My response letter to Commission’s finding of ethical behavior (For more info see The State of Arizona will not protect buyers of HOA homes!
Dear Commissioners:
In the 1953 Supreme Court case, Brown v. Allen (334 US 443), Justice Robert Jackson commented, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible because we are final.”
On April 30, 2009, the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct wrote that,
The commission reviewed the complaint filed in this matter and found no evidence of ethical misconduct on the part of the judge. The issue raised is a legal question and is outside the commission’s jurisdiction.
The above rationale for dismissal “is a puzzlement”. As I wrote in my complaint,
This incredible order by McMurdie violates the overall intent and purpose of the Code of Judicial Conduct “that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust” (Preamble), that “a judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary” (§1), and that “a judge shall perform, the duties of Judicial Office impartially and diligently” (§3B). It is inconceivable that my submitted information would be summarily dismissed, kept from the public, not acted upon, and the default decision allowed to stand.
And I concluded with the appeal, “For the Court to do justice and maintain its integrity, my ‘letter of fact’ and supporting materials must be made part of the case.” All that I asked, the real issue, was to remove a “gag order” on my materials containing factual information that could have no other result than to have Judge McMurdie, sua sponte, as permitted under the law, put the factual materials on record in order for justice to be done. Placing submitted materials “on the record” has occurred in the past. The CAI attorneys could find another legitimate case to challenge the constitutionality of the statute, not this tainted case.
Why is the Commission viewing conduct to gag information that would, by law, void the judge’s decision ab initio, solely as a question of law and not as ethical and moral misconduct explicitly prohibited by the Code itself? Why did Judge McMurdie deny my intervention without providing reasons? Why did Judge McMurdie not only strike my materials, but ordered the Clerk not to accept further communications from me? Does the judge’s conduct support judicial integrity? Does the judge’s conduct uphold judicial impartiality? It is hard to believe that it does!
Filing an appeal does nothing to regulate the ethical conduct of judges. I believe you are remiss in your oversight of judicial conduct in this very important case.
I request once again, that my materials be entered into the record as public information. Let the judge do his duty under the Code and act on my submitted materials! Let justice be done!
Respectfully,
George K. Staropoli
May 7, 2009 at 8:24 am |
Please compare this judicial secretiveness with the events at the AZ Senate last June 27th where the Republicans were charged with ethics violations by creating new rules “on-the-spot.” (See the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJCJ-6v-5sk). While the following ethics complaint was dismissed,the Legislature made the ethics complaint public. The chairmain who permitted the violation to stand had to answer in public and explain himself.
May 26, 2009 at 8:48 am |
[...] As an example with respect to HOAs regarding a default decision on the constitutionality of an a two year-old Arizona HOA statute, And I concluded with the appeal, “For the Court to do justice and maintain its integrity, my ‘letter of fact’ and supporting materials must be made part of the case.” All that I asked, the real issue, was to remove a “gag order” on my materials containing factual information that could have no other result than to have the judge, sua sponte, as permitted under the law, put the factual materials on record in order for justice to be done. (See Actions by AZ judge in HOA constitutionality case found ethical). [...]
June 16, 2009 at 3:59 am |
HOAs are illegal on their face and although your Latin is impressive, if not wholey off the mark. The state had no authority to “communize” home ownership, nor to transfer governmental powers to citizens in their collusion with developers. Period.
And the Arizona courts will continue to violate their Constitutional oaths of office because they are on the HOA gravy train – since there also are no tax credits recognized for these excess property taxes.
And the proof is all around them, that “communism” in land and home ownership were hardly what the founders had in mind for “property ownership” in this country.