> These are distinctions without differences.
>

That's an interesting opinion.

> But just for the record, you are factually incorrect about a number of your claims.
>
> First, if push really comes to shove, the HOA can force a sale of your house in order to pay your delinquent fines.

No different than any creditor, that doesn't mean all your creditors are a
form of government over you.

> If you refuse to vacate, the cops will come and they will arrest you and take you to jail.

For breaking a law - contempt of court. The same as with any creditor. The cops cannot and will not get involved until you break a law, which means that the HOA has to first go through civil proceedings and get a court to issue an order against you. At that point no crime has been committed. Failing to comply with the order is a crime, at which point the cops can and will get involved.

> So there really is no difference at all other than the number of steps that it takes to get to that point.
>

Other than the fact that they are doing what every creditor does? Do you also consider your credit card company a form of government? Because they can force the sale of your house to pay your debts, and if you don't leave the house the cops will forcibly remove you.

Any creditor can do that. I fail to see why you think the HOA is special in that regard.
>
> Second, there is no "meeting of the minds" with regards to HOAs because there is no other mind. The HOA CC&Rs are established by the original developer long before anyone joins, and they are take-it-or-leave-it.

Believe it or not, that actually is a contract. If you take it, that's a
meeting of minds. Look it up.

> There is no negotiation.

No one said there was, nor does there have to be. All that is required is that both parties agree. If you take it, you agree and it's a contract like any other contract.

> Joining an HOA is exactly the same as becoming a legal resident or naturalized citizen of a country.

Or signing a contract.

> There are restrictions on your behavior.

Just like the clauses in every contract.

> Whether those restrictions are called "laws" or "HOA rules" is immaterial.

They are very material - criminal offences are processed differently to civil suits.

> If you choose to join, you have to abide by those restrictions or face punishment.

In the form of fines, certainly. And if those fines don't work, then the HOA has to sue you like any other creditor would.

> If you don't like the terms, your only recourse is to try to effect change via the governing body or leave.
>
> Third, you are factually incorrect about the nature of laws against allowing people to camp on your lawn. Those are generally zoning or public health laws, and violating them is generally a civil offense, not a criminal one.

I'll grant you this, because I am not sure which jurisdiction you are in. In my jurisdiction pulling down your drawers in your front lawn is a criminal offense. Then proceeding to defecate is also a criminal offense. My understanding is that, in the US, you can get onto the Sex Offenders List just by peeing in public - that's a criminal offense.

> But violations are nonetheless generally prosecuted by the state. Even in private lawsuits, an individual has to show that a law was violated in order to prevail.

Depends on the suit - if you are suing someone for contempt of court (because they refuse to follow through on a judgement against them) then that is criminal. If you are suing to get that judgement in the first place, it's purely civil. Law enforcement does not get involved when you ignore the HOA and they sue you (because it is not a crime). Law enforcement only gets involved when you don't adhere to the judgement (because not adhering to a court order is a crime).

> You are correct that HOAs are not bound by Constitutional constraints, but I fail to see how that is germane to the matter at hand. Different governmental and quasi-governmental entities have different powers. So what? That doesn't change the central point: either you get decide what you can and can't do with your house, or someone else does.

Having one less outside party having authority over you is relevant. If you view outside parties as an irritation, the more parties there are that get to tell you what to do, the more irritation there is.

> It really is that simple. Attaching a label to the entity that makes the decisions changes nothing. If it quacks like a government...

Accuracy matters. Precision matters. HOA are not anywhere close to being some sort of government. They lack too many of the legal requirements.

Will all that being said, I'm probably not in your jurisdiction, so the cases I've presented to the court (in both criminal and civil matters) may not matter to you. The best way to proceed, if you want to stick to the claim that HOA have quasi-governmental powers, is for you to list the ways that they differ from any other contract that you sign, and then breech.

Because, from what I can see, the consequences of breeching the HOA rules is no different to the consequences of breeching any other contract.

In what way are the HOA rule-violations different from other contract-violations?