Post by Admin on Jan 22, 2016 18:50:22 GMT -5
I now have an answer to the question concerning the origins of the "park rumor" i.e. that my attorney, Frd O'N eel (Attny), had approved the current Ballot/Consent form.
The "rumor" was not a rumor; it was a lie asserted by the board as "Truth". Further, the Board spent even MORE of the Owner's money to repeat their version of reality to my attorney, who responded to their assertion, as follows:
> From: fredonealatlaw@aol.com
> Date: January 22, 2016 at 4:40:06 PM EST
> To: dbabb@orlandolaw.net
> Subject: Re: S u e Tg/S-bag
>
> Debra:
>
> I know nothing about this other than Ms. Tg emailed me and told me the management company was telling homeowners I had reviewed and approved the form the association was using for the revitalization. She asked me if I had. I told her "no" and gave her permission to tell others that I had no recollection of ever reviewing and approving such a form.
>
> I repeat to you, I have no memory of ever reviewing and approving such a form.
>
> However, in your email, you say:
>
> "[Ms. Tg] is telling people the consent form is flawed, even though it is the same format you reviewed and we modified pursuant to your request to separate the units. You approved the very form she is now attacking as flawed." (Emphasis supplied).
>
> If you have some email from me or letter I signed wherein I confirm that I reviewed and approved such a form, I would be glad to stand corrected. But, absent that, I will stand behind Ms. Tg's right to correct a misstatement that her attorney had "reviewed and approved" a form the association is now using.
>
> Further, I do not see how a client trying to correct misstatements about what her attorney may or may not have said or done while working for her as failing to "support and not cH allenge" the revitalization. Moreover, I doubt any court in America would either.
>
> That being said, I will forward your email on to Ms. Tg and remind her of her continuing obligations under the settlement agreement.
>
> Frd O'N eel (Attny)
>
> P.S. Please do not threaten me again. That would be a mistake.I had previously written to Frd O'N eel (Attny) about this "rumor" and he replied:
Excerpts:
__________________________________________________________________
Brown, GaGaKnees wrote:
Attorney Babb also asserts:
Ms Babb is, of course, mistaken. Tg has at no time said that the Ballot/Consent Form is "flawed". That was stated by a candidate at the Candidate's Forum.
Tg has attempted to correct a rumor by contacting her attorney about a statement reportedly attributed to him. O'N eel (Attny) has denied reviewing and approving Consent #2. I have stated publicly that the legal defects present in Consent #1 are not present in Consent 2. To say that this constitutes a Review and Approval of Consent #2 is an outrageous lie! Consent #2 is VERY DIFFERENT than Consent #1. We now know that this was a MANBOD-inspired lie.
It is a simple matter of record that I have stated that the Consent Forum is Board//Attorney-centric, contains numerous estoppels and does not permit owners to exercise the full range of voting options. I have stated that there are irregularities, inconsistencies and questions about the documents in the Revite package, which I produced evidence for and asked for records to clarify.
I have and will maintain my civil right to comment and advocate FOR OWNERS who have been given ZERO information about revitalization and the Consent form.
I have and will vigorously defend my right to NOT re-encumber my personal parcel with SLohA Covenants. I never agreed to give up my civil and property rights regarding my own property or free speech in favor of SLohA's position.
I have stated--and will continue to state--that I have no objections to SLohA's revitalization in the abstract. In accordance with the mediation agreement, I do not intend to cH allenge a DEO decision, but others might decide to do otherwise.
My only objections are--and will continue to be--that the board continues its pattern of deception and secrecy and failure to inform owners about revitalization and Consent forms which impact individual property rights. That will not change.
The board should spend more time on promoting the advantages of revitalization (which are becoming fewer and fewer) and less of the owners' money on hot dogs and intimidation tactics to quash free speech.
The "rumor" was not a rumor; it was a lie asserted by the board as "Truth". Further, the Board spent even MORE of the Owner's money to repeat their version of reality to my attorney, who responded to their assertion, as follows:
-----Original Message-----
From: Debra Bad-nutcake <dbabb@orlandolaw.net>
To: fredonealatlaw <fredonealatlaw@aol.com>
Cc: Jessie Andrews <jandrews@orlandolaw.net>; Terror BearIt <tBearIt@orlandolaw.net>; Toneesha Shrodr <stambaughinc@verizon.net>
Sent: Fri, Jan 22, 2016 2:29 pm
Subject: S u e Tg/S-bag
Mr. O’Neal,
As you know, the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the parties required Ms. Tg to “support, and not cH allenge” the revitalization process. We recently learned that Ms. Tg is actively discouraging residents from signing the consent forms and again advising residents they should not allow their properties to be burdened by restrictions. She is using her website to convince people to throw away the forms. She is telling people the consent form is flawed, even though it is the same format you reviewed and we modified pursuant to your request to separate the units. You approved the very form she is now attacking as flawed
These tactics are a clear violation of the agreement. Please instruct Ms. Tg to cease all efforts to disrupt and attack the revitalization process, and advise her to immediately retract all statements from her website disagreeing with or failing to support the revitalization process. I would hate to see all of our efforts to settle this matter undone by your own client’s violation of the settlement agreement. Her agreement to support revitalization was consideration for payment of your attorney’s fees.
Therefore, within 10 days from today, all statements opposing revitalization must be removed from the website and, in their place, Ms. Tg must state on her website that she supports the revitalization.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Debra S. Nutcher, Partner
Board Certified in City, County, and Local Government Law
gwd color
GaGaKnees, Weiss & D’Agresta, P.A.
111 North Orange Ave., Suite 2000
P.O. Box 2873
Orlando, Florida 32802-2873
Phone (407) 425-9566; Fax (407) 425-9596
From: Debra Bad-nutcake <dbabb@orlandolaw.net>
To: fredonealatlaw <fredonealatlaw@aol.com>
Cc: Jessie Andrews <jandrews@orlandolaw.net>; Terror BearIt <tBearIt@orlandolaw.net>; Toneesha Shrodr <stambaughinc@verizon.net>
Sent: Fri, Jan 22, 2016 2:29 pm
Subject: S u e Tg/S-bag
Mr. O’Neal,
As you know, the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the parties required Ms. Tg to “support, and not cH allenge” the revitalization process. We recently learned that Ms. Tg is actively discouraging residents from signing the consent forms and again advising residents they should not allow their properties to be burdened by restrictions. She is using her website to convince people to throw away the forms. She is telling people the consent form is flawed, even though it is the same format you reviewed and we modified pursuant to your request to separate the units. You approved the very form she is now attacking as flawed
These tactics are a clear violation of the agreement. Please instruct Ms. Tg to cease all efforts to disrupt and attack the revitalization process, and advise her to immediately retract all statements from her website disagreeing with or failing to support the revitalization process. I would hate to see all of our efforts to settle this matter undone by your own client’s violation of the settlement agreement. Her agreement to support revitalization was consideration for payment of your attorney’s fees.
Therefore, within 10 days from today, all statements opposing revitalization must be removed from the website and, in their place, Ms. Tg must state on her website that she supports the revitalization.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Debra S. Nutcher, Partner
Board Certified in City, County, and Local Government Law
gwd color
GaGaKnees, Weiss & D’Agresta, P.A.
111 North Orange Ave., Suite 2000
P.O. Box 2873
Orlando, Florida 32802-2873
Phone (407) 425-9566; Fax (407) 425-9596
> From: fredonealatlaw@aol.com
> Date: January 22, 2016 at 4:40:06 PM EST
> To: dbabb@orlandolaw.net
> Subject: Re: S u e Tg/S-bag
>
> Debra:
>
> I know nothing about this other than Ms. Tg emailed me and told me the management company was telling homeowners I had reviewed and approved the form the association was using for the revitalization. She asked me if I had. I told her "no" and gave her permission to tell others that I had no recollection of ever reviewing and approving such a form.
>
> I repeat to you, I have no memory of ever reviewing and approving such a form.
>
> However, in your email, you say:
>
> "[Ms. Tg] is telling people the consent form is flawed, even though it is the same format you reviewed and we modified pursuant to your request to separate the units. You approved the very form she is now attacking as flawed." (Emphasis supplied).
>
> If you have some email from me or letter I signed wherein I confirm that I reviewed and approved such a form, I would be glad to stand corrected. But, absent that, I will stand behind Ms. Tg's right to correct a misstatement that her attorney had "reviewed and approved" a form the association is now using.
>
> Further, I do not see how a client trying to correct misstatements about what her attorney may or may not have said or done while working for her as failing to "support and not cH allenge" the revitalization. Moreover, I doubt any court in America would either.
>
> That being said, I will forward your email on to Ms. Tg and remind her of her continuing obligations under the settlement agreement.
>
> Frd O'N eel (Attny)
>
> P.S. Please do not threaten me again. That would be a mistake.
Excerpts:
----Original Message-----
To: fredonealatlaw <fredonealatlaw@aol.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 16, 2016 10:02 am
Subject: Revitalization RUMOR involving you
...who stated that Toneesha Shrodr, Managing Partner/Accountant for SLohA's Management Company (Stmbug Ixx Inc), stated that Frd O'N eel (Attny) "approved the current Ballot/Consent form"... I have my doubts that you were paid by Stmbug Ixx Inc to provide an opinion.
I looked at it in detail and it has cured the mistake of the previous Ballot/Consent form. I do not intend to sign the form. I have commented extensively on my forum about the documents in the revite package referenced by the form.
Could you comment on the rumor statement?
I would like, with your permission, to quote your response.
To: fredonealatlaw <fredonealatlaw@aol.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 16, 2016 10:02 am
Subject: Revitalization RUMOR involving you
...who stated that Toneesha Shrodr, Managing Partner/Accountant for SLohA's Management Company (Stmbug Ixx Inc), stated that Frd O'N eel (Attny) "approved the current Ballot/Consent form"... I have my doubts that you were paid by Stmbug Ixx Inc to provide an opinion.
I looked at it in detail and it has cured the mistake of the previous Ballot/Consent form. I do not intend to sign the form. I have commented extensively on my forum about the documents in the revite package referenced by the form.
Could you comment on the rumor statement?
I would like, with your permission, to quote your response.
__________________________________________________________________
On Jan 16, 2016, at 10:19 AM, fredonealatlaw@aol.com wrote:
Total fabrication. I was never contacted by SLohA, their attorneys or Stmbug Ixx about the "Ballot/Consent Form for Revitalization Round Two." I've never seen it. I've never reviewed it. I've never "approved" it. If Ms. Shrodr says I have, have her produce some proof of what she's saying (e.g. an email or a letter from me, etc.). If she says I approved it orally (which I never would), then have her tell you who I supposedly talked with and when.
Frd O'N eel (Attny)
Total fabrication. I was never contacted by SLohA, their attorneys or Stmbug Ixx about the "Ballot/Consent Form for Revitalization Round Two." I've never seen it. I've never reviewed it. I've never "approved" it. If Ms. Shrodr says I have, have her produce some proof of what she's saying (e.g. an email or a letter from me, etc.). If she says I approved it orally (which I never would), then have her tell you who I supposedly talked with and when.
Frd O'N eel (Attny)
Brown, GaGaKnees wrote:
Therefore, within 10 days from today, all statements opposing revitalization must be removed from the website and, in their place, Ms. Tg must state on her website that she supports the revitalization.
"[Ms. Tg] is telling people the consent form is flawed, even though it is the same format you reviewed and we modified pursuant to your request to separate the units. You approved the very form she is now attacking as flawed."
Tg has attempted to correct a rumor by contacting her attorney about a statement reportedly attributed to him. O'N eel (Attny) has denied reviewing and approving Consent #2. I have stated publicly that the legal defects present in Consent #1 are not present in Consent 2. To say that this constitutes a Review and Approval of Consent #2 is an outrageous lie! Consent #2 is VERY DIFFERENT than Consent #1. We now know that this was a MANBOD-inspired lie.
It is a simple matter of record that I have stated that the Consent Forum is Board//Attorney-centric, contains numerous estoppels and does not permit owners to exercise the full range of voting options. I have stated that there are irregularities, inconsistencies and questions about the documents in the Revite package, which I produced evidence for and asked for records to clarify.
I have and will maintain my civil right to comment and advocate FOR OWNERS who have been given ZERO information about revitalization and the Consent form.
I have and will vigorously defend my right to NOT re-encumber my personal parcel with SLohA Covenants. I never agreed to give up my civil and property rights regarding my own property or free speech in favor of SLohA's position.
I have stated--and will continue to state--that I have no objections to SLohA's revitalization in the abstract. In accordance with the mediation agreement, I do not intend to cH allenge a DEO decision, but others might decide to do otherwise.
My only objections are--and will continue to be--that the board continues its pattern of deception and secrecy and failure to inform owners about revitalization and Consent forms which impact individual property rights. That will not change.
The board should spend more time on promoting the advantages of revitalization (which are becoming fewer and fewer) and less of the owners' money on hot dogs and intimidation tactics to quash free speech.
