Saturday, August 14, 2010

The CA Lawyer’s Jobs Bill & Why Boxer Should be Fired



Posted By CotoBlogzz



Rancho Santa Margarita, CA - While most of the readers in this forum are conversant with the smoke-filled backroom deals concocted to enact National Health Care Reform, such as Supack’s Soul Sale,  Unions’ Bribe, The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker’s Kickback fand most recently the $26 Billion Teacher’s Job bill the President characterized as “as special interest, only if you think it is”, I dare say not to many know that something similar has been going on here in California for at least the last decade so, embodied in in what I call California’s  Triple Threat:  1) Unions, 2)  Lobbyists and 3) Parasitic Bureaucracies.

A perfect illustration of the latter is the Lawyers Job’s Bill the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) has been working on.  Donie Vanitzian’s highlights the problems with the legislation in a detailed critique addressed to Mr. Hebert and  the CLRC titled The Temple of Blame & the HOA Attorneys Full Employment Acdated August 12, 2010
The letter not only raises some very serious issues which deserve a clear and concise response from the CLRC, but it is also timely, illustrating major issues the state and the country now face as we head to mid-term elections.
1.                   Ms. Vanitizian letter supports the argument that the CLRC is simply another parasitic bureaucracy promoting special interests and doing the job the legislature should be doing, instead of displaying a pathological desire to tax-and-spend, driving California into an economic abyss.
2.                   Ms. Vanitzian’s characterization of  “this blatantly obvious push for pork-barrel legislation is scandalous,” reminds us of Rahm Emanuel Manifesto:  “Don’t let a crisis got to waste”
3. Ms. Vanitzian’s opinion that   “ … this make-work project of yours is nothing less than a calculated fraud perpetrated on the public for no other reason than to rewrite a law that has existed for two decades, that people have come to know, and that the Legislature refuses to amend properly prior to its and the many other Chartered amendments,” should remind our readers of the recently enacted $26 billion teacher’s bailout which the President characterized as “only a special interest bill, if you think (the teachers’ union) is a special interest group.”

4.  Ms. Vanitzian’s  opinion that “…. the California Law Revision Commission, whether artful or not, IS circumventing the real issues surrounding public complaints of abuse by boards and management companies and said laws pertaining to common interest developments,” reminds us of the recently enacted Financial Reform Bill in which the two parasitic bureaucracies mot likely to be dismantled:  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were left intact,

Re-electing Barbara Boxer will be simply aiding an abetting the CLRC – a special interest group, but only if you think it is.





Comments



Fantastic Article!!!

15votes
+

Thank you for this very enlightening article. 
I followed your link and read Ms. Venitzians letter. It is very interesting and raises pertinent issues, issues that homeowners should pay closer attention to that is for sure.  How is the California Law Revision able to get away with this?  They are making serious changes in laws that affect all of us homeowners without our input. Ms. Venitzin also states a good point, and that is something as serious as this so-called body of work and I use that term loosely, should be well advertised and publicized to every homeowner in the state because this is nothing less than Taxation without Representation.  The fees that this body of laws will create is mind boggling.
It is about time that the public start looking at these parasitic industries and bureaucracies closer.  This segment of homeowners have been hard hit in homeowner associations.  Along the same line, my experience with the California law Revision commission hasn't been positive either. They appear to be a sanctioned industry lobby group used to circumvent how our laws are created.  They are able to bypass the Calif. Constitution and head straight for the legislature, something you and I cannot do.
The California Law Revision Commission should be scrapped and Californians would save alot of money and create a fairer playing field for homeowners without this commission.

The Sounds of Silence, RINOs & GAGAs

0votes


+

-
Tank:  the answer to your question as to "  How is the California Law Revision able to get away with this? " is RINOs and GAGAs (Going Along to Get  Along) politicians.  It is one thing to blame it just on the democrats, but where are the self-described "staunch-conservatives"?  Why the deafening silence over the last ten years?


CLRC

0votes


+

-
Cotobuzz has presented an article close to my heart because I've been in conflict with the over bearing boards of two HOA boards for the past 12 years.  Ms. Vanetzian's profund and insightful letter "Temple of Blame & the HOA Attorneys Full Employment Act" to CLRC is an eloquent description of what title holders have been suffering for the past several years. This article clearly demonstrates the malevolence of purpose by these unethical attornies to force stupid, petty laws against title holders in favor of vindictive HOA boards and their property management companies. I know only too well how corrupt and manipulative HOA boards. their property management companies and their attornies'  who rule against the title holder.
There is nothing more confusing than the CLRC's attempt to SIMPLIFY the current laws.  Though the existing laws were not the best  SIMPLIFIYNG them according the greedy CLRC's  idea is even worse.  The the road to hell is paved with alleged good intentions.  Surely they (CLRC) have better things to do then make more hell for the already worn down title holder who is simply trying to keep what he has and take care of his family. 
I've been fighting HOA Boards for the past 12 years.  To my dismay I discovered those who serve on those boards are not qualified.  They look to the property management companies whose only purpose is to make the boards think they can't manage with out them.  The management companies pay the lawyers to justify why HOA can't manage with out them.  The lawyers main goal is to convince the property management companies they can't manage with out their lawyers who support CLRC to create more legal confusion so that the poor titleholder is helpless.  The judges consistently support the HOA boards above the title holders!  It is hopeless for the title holder!
What a pitiful night mare this corrupt group has caused.  Thank you Cotobuzz and Ms. Vanetzian for your courage to clearly expose CLRC for what it is--a corrupt and useless organization that exists only for its own self perpetuation.

Then we whine & Complain

0votes


+

-
Therese:

Sadly, what happened in the City of Bell, has been happening in California for at least the last decade.  With the Teachers Union it has been the last 30 years - yet a few of us who have been sounding off have been labeled as "disgruntled" and or un-informed.  When we asked an incumbent self-described "staunch republican" what he was going to do about the Triple Threat, his response was "I cannot do anything about it" and moved on.  Thankfully, he did not make it to the next round.


Problems at CLRC

0votes


+

-
The California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) has a lot to answer for, including issues that the public may never learn about even under the Freedom of Information Act or the California Public Records Act.  I have made demands under both Acts and firmly believe that the CLRC should be audited by an outside entity with no ties to government and no ties to special interests.  Presently, I have reason to believe, as other individuals do, that the CLRC's excessive entanglement and heavy influence of/with special interests corrupts their so-called "work."  
This so-called "work" (ie, "make-work" is a more appropriate term) that the CLRC manages to produce is top loaded on special interests demands, and arguably in many instances beyond the scope of the CLRC's mandate.  The errors in laws that they have caused to happen throughout the years have had wide reaching ramifications for all Californians who are forced to abide by them no matter how bad they are.  Those so-called CLRC "Recommendations" are often characteristic of sloppy work, untested laws and theories, and laden with inherent ill-thought out crossovers in laws, all of which leaves  Californians caught in the crosshairs paying a steep price.
I am not the only one complaining, there are attorneys and judges whether publicly or privately with more stringent statements and thoughts on the CLRC than me.
While the public wonders "what the hell's going on" and how did these laws come to be, the CLRC is busy masterminding trap after trap, penalty after penalty, fine after fine, all waiting for the unsuspecting public to run afoul of laws they need a Masters Degree to decode -- let alone needing an impressive salary to hire lawyers to defend them once they violate those stupid laws.
The CLRC (and I will omit the otherwise more descriptive expletive that would better describe what the CLRC actually does and settle for this benign term instead =>) "messes" with the public AND arguably -- for lack of a better analogy manipulates its books and its own records to present a view that in my opinion appears "doctored" and not at all representative of what really goes on in that agency/commission/department or whatever fancy name they want to call themselves.
Anyone on the wrong end of the present director or its past directors or the CLRC in general, suffers their wrath be it abuse of position, overreaching into the private sector and/or businesses of others to make sure their (the CLRC's) image is not "sullied" and their promises to the legislature are fulfilled, at any cost?  If you want to say that the present CLRC directors and/or past CLRC directors or others affiliated therewith, that were or are part of the CLRC would use his/her/their position(s) in the CLRC "inappropriately" (in quotes) for certain reasons--even protecting the CLRC, I can't stop anyone from wondering or from thinking about that.
I wouldn't trust **anything** that comes out of that "Commission" - not their word, not their writings, not their proposals, not their recommendations.  Nothing! Nada! Nothing!
In my opinion most all that goes into the CLRC comes out a "sausage" of sorts.  The CLRC should be scrutinized by another governmental department that is impartial and unbiased on a regular basis.  When that time comes, I may speak up further.
Until then, its:  Caveat Emptor to every California citizen with regard to dealings with the CLRC and the CLRC's connection to California legislators.

But Wait - There is More

0votes


+

-
Donie:
Your suggestion that "the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) has a lot to answer for, including issues that the public may never learn about even under the Freedom of Information Act or the California Public Records Act." is spot on.
In looking at what we call a six-month "black period" where telephone records were not available, CLRC's Mr. Hebert blamed it on the university's phone system "beyond the CLRC's control" - When we asked Mr, Hebert what he was prepared to do to avoid similar dark period, his reply mimicked that of many self-described "staunch conservatives":  "There is not much we can do." - The takeaway is that any parasitic bureaucracy can get around FOI and PRA requests by simply outsourcing its communication needs.

How do you spell BULL???

0votes
+
-

Mr. Cotobuzz, That is a true statement. I bought and paid for those records demanded under the FOIA and the California Public Records Act, the calls in questions were blatantly omitted and a game of unsurpassed machinations began and continue to this day -- to the extent I wrote the Dean of that Law School where Mr. Hebert claims to have had a ***Government*** office during that time -- paid for by the ***Taxpayers*** and was given a bunch of bull as only attorneys can generate. Three letters back from that Law School piling it on.   Pure unmitigated BULL****.  No phone records for a full six months.  Anybody wanna buy a bridge?
Mr. Hebert surpassed himself in keeping those records out of my hands because he knew the numbers that he called on those phone bills/invoices would have very likely implicated him and/or others at the CLRC in something greater that he was trying to avoid getting caught in/on.  It looks bad for him, it looks bad for the CLRC, it looks bad for the public.  Aiders and abettors at the phone company? Aiders and abettors at that Law School?  Aiders and Abettors at the CLRC?  You decide.  Gee what a surprise -- whatta coincidence that only **Those** dates out of only ***Those*** phone bills were missing.  What a coinky-dinky.

Spelling is Parasitic Bureaucracies 

0votes
+
-
If this is not a compelling enough argument for the need for a Parasitic Bureaucracy Realignment and Closure  Initiative, I do not know what is.  Easily, over 80% of California's parasitic bureaucracies, such as the CLRC, LAFCO and OCTA can be either closed and or merged - this is why parasitic bureaucracies are one of California's Triple Threats - the other two are 1) Unions - just the CTA has spent o ver $200 million in the last decade to wine and dine lawmakers in Sacramento, for example.  2)  Lobbyists - the de facto Third House, where lobbyists outnumber lawmakers at the tune of 8-1.
So, the correct spelling is: Parasitic Bureaucracies

No wonder Management Companies love the CLRC

0votes
+
-
I totally agree with Ms. Vanetzian's letter to the CLRC. It is about time someone told it like it is. Seniors are tired of waiting for our legislature to make laws protecting us as OWNERS in common interest developments. We are sitting ducks. And, just like Vanetzian states, the CLRC appears to be in bed with the lobbyists. Special interests have hijacked our retirement. With it they have hijacked our bank accounts, our freedoms and our rights with regards to property ownership. Mr. Hebert, along with the industry appears to be incorporating the UCOIA into the Davis/Stirling Act without a vote from all the California Titleholders that own property in CIDs
I resent Mr. Hebert's interference with my living and quality of life. And I resent the CLRC acting and proposing and recommending to the California legislature how I live, what it will cost me and giving my board a blank check amounting to a withdrawal slip from my hard earned retirement money. I speak for hundreds of thousands of other seniors in a like position to mine. You, Mr. Hebert, are deaf. You CLRC, are blind. You, California Legislators, are too comfortable in your jobs with guaranteed paychecks and pensions.
What is lost on the CLRC and the legislature is that ownership in a CID with a HOA board is not adequately defined to new buyers. These buyers are duped just as I was and others continue to be.
Just as Ms. Vanetzian makes clear, there are no penalties against management companies and their employees for their wrongful acts many of which are willful. The reason is because they avoid such prosecutions because they fall under third party contracts that are not directly with the homeowners. They are instead with the board. Yet, when the management companies wanted laws allowing them to place alphabet soup letters behind their names allowing them to call themselves CID managers, the CLRC sanctioned it, the legislature sanctioned it. And what came of it? NOTHING! Nothing! NOTHING! no fines, no penalties, NOTHING! We the, the hundreds of thousands of us DO NOT WANT the CLRC to continue with its stupid clarification and simplification project.
This is elder abuse at its finest and courtesy of the CLRC. They are unaccountable because the CLRC has taken away my right as an owner to sue without going through arbitration, mediation, meet and confer that costs me more money than it would cost to go directly to court to sue these people.

No comments: