|
|
|
|
|
|
Press Release
|
|
JANICE JACKSON VS [HER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION]
Judge has ordered me not to publicly mention the name of my Homeowners Association /CIC , or the names of board or other members of my HOA/CIC
December 07, 2007
By
Jan Jackson
(View author info)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Controversial gag order by Judge on Oprah Winfrey
Sun, 4 Jan 1998 By Business Writer Cliff Edwards.
The judge in the 'Oprah/Mad Cow' trial has imposed a highly unusual and controversial gag order on all parties. None of the attorneys, the defendants or plaintiffs or their representatives will be allowed to discuss the case until AFTER the jury verdict.
There will be a pre-trial conference this Tuesday, then opening arguments and jury selection begins Jan. 20th.
This trial will be the historic first constitutional test of the new 'food disparagement laws' that the food industry has introduced and lobbied into law in 13 states.
For information on the trial call the court in Amarillo, TX:
US District Court Judge Mary Lou Robinson
Case #2-96-CV208
#806-324-2352
For more information on the mad cow issue, food disparagement laws, and exactly what was said on the Oprah Show visit the PRWatch web site:
A Knight Ridder article by Aaron Epstein in the 12/31/97 Washington Post ('Ranchers' Beef With Oprah Winfrey, Guest Offers First Test of Food Defamation Law' pA12) says that the food industry is looking forward to a victory in the Oprah case and eager to use the laws in other states.
The Associated Press will apparently run a story on the trial Monday AM:
Jan. 5: CHICAGO -- Although no cases of "mad cow disease" have ever been documented in the United States, the question of whether an epidemic could strike is intriguing enough to be talk-show fodder. That's why Oprah Winfrey is expected to take the stand in a lawsuit brought against her by Texas cattlemen.
Posted Dec 15 2007 8:45PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Hi Michael:
Re NC website: WOW! I love it !! I live in Colorado, though. So the NC Sup Ct wouldn't be precedent-setting for me ... would it?
Thanks for your comments about not getting discouraged at District Court level. You're right, of course, but it's very hard not to get discouraged when a homeowner spends years fighting his or her HOA, only to have what appears to be politics-drived judges rule on everything BUT facts and law.
Yes, I intend to go all the way to the Supreme Court in Colorado, if I have to. If I lose there (since my attorney and I believe we have the all of the facts and law on our side), that will tell me/us that the state of Colorado judicial system is broken beyond repair. And I will post that here on AHRC. Then I will go on to the United States Supreme Court, if they will hear my case (we believe my Constitutional right to free speech has been wrongfully taken away from me). If the USSC refuses to hear my case, I will be immediately starting on a tour of the United States telling my HOA story -- facts and law. :-)
But before I do THAT, I intend to try to repeal Colorado's HOA/CIC laws/Act (Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act) in 2008. It is, imho, a product of what appears to be many corrupt (power-and-money seeking) state of Colorado legislators and CAI lawyers-lobbyists. :-(
Jan Jackson
Colorado HOA News
Posted Dec 14 2007 2:03AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Jan Jackson
Florissant, Colorado |
| |
|
|
| |
Mrs. Jackson,
Check on the AHRC website - go to NC website for the AHRC and look at the latest court case involving the ledges. There, the supreme court of NC says that the purpose of the homeowners association is not to allow the majority to subvert the minority, and that the majority can only make changes that are in the scope of the original bargain or contract when the homeowners purchased the property. The judge also says that admendments and covenants that are open ended and allow unlimited rights on the side of the HOA are UNENFORCEABLE.
Also, I am like you in my association - the real reason you are the minority and the other homeowners are a majority is simply because many of the majority are too scared or spineless to stand up for what is right, and just go with the flow.
For a judge to make that statement is out of character and in poor taste -
I have learned that to get justice with your HOA, don't be discouraged by district court ruling because of the amount of the good ol' boy syndrome. Take it all the way to the State Supreme Court where the defending attorneys have no pull with the Judge, and the judges there have to make rational decisions because they are making law, not pretending to try to enforce it like lower court judges, especially DA's
Posted Dec 13 2007 8:19PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Michael Hudson
(View Profile)
, North Carolina |
| |
|
|
| |
Thank you, Myles! I am determined to do what's right, that's for sure! And I will also do everything I can to win! :-)
Jan Jackson
Colorado HOA News
Posted Dec 13 2007 3:57PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Jan Jackson
Florissant, Colorado |
| |
|
|
| |
One more time . . . a person of authority(?) tells Janice Jackson what she has experienced without the authority having been there.
In my life, the concept of 'knowing what I was talking about' was always put down and 'reinterpreted' just as if I were in someone's concentration camp.
SUPER Capitalism is winning over individual property rights unless legal money IS spent.
Congratulations Janice for having the determination to fight back.
Posted Dec 13 2007 2:39PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Myles Opheim
(View Profile)
Fort Worth, Texas |
| |
|
|
| |
In my opinion, and many others who have posted on this site, it appears, over the years, it really doesn't matter in these actions until the other 'parties' and 'participants' in this land fraud are brought in which way they go, either way the owner(s) really lose. These communities are nothing more than enforced communism at their core, not 'covenants' at all when they are 'state created' and 'state mandated,' for all new development.
Part of the 'New World Order' of corporate world government all the way down to dicating the color and brand of paint you must buy and use, makes the terms 'property rights' in this country with respect to home ownership truly a contradiction in terms, and 'intent' of the founders.
As 'state employees' benefitting from this property theft, and also excess taxation, doesn't appear 'the law' really is being consulted in any of these actions - the U.S. and state's own constitutions. And see must be another 'activist' judge ruling from the bench in Colorado - both a 'gag' order, and also his 'take' that 'we live in a democracy.' Unfortunately, 'democracy' is a 'voting' method and not our form of government at all - it is clearly defined as a Constitutional Republic as set forth in 'the law of the land,' and written to insure 'individual rights and freedoms' over sovereign and corporate rule, at all, especially with respect to land and home ownership in this country.
Although the 'details' of this case have never been posted at all really, a five day 'trial' over a civil action supposed 'contract' truly incredible, and just goes to show what our courts have become. Guess from his 'take' on our government, intends to use the Communist Manifesto during his deliberations.
Based upon my experience and others, 'trial by jury' is the only truly 'impartial' venue and forum for these cases at the state, and appears with the Kelo collusion, even federal levels.
Again, sad state of affairs for America and Americans, tyranny and extortion now the 'rule of law' through our court systems.
Posted Dec 11 2007 5:57PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
Phoenix, Arizona |
| |
|
|
| |
To Username withheld in Texas:
Agreed.
Words have meaning, and their meaning are very important to the continuation of any civilized society.
Jan Jackson
Colorado HOA News
Posted Dec 9 2007 9:17AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Jan Jackson
Florissant, Colorado |
| |
|
|
| |
Ravi Kapoor, Paramount, California, wrote:
I wish from the core of heart to have amicably judgement for all concerned. Me too, Ravi, since I believe reasonable men can disagree and, often, can resolve their differences through logic and reason, amicably.
The problem with HOAs and CICs, though, appears to be that some members of the human race are not always reasonable or logical and don't mind being non-amicable.
It is my understanding that way back when humans were first trying to civilize themselves, they struck upon the idea of certain "standards" for each small group of humans to live by. Then, over thousands of years, those standards became "laws" for all of us humans to live by. Their thought, it appears, was that laws were better than hitting each other over the head with a club whenever they disagreed about what they, as a society, believed was "right" and "wrong" for a civilized people to live.
Those "standards" (now "laws") were a very good idea, I think ... IF everyone in a particular society lives by them. But, human nature being what it is, that doesn't always happen. So, we here in the United States try to place people who don't obey our laws someplace away from those who do. Those places are called "jails" and "prisons" (and sometimes "mental institutions"). Only under certain unconscionable circumstances do we, as a society, agree to take a person's life (club him/her over the head) to remove him/her from our society.
It appears that what we homeowners have been experiencing in our HOAs and CICs may be a perversion of that originally civilizing human intent of long ago. That is, those who literally or figuratively still "club people over the head" are not being removed from the presence of those of us who do live by our societal laws.
Bottom line appears to be that "amicable agreement" is not possible for some Americans which appears to be a direct result of our American society becoming more and more corrupt at every governmental level -- local, state and federal.
Jan Jackson
Colorado HOA News
Posted Dec 9 2007 9:11AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Jan Jackson
Florissant, Colorado |
| |
|
|
| |
Dear Mr. Kapoor,
I always enjoy reading your postings. You are inteligent, empathetic and logical. The public needs to be educated about some of these groups and the REALITY of purchasing property in these communities. Potential pitfalls included. Furthermore, majority and involvement mean absolutely nothing.
Those who are in positions to uphold the law need to do so. Federal and state laws, need to be upheld. Federal and state agencies, need to be free to do their jobs protecting property owners who are vulnerable. Not all boards, board members, management companies, etc., are capable, or willing, to commit serious crimes against a property owner, or the entire community. When these crimes are committed, those responsible should be held accountable.
Very often, the entire community is left in the dark, or lied to, about the inappropriate actions of a board against a property owner. This happens all too often. Victims have a difficult time, when victimized by these groups. There is usually no legitimate reason for their victimization in the first place. The truth needs to be told, honestly and accurately.
Posted Dec 9 2007 1:35AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, South Carolina |
| |
|
|
| |
With due respect to your Honorable Court Public record posting with views from Honorable Judge, in my opinion it is high time to review the subject once again. As an affected homeowner , I strongly agree with views in view of resorting faith in the humanity and to have as I feel peace and harmony in the present state of affairs.
In the absence of no cost-effective way for the affected owner to enforce a penalty against the concerned that acts unlawfully if any with the protection against liability insurance shield and in view of so many complexities and restrictions in CID living, the very purpose of such living has been lost. For the growth of state and economy, CID living plays an important role as it has great impact on the State infrastructure and cannot be ignored as I feel.
This also places automatic contingency on the purchase and sales directly or indirectly with extra financial burden in present real estate market and may have impact of deal for one reason or other. I also feel it also has impact on the growth and economy of the state .
Based upon Twin-River case study , times are changing wherein it is anticipated to have involvement of majority as the essence of democracy system and as I feel Honorable Court have also come to the conclusions .
I feel Twin-River Judgement may go long way in the time to come.
As well known words from Late President Kennedy as ASK NOT WHAT UR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU ,ASK WHAT WE CAN DO FOR THE COUNTRY to be read in the context of HOA and homeowners and all concerned in their best interests.
To sum -up in short unless members get involved in the affairs and concerns of THEIR HOA directly , chances of getting favorable opinions from the concerned may be very remote as I feel. Twin -River Judgement in my opinion cannot be ignored and is the milestone and lessons for communities.
Under the circumstances, based upon present state of affairs and as it is the matter of deep concern it appears that we are at the point of no return with no remedial results as I feel unless members get -involved with positive suggestions in the best interest of all concerned. This may also please be read in context with California State and Davis -Sterling Act on the subject
It is also respectfully submitted in consideration of the parties involved if deem fit to have resolve the issues amicably as I feel . This is to be read only my personal views in personal capacity and not to be taken to interference with the Honorable Court judgement in any way whatsoever in the near future.
It is also submitted that as I am not conversant with the referred case subject and I also do not get-involved in one way or other in the same , the above views are only to be read in general and in the context of broad-based state of affairs as reported time and again.
I wish from the core of heart to have amicably judgement for all concerned.
With kindest regards,
Ravi Kapoor
Paramount ,California
Posted Dec 8 2007 6:43PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Ravi Kapoor
(View Profile)
Paramount, California |
| |
|
|
|
|
Return to 'JANICE JACKSON VS [HER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION]' |
Submit a comment
|
|
|
|
