgment' immunity, and for which the homeowners are even then paying for their own abuse one way or the other, paying for their own costs of suit, and also paying for the defense? Those who continue to spot the 'business judgment' standards are forgetting these are non-profits - so any 'reserves' for non-profits are amassed by 'soliciting donations' in the form of 'votes' - not going through the legislature to mandate them as an additional 'tax' again when owners aren't even getting tax credit for the maintenance sums as it is. In any event, non-profits amass 'reserves' through voluntary donations, or charitable community events. Any advocate that petitions the legislature for reserves with all the fraud that is occuring already in them to most other homeowners would appear also has an agenda obviously not desired in their own community or necessary, so is not 'representive' of homeowners at all, just a 'special interest' group again wishing to foster it's agenda at the cost of Joe Citizen. And all this energy setting up Omnibus offices and ALJ's to hear this is also wasting taxpayer time and money, when there is already a forum for 'due process' to address disputes and affordable - small claims court - and instead of addressing cleaning up the courts, instead lobby for another layer instead, a layer which will, I predict, become just as corrupt as the court system, and really without any 'teeth' nor power to 'change' things in these communities or address the unconstitutional laws which have passed. I have a different 'take' on them, and it is obvious not supported by many 'claimed' advocates or advocacy groups. I submitted the link for the petition, and there is a refusal on the link for receiving any 'spam' mail.....and an article just appears once on the site, and then disappears. I thought a permanent link might eventually result in enough signatures with all the visibility, and realize that AHRC is not a lobbying entity. Thanks again, I do hope some did understand and get something out of the articles I posted....but right now we have an ongoing assault over private property rights in this nation between the developers and government, per Kelo and now these mandated forms of housing....and 'the people' in this nation, as with the illegal situation, now viewed as not 'we the people' and for whom the government derives its power, but as a commodity to buy and sell out to the highest bidder for tax revenue and profit. I had earlier written, but did not see the unsubscribe link on the site, and it does get frustrating when it does appear to me that I suspect a number of these postings are 'industry' and until the realtors, lawyers, and other profiteers begin to also wake up to the fact that they will be just as vulnerable someday to a 'governmental taking' of their property, their 'profits' in these communities will become more and more scarce as people refuse to buy into one, or if all private land is eventually gone, their 'profits' and all those statutes will not mean a thing, when until that foreclosure remedy is removed, and judges who issue these orders immediately removed from the bench, and criminal prosecutions occur for these attorneys were are defying the existing laws in seizing these homes 'under color of law' will lose all those profits when their home is seized. Sincerely, Linda Posted Jul 2 2007 5:57PM CEST     Username withheld , California   1. Your conclusion that banning HOAs is not a position AHRC supports is inaccurate.     As previously forwarded, at the present time, please remove me from the AHRC list. I have an entirely different stance on these communities than most of those who post, and as a petition banning them in order to 'save our homes' is not a position AHRC supports, while supporting links on 'health care issues' and 'the angry patient', and 'advocates' who lobby for additional property thefts in 'mandatory reserves' and whose 'advocates' also have spouses, it appears, in the real estate industry which also are very active in 'lobbying' efforts for their professionals in these communities, I have posted the constitutional arguments on their validity, and that is not a position that is obviously 'mainstream' for those that feel they can be 'fixed.' Please, again, remove me from the mailing list....a great deal of the information is contradictory, and many claimed 'advocates' as indicated in many articles previously, unhappy homeowners in their communities with their Boards and advisors and their policies for their communities, apparently also using the legislature to further 'personal' rather than 'constitutional' goals. Linda Arizona AHRC Response Dear Homeowner: AHRC is a pro-homeowner news publishing networking site. It is a place homeowners and others use to share information and network with each other, either privately or publicly. The intention of our editors and staff is to provide information that educates and empowers the public so they have the knowledge to be self reliant and be able to protect their homes and families. AHRC is not involved in lobbying activities. Your reference to AHRC "supporting links on 'health care issues' and 'the angry patient', and 'advocates' " refers to news articles and Comments and press releases subscribers shared on AHRC. You have also shared your very informative articles on Constitutional and Homeowners Rights on AHRC and educated many. We have had very positive feedback on your articles from callers. Your reference to "petition banning them (HOAs) in order to 'save our homes' is not a position AHRC supports" refers to a link to a petition on to another website that you submitted using an article submission form. We had suggested that you submit an article or a press release giving details on the petition and include the link within the article . Article Submission Forms are for submitting articles, not just links. In addition we suggested that you use the Petition Form we have on AHRC. We suggested the latter because there are sites on the internet offer free services such as Petitions to mine emails and personal information for advertising databases. To avoid sending unsuspecting users into such exploitive databases , we set up a Petition Form on AHRC. Our subscribers can set up petitions using these and promote them on AHRC or other sites.. Your conclusion that banning HOAs is not a position AHRC supports is inaccurate. We have not received any previous email from you to unsubscribe. The User Account you set up also lets you subscribe and unsubscribe to newsletters and Communications. In addition every newsletter has a link that you can click on to unsubscribe immediately. We will unsubscribe you as requested - feel free to re-subscribe at any time. Thank you for the time you have devoted to sharing your experiences and knowledge. You have been a valuable resource and we appreciate all you have done. AHRC Staff Posted Jul 2 2007 5:50PM CEST     Username withheld , California

Return to 'Linda Gehring' | Submit a comment

Forums