Source: American Homeowners Resource Center, by Carol Ann Burnett
September 17, 2007

Have they inducted your home into a Homeowner associations in Colorado?



We have been in what we now understand to be administrative courts, called 'civil' proceedings and subsequent appeals for approximately 7 years. Our story is about private land we purchased in Colorado in 1997; that never at any time in it's history has it ever been associated or incorporated as a matter of law. It always was, and continues to the present day, to be private property without formal organization under a president, or secretary, association records, association membership, or any manner of voluntary organization whatsoever.

We purchased the said land for retirement living, never dreaming the land would be the subject matter of a 'verified complaint asking for 'enforcement and attorney fees' under the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act here in Colorado. Nor could we ever have imagined the complex scheme which the courts would become involved to "induct" private, unassociated, unincorporated land into a Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) at C.R.S. §38-33.3-101 et seq. and to determine we owed attorney fees under the statute that under CCIOA section 38-33.3-123 of the CCIOA, amounting to approx. $62,000.00 dollars.

When those people reading this story have no concept of why someone might not be subject to a specific statutory enactment, I give them this example: What if you were student in higher education in Colorado who paid every penny for the cost of his entire education directly from his parents and his own savings account? How could you then be sued for alleged violations of "age qualification" found at C.R.S. 23-3.1-108 of the Colorado student loan program statute? What if the complaint and resulting suit and appeals lasted 7 years and cost you 62,000.00 dollars + when the facts, from the beginning, bore out that you had never participated in, nor had contracted under this loan statute at any time, in any manner? How would you be subject to a complaint under C.R.S. 23-3.1-108? Would you believe that it took several courts, a multitude of Administrative law judges and several opposing attorneys 7 years to discover that they had no foundation in law when from the beginning of the action, they had utterly failed to bring forth any contract of which you signed making you liable for a student loan violation? Neither attorneys nor courts can interpret your obligations under a student loan when they have no authority to 'construe' a contract that has never been in existence! Both the CCIOA issue and the student loan issue can only be predicated on state contracts.

Plainly the land purchased by us, by clear operation of the written, unambiguous statutory law, at C.R.S. 38-33.3-117(1.5) and C.R.S. 38-33.3-301, was NOT subject to the CCIOA statute, nor were we subject to it's enforcement clause or it's attorneys fees. Yet the oppositions' attorney's fees were granted by retired senior County Court administrative law judge Gordon R. Cooper on November 18, 2003 and then by retired, senior administrative law judge Kenneth Murray Plotz, on July 13th, 2005 and again by Kenneth Murray Plotz on April 3rd, 2007. All 'judgments' were made pursuant to the inapplicable enforcement section at 38-33.3-123 of the CCIOA, and additionally were deliberately passed off as a "money judgment" where there were no stated damages in the complaint that is on public record requesting only an equity finding for injunctive relief. WHY?

38-33.3-117. Applicability to preexisting common interest communities. (1) Except as provided in section 38-33.3-119, the following sections shall apply to all common interest communities created within this state before July 1, 1992, with respect to events and circumstances occurring on or after July 1, 1992: (a) 38-33.3-101 and 38-33.3-102; (b) 38-33.3-103, to the extent necessary in construing any of the other sections of this article; (c) 38-33.3-104 to 38-33.3-111; (d) 38-33.3-114; (e) 38-33.3-118; (f) 38-33.3-120; (g) 38-33.3-122 and 38-33.3-123; (h) 38-33.3-203 and 38-33.3-217 (7); (i) 38-33.3-302 (1) (a) to (1) (f), (1) (j) to (1) (m), and (1) (o) to (1) (q); (i.5) 38-33.3-221.5; (j) 38-33.3-311; (k) 38-33.3-316; (l) 38-33.3-317, as it existed prior to January 1, 2006, 38-33.3-318, and 38-33.3-319. (1.5) Except as provided in section 38-33.3-119, the following sections shall apply to all common interest communities created within this state before July 1, 1992, with respect to events and circumstances occurring on or after January 1, 2006: (a) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2006, p. 1217, § 3, effective May 26, 2006.) (b) 38-33.3-124; (c) 38-33.3-209.4 to 38-33.3-209.7; (d) 38-33.3-217 (1); (e) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2006, p. 1217, § 3, effective May 26, 2006.) (f) 38-33.3-301; (see this section below) (g) 38-33.3-302 (3) and (4); (h) 38-33.3-303 (4) (b); (i) 38-33.3-308 (1), (2) (b), (2.5), and (4.5); (j) 38-33.3-310 (1) and (2); (k) 38-33.3-310.5; (l) 38-33.3-315 (7); and (m) 38-33.3-317.

38-33.3-301. Organization of unit owners' association. A unit owners' association shall be organized no later than the date the first unit in the common interest community is conveyed to a purchaser. The membership of the association at all times shall consist exclusively of all unit owners or, following termination of the common interest community, of all former unit owners entitled to distributions of proceeds under section 38-33.3-218, or their heirs, personal representatives, successors, or assigns. The association shall be organized as a nonprofit, not-for-profit, or for-profit corporation or as a limited liability company in accordance with the laws of the state of Colorado; except that the failure of the association to incorporate or organize as a limited liability company will not adversely affect either the existence of the common interest community for purposes of this article or the rights of persons acting in reliance upon such existence, other than as specifically provided in section 38-33.3-316. Neither the choice of entity nor the organizational structure of the association shall be deemed to affect its substantive rights and obligations under this article.



A so-called "money Judgment" misrepresentation / fraud, allowed the court clerk, Shelley Quintana, to sign a Writ of Execution and Notice of Pending Levy to the Sheriff. In our case, the Sheriff's office under former Conejos County Sheriff Joe Taylor, (whether it can be proved with full knowledge or in ignorance, in abrogation of the law he had by oath sworn to uphold, came with his caravan of trailers and trucks to confiscate the valuable personal possessions we owned. In order to avoid their marauding and confiscating our personal keepsakes, heirlooms, and possessions, we were forced to sign a hastily written 'contract' "under duress" to pay approx. $32,000.00 to the opposing attorney, Matthew K. Hobbs,who came to the physical site and wrote out for us this coercive paper.

The most astounding thing we can recite is that the attorney, a young man, rather despicable character in our opinion, sneeringly laughing at us, was callous enough to chuckle at this extortion, right in front of the former Sheriff Taylor. And while Sheriff Taylor stood looking on with deputies all around, Matthew Hobbs, threatened openly that if we did not drop the Federal RICO action we'd filed against them on the extortion and harassment we'd undergone for years, they would finally take 'our house', he said. A threat has been defined in the Colorado Supreme Court to mean a statement of purpose or intent to cause injury or harm to the person, property or rights of another, by the commission of an unlawful act. Not only did Sheriff Taylor listen to Hobb's threats with no reprisal, but he bartered with the attorney as if an auction were taking place as to what the extortionists would settle for in terms of money! The Amreins, with attorney Hobbs, also allowed their personal friends to participate in an apparent form of 'media circus' and these gathering people glared at us waiting to see our home pillaged and stripped. It was a circus in every way, only lacking the customary vendor selling hotdogs and popcorn. People were positioned around our yard, some jeering that that is what happens to people who don't pay their taxes! The Sheriff took no steps to disassemble the onlookers, allowed Matthew Hobbs to threaten us openly and steadfastly refused to listen to our protests that the whole thing was easily proven a fraud by the fact we were under no contract or CCIOA with liabilities therein, that there was no money judgment, and that the whole issue was presently under appeal in the courts at any rate!

All of this grotesque, despicable extortion activity, played out under the Color of law alone, happened to us just because Robert Lawrence Amrein and Karen Leigh Amrein, simply chose to lie on the face of a 'verified complaint' and from the filing of such complaint into 2001C5 of the Conejos County Court on January 16th, 2001 to the present day of Sept. 7th, of 2007 were never made by any court to prove their allegations factually under the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, (CCIOA), a statute promulgated strictly and solely for homeowners associations of which we had no part at all. However, as you all know, once a challenge is made, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his allegations. The evidence record bears us out that this proof never came in 7 years! Every court in Colorado of which we believed at that time was a proper appellate court, only jacked up the attorney's fees against us, after being informed of the travesty of justice that had been perpetrated on us. Every appellate court simply bypassed Donetta Davidson, Colorado Secretary of State's certificate of no record for Aspen Springs, where the property in question

WE INVITE YOU TO SHARE IN OUR EXPERIENCE AND GIVE THOUGHT TO THE OPINIONS WE EXPRESS BELOW, BORN OF OUR LONG JOURNEY THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM

For everyone interested in coming into a much clearer understanding of the law concerning the legislative act of 1992 called the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, (CCIOA) please see our posted article taken from the Colorado Lawyer's publication, Real Estate Newsletter, April 1992 entitled: CCIOA: Basic Concepts of Balance, written by Richard C. Linquanti and Michael A. Smith. The Newsletter is prepared by the Real Estate Law and Titles Section of the Colorado Bar Association to present current issues and topics to the members of the real estate bar. Richard C. Linquanti and Michael A. Smith, as noted on the first page of the newsletter, are shareholders of Ireland, Stapleton, Pryor & Pascoe, P.C.

We are not attorneys, and we are not giving legal advice. But the factual record accompanying this matter shows unequivicably that we have undergone provable clear social, emotional and financial abuse by the people involved with our matter of which we are now opining within this document.

1. Why would a court take control of people or property and make a 'finding' under a CCIOA statute that they know is inapplicable to the people or the real property?

2. Why would any state court, let alone several state courts, move forward on what the actual competent fact witness testimony (factual record) and documentary evidence, clearly showed was totally without evidence?

3. And further we might ask, how was the land we purchased, willfully found by administrative law judge decisions to be subject to a "Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, minus mandatory registration with the state, without such action becoming an unconstitutional taking without contract or consent?

The first two questions are best answered in that courts have become places where ' the judges re-write the law rather than adhere to the rule of law.

To the third question: We believe that it is a most unconstitutional act where the legislature (government) has no authority to force you and your privately owned unassociated, unincorporated property into a 'contractual ' obligation or duty with the state when no such written instrument is in existence. In our case the judges and attorneys, on the actual factual witness testimony transcript record, (of which we had made several copies) worked very hard to suppress the evidence in their courtrooms. We all know that the United States Constitution, states in relevant portion at Article 1, section 10, clause (1) "...No state shall...pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

The government that we own, by virtue of the Declaration of Independence, and the same government created to serve the people, is also without authority to literally 'feign' the existence of a state contract for incorporations on private, unincorporated property, then act under color of law alone to enforce a state registration or 'contract' that doesn't exist pursuant to a 'statute of choice' allowing attorney fees, and ultimately take thousands of dollars from anyone under the pretext of the statute, shown by strict and clear operation of law and precedence, not to apply.

The Colorado supreme court has adjudicated that the Colorado state constitution is the paramount law and that statutes are null and void in Garcia v. District Court, 157 Colo. 432; 403 P.2d 215, 1965:

"...Our state "constitution derives its force . . . from the people who ratified it, and their understanding of it must control. This is to be arrived at by construing the language, used in the instrument according to the sense most obvious to the common understanding." People v Rodriquez, 112 P.3d. 693, Colo. 5/30/2005 quoting Alexander v. People, 7 Colo. 155, 167, 2 P. 1894, 900 (1884); see also Prior v. Noland, 68 Colo. 263, 267, 188 P. 729, 730 (1920).

"It is well that all departments give pause, that they may not offend. All must (shall) answer to the people, in and from whom, as specifical