Many may feel from all my criticism that I unjustifiably have it in for CAI. Well folks, you decide whether the CAI propaganda statements and publications that are PR releases is in conflict with its numerous acts before state legislators and the courts. These contradictory stances are revealed in CAI’s amicus briefs — what I say I don’t do .
Advocates have failed to apply the Rules of Engagement to such Doubletalk from CAI allowing the legislators, the media and the BODs to see no evil, hear no evil speak no evil. These Rules are a very important weapon to discredit CAI and stop the policymakers from trusting their misleading statements; to start believing in the validity of the positions and arguments for HOA reforms coming from homeowners and homeowner advocates.
As a prime example, and there are many others found in the numerous CAI briefs dealing with constitutional HOA issues, is the NJ Supreme Court case in Dublirer. It involved the free speech rights of a homeowner to equal access the HOA facilities in order to distribute BOD election materials to his neighbors – an exercise of his rights in a democracy. Allow me to repeat my quotes from CAI’s NJ Supreme Court amicus brief in Dublirer.
CAI-NJ’s concern is the attempt to convert private communities into constitutional actors and to open such communities to access not only to speakers from within the community but also to the public, while ignoring contractual agreements and non-constitutional protections.
The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants here is that of a business corporation and so is similar to that involved in any other business corporation. A shareholder who wishes to run for a position on a corporate board has no right to post campaign signs on the corporation’s property. . . . He has no constitutional right to distribute his campaign materials within the cooperative’s property simply because mailing them to the other tenant/shareholders may cost him money”.
In plain English, this is secessionist and a rejection of the Constitution. CAI’s position says the people in an HOA will decide what laws to follow or not to follow. It is an incredulous statement from the organization that claims to be the one and only voice on HOAs, but apparently does not understand or simply ignores constitutional law. The CAI position is in opposition to the long-standing legal doctrine on the delegation of legislative (lawmaking) powers to private persons.
In order to win, advocates must muzzle CAI’s lack of “candor to the tribunal.” Judicial and legislative doctrines hold that an allegation or argument that goes unanswered is held to be true. That’s why, it seems, advocates are viewed as unbelievable, because of their repeated silence resulting from a lack of knowledge on how to respond. This must change!
 From George Orwell’s novel, 1984, where a person holds two contradictory statements at the same time.
 Dublirer v. 2000 Linwood Avenue, 103 A.3d 249 (NJ 2014).
 See my Commentary for additional quotes: CAI: the HOA form of government is independent of the US Constitution.
 Attorney Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 42, E.R. 3.3