I submitted a motion requesting the court’s permission to file an amicus curiae brief in the AZ Supreme Court Gelb v. DFBLS appeal — the unconstitutionality of OAH adjudication of HOA disputes. CV 10-0371-PR. Under this option I did need the consent of both parties. The court will decide on the fate of my amicus brief, and has yet to decide whether or not it will hear the Petition at all.
Here are some excerpts:
Staropoli provides this amicus curiae brief to assist the Court in understanding the broader political and social environment created by the lack of constitutional protections for citizens seeking justice from private government HOAs. . . . . There are no consumer protection warnings and notices such as “truth in lending” and “truth in advertising.” The Attorney General’s office refuses to act on homeowner complaints . . . . The Real Estate Dept. (ADRE) has failed to enforce its Commissioner’s Rule . . . A.A.C. R4-28-1101(B), Duties to Client . . . . All of which raise serious issues of consent with full knowledge of life within the HOA regime.
. . . .
The issues before this Court are serious questions of the adjudication of HOA disputes by an independent tribunal in a “leveled” hearing process that permits the confrontation and questioning of witnesses and the presentation of evidence. The DFBLS procedure requires, as with a civil action, a statement of violation of law that is not currently required under the HOA “notice of a hearing and the opportunity to be heard” mockery of justice procedure, a procedure that encourages an “unconstitutional” taking of private property by private corporate entities.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court has no alternative but to reverse the appellate court opinion and quash the Phoenix injunction against hearing HOA disputes by DFBLS. If indeed the other branches of government are of the opinion that the statutes in question are unconstitutional, then they, and especially the only branch with the power to do so, the Legislature, can easily undertake a repeal of the alleged undesirable statutes. But, they choose to remain silent under the “unspoken alliance”. This Court must act in the name of the people.