Cave Creek Corruption

Update: 2-6-17

The purpose of this post is to assist property owners in Cave Creek or other municipalities in Arizona who encounter Jeff Murray through AMRRP.

Cave Creek finally admitted, that it violated procedural due process as its official policy from 2001 to present.  Procedural due process is a protected right of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The State of Arizona codified due process and inverse condemnation procedures into State law in A.R.S. 9-500.13 and 9-500.12. By failing to follow A.R.S. 9-500.13 and 9-500.12 municipalities can extract dedications or require easements from property owners for entitlements then circumvent the tolling provisions of A.R.S. 12-821.01 (C). By the time a property owner discovers what the municipality did, the claim will be time barred by A.R.S. 12-821.01 (A), and  A.R.S. 12-821

My investor and I acquired 5.7 acres at the base of Black Mountain in 2001 to develop an artistic enclave of sustainable adobe homes. Although my family moved to the Cave Creek area in 1985, we weren’t involved in local politics. When I supported the concept of a Town Center and chided Don Sorchych in public, the local Junta conspired to wipe out our investment backed expectations to develop an enclave of adobe homes and destroy my building business as retaliation for expressing my First Amendment rights.

It took 13 years to figure out what the Town and its unscrupulous attorneys had done. Cave Creek violated my rights to property and due process by failing to follow Federal and State law. Cave Creek failed to follow MANDATORY  procedural due process in  A.R.S. 9-500.13 and 9-500.12 when the Town exacted land to approve my lot split and dedications of easements to approve building permits for a sewer that I constructed, which the Town converted to its property without compensating me.

The Town’s unlawful exaction of a 25′ wide strip of land transformed my lot split into a non-conforming subdivision that violated the Town’s Subdivision Ordinance and A.R.S. 9-463 et seq. By transforming my property into a subdivision, in violation of A.R.S. 13-2310, Cave Creek was able to control and convert my property in in violation of A.R.S. 13-1802. Since the control and conversion of the property exceeds $100,000, jail time is mandatory for those convicted.

By making false statements of fact and law and not disclosing that Cave Creek had not complied with MANDATORY procedural due process, Murray manipulated state courts to validate Cave Creek stealing the sewer. Rather than throw Murray and Town official in jail for engaging in a pattern of racketeering, per A.R.S. 13-2314.04, state judges classified my behavior as abhorrent. At the least, Murray should be disbarred. Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(d) provides “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to… engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

Not only did Cave Creek violate Federal and State law but, the evidence is quite clear that Cave Creek violated its own Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The Town unlawfully divided parcels 211-10-003 and 211-10-010 into non-conforming subdivisions in violation of Section 6.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance, then issued building permits to lots split from parcels 211-10-010 and 211-10-003 in violation of Section 1.4 of its Zoning Ordinance. The Town has no discretion but to discontinue the use of the improvements and vacate the property per Section 1.7 of its Zoning Ordinance because the lots are not entitled to building permits and unlawful to sell until a final plat map is recorded. The lots were by  survey, not platted. These are continuing violations. There are no vested rights.

Lenders, unscrupulous developers, and real estate vultures capitalized on Cave Creek’s misconduct to my detriment. After ten years of litigation, my Opening Brief is before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 15-15566. 7-26-16 FILED 2nd revised brief.compressed. Here is a draft version of my Reply Brief. 2-6-17 draft reply brief. The briefs argue equitable tolling, equitable estoppel, fraud on the court and quiet title as I’m still in title to lot 211-10-010D. See Cook v. Pinetop Lakeside. Murray argued statute of limitations and lost. I believe my argument for fraud on the court and equitable estoppel and equitable tolling are compelling. Had Cave Creek complied with ARS 9-500.12 and 9-500.13, none of this would have happened. 

I’ve also filed a motion for summary judgment in CV2006-014822 which is the state court case from which the Federal complaint arose. 2-6-17 revised MSJ. The Motion for Summary Judgment is supported by a Statement of Facts that relies on exhibits of filings to the 9th Circuit. 2-6-17 SSOFA – 6-15-16 DktEntry 33 supplement 1B – 6-15-16 DktEntry 33 supplement 2C – 6-15-16 DktEntry 33 supplement 3D – 7-26-16 DKTentry 40 Opening Brief COMPRESSEDE – 9-13-16 dkt ent 53 motion to supp recordF – 9-19-16 DktEnt 56 Motion for Judicial Notice 1G – 9-19-16 DktEnt 56 Motion for Judicial Notice 2H – 9-19-16 DktEnt 56 Motion for Judicial Notice 3I – 9-19-16 DktEnt 56 Motion for Judicial Notice 4J – 9-19-16 DktEnt 56 Motion for Judicial Notice 5K – 10-10-16 DktEntry 86 Notice of Correction 53L-V – 1-11-17 SOF EXHIBITS part 1W – 1-11-17 SOF EXHIBITS part 2X- CC – 1-11-17 SOF EXHIBITS part 3.


See press release here: 5-30-16_CAVE_CREEK_Press_Release_2.



Leave a Reply