<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Judicial precedent and HOA bias</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pvtgov.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/judicial-precedent-and-hoa-bias/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pvtgov.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/judicial-precedent-and-hoa-bias/</link>
	<description>Supporting Principles of Democratic Government for HOAs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:50:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: James Tyrer</title>
		<link>http://pvtgov.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/judicial-precedent-and-hoa-bias/#comment-362</link>
		<dc:creator>James Tyrer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:41:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pvtgov.wordpress.com/?p=645#comment-362</guid>
		<description>Re: the /Troon Village HOA v. Waugaman/ ruling.  I have to say that I agree that the OAH system probably was unconstitutional.

Might I suggest that there is a simple solution.  Rather than the OAH, such cases of equity should be heard by the local Justice Court as the AZ Legislature first proposed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: the /Troon Village HOA v. Waugaman/ ruling.  I have to say that I agree that the OAH system probably was unconstitutional.</p>
<p>Might I suggest that there is a simple solution.  Rather than the OAH, such cases of equity should be heard by the local Justice Court as the AZ Legislature first proposed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HOAs, justice, and judicial myth and precedent &#171; HOA Constitutional Government</title>
		<link>http://pvtgov.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/judicial-precedent-and-hoa-bias/#comment-318</link>
		<dc:creator>HOAs, justice, and judicial myth and precedent &#171; HOA Constitutional Government</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 15:48:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pvtgov.wordpress.com/?p=645#comment-318</guid>
		<description>[...]  Precedent, or &#8220;stare decisis&#8221;, is another principle or doctrine of American jurisprudence that serves to establish an aura of acceptance by the people that America is a land under law, not men.  This doctrine has an inherent fallacy or inconsistency with the message that the courts are here to do justice.  Suppose a decision was a bad one, or motivated by a personal agenda?  How does it get overturned and corrected if the doctrine of precedent is cast in concrete?   However, precedents are indeed overturned, but only occasionally are Supreme Court opinions overturned (See 1954 Brown partially overturning the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson  on equal but separate facilities).  Like the debate on the ideological leanings of a Justice, there is evidence to show that the personal views of judges do influence their decisions on a particular precedent .  And the concern for justice is not a factor.  Additionally, the research found that “the justices are more likely to negatively treat [modify or reject] a precedent they dislike on ideological grounds if that precedent is quite vital [how often cited in support]” by the judges.  (See Judicial precedent and HOA bias). [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  Precedent, or &#8220;stare decisis&#8221;, is another principle or doctrine of American jurisprudence that serves to establish an aura of acceptance by the people that America is a land under law, not men.  This doctrine has an inherent fallacy or inconsistency with the message that the courts are here to do justice.  Suppose a decision was a bad one, or motivated by a personal agenda?  How does it get overturned and corrected if the doctrine of precedent is cast in concrete?   However, precedents are indeed overturned, but only occasionally are Supreme Court opinions overturned (See 1954 Brown partially overturning the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson  on equal but separate facilities).  Like the debate on the ideological leanings of a Justice, there is evidence to show that the personal views of judges do influence their decisions on a particular precedent .  And the concern for justice is not a factor.  Additionally, the research found that “the justices are more likely to negatively treat [modify or reject] a precedent they dislike on ideological grounds if that precedent is quite vital [how often cited in support]” by the judges.  (See Judicial precedent and HOA bias). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Judicial bias in HOA cases &#171; Arizona HOA Case Reviews</title>
		<link>http://pvtgov.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/judicial-precedent-and-hoa-bias/#comment-295</link>
		<dc:creator>Judicial bias in HOA cases &#171; Arizona HOA Case Reviews</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:21:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pvtgov.wordpress.com/?p=645#comment-295</guid>
		<description>[...] For more, see Judicial precedent and HOA bias. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] For more, see Judicial precedent and HOA bias. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
