|
|
Post by BagLady on Mar 2, 2016 10:15:51 GMT -5
According to the Board, revitalization passed. That is what they say. The board has not had a very good track record with telling the truth lately--with revitalization specifically or in general. According to reports, the numbers were not announced as to the results for each unit.
In attendance was a now-infamous SLohA attorney. Infamous because of her past unprofessional behavior and her current interaction with another Member at the meeting. The Member spoke to the revitalization issue, using the handheld mic and stated an intention to cH allenge the revitalization.
The SLohA attorney in question? Well, I am going to renname her to protect what is left of her professional reputation: the name is now Nutcake-Bat*crazy, Esquirrel. She already has a formal written complaint filed with the FL Bar Association for unprofessional and false claims made against another Member's attorney (filed Jan 24).
What she did was state to the Member that they could not cH allenge the revitalization because the mediation that was conducted last February 2015 applied to every owner in S-bag!!!
What an outrageous LIE! I have to wonder if this attorney is channelling M. e. l. with her penchant for spreading lies!
The interaction between Member and Attorney was contentious and now comes Romeo Blingz to the Member, who is wheelchair bound--and attempts to physically remove the mic from his possession. The Member resisted and maintained control of the mic and thereafter a **"kerfluffle" of some sort developed. There were no injuries. Romeo declared that he would make a police report of the assault.
Ok so Romeo--over 200 lbs and 6'2"-- towers over a man in a wheelchair, attempts to forcibly take a mic from the man who is speaking, experiences resistance and wants to file assault charges on this disabled veteran who was exercising his right to speak at the meeting.
I was transported back to the Revitalization parade and hotdog social whereby a woman who had just been released weeks earlier from the hospital was verbally provoked and assaulted by the Board VP who subsequently filed an assault and battery charge against the member SHE approached and verbally assaulted. Who do these people think they are?!
**noun. a disturbance or hubbub; a Sm all scale disturbance. an upsetting event
|
|
|
|
Post by observer on Mar 2, 2016 12:33:25 GMT -5
Baglady cites two incidents where people who support the board become enraged and attack people they don't agree with. What are we coming to in S-bag? Do we "fight" each other physically because we differ? Board supporters are starting to lose it with their crowd mentality and a weaker supporter goes too far. Listen, board supporters if you can't stand someone with a different opinion don't go to these meetings or events. Stay home where you're safe and won't lose your temper. S-bag needs level heads and open minds to build back to having a park with reasonable rules and rights and your lack of composure does not help, it just inflames people. I believe much of this starts with the lies the attorney, Ms. Debra Nutthatch tells and makes the supporters fearful of opposition and has a false sense of entitlement to bully others.
Fear of the opposition is foolish. No one should have to defend themselves physically to get his or her opinion across to others. All the lies about "undesirables" coming into SLohA is garbage. It would have happened already because we have been without rules since 2012 and aside from our neighbors who are "low income" we don't appear to be coveted by the underclass. Wake up, board supporters, life will go on as before except people will live here as they wish without intimidation by their neighbors. It is past time to be sensible.
|
|
Wishing we could all get along
Guest
|
Post by Wishing we could all get along on Mar 2, 2016 14:57:29 GMT -5
In regard to the meeting on revitalization, your reports were wrong, because the numbers WERE announced as to the results for each unit. There was a total of 15 no's for all three units. As to the wheelchair-bound man, he was asked to give up the mic because he was screaming and calling people names which I will not repeat here. He was not innocent in this by any means, because instead of giving up the mic, he put his chair in gear and rammed into "Romeo", as you call him, not once or twice, but a good half-dozen times, forcibly and intentionally. He did, indeed, give the aforementioned Romeo a gash in his lower leg. Regardless of size, he went after Romeo with a lethal weapon...his chair. The whole thing was, as you say, a kerfluffle, a very upsetting event.Please get the facts straight before reporting to those who could not attend and rely upon you for the TRUE story.
As to the revitalization parade, perhaps this woman was verbally abused by the Board VP. Does that mean this woman can resort to physically and verbally assaulting the Board VP as well as threatening someone? Shouldn't she have been the bigger woman, taken the higher road and walked away?
|
|
Annonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Annonymous Environmentalist on Mar 2, 2016 18:11:51 GMT -5
In regard to the meeting on revitalization, your reports were wrong, because the numbers WERE announced as to the results for each unit. There was a total of 15 no's for all three units. As to the wheelchair-bound man, he was asked to give up the mic because he was screaming and calling people names which I will not repeat here. He was not innocent in this by any means, because instead of giving up the mic, he put his chair in gear and rammed into "Romeo", as you call him, not once or twice, but a good half-dozen times, forcibly and intentionally. He did, indeed, give the aforementioned Romeo a gash in his lower leg. Regardless of size, he went after Romeo with a lethal weapon...his chair. The whole thing was, as you say, a kerfluffle, a very upsetting event.Please get the facts straight before reporting to those who could not attend and rely upon you for the TRUE story. As to the revitalization parade, perhaps this woman was verbally abused by the Board VP. Does that mean this woman can resort to physically and verbally assaulting the Board VP as well as threatening someone? Shouldn't she have been the bigger woman, taken the higher road and walked away? If there is video feed of this meeting then it would show what really happened. When several people witness the same event, there are always different points of view from every witness. If these meeting are, in fact, recorded, lets have the Sheriff's Dept. look at it and see for themselves what REALLY happened. I personally cannot and will not believe that a man in a wheel chair with a mic is more dangerous than a six foot, two hundred pound man attempting to take away his right to free speech--really--yeah right! Only in S-bag! And if this guy got a gash in his leg from the wheelchair, it was because he got into the disabled guy's personal space in order to START the altercation that happened today, and i can't say as i blame the wheelchair bound man. Anyone that gets in my personal space without my permission and/or to take something away from me, you're damn right i'm gonna fight back. Kudos to the man in the wheelchair!! This type of behavior just goes to show you how deeply passionate some people's deception has become; and it doesn't stop there, folks, there's more deception on the immediate horizon... |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2016 18:52:16 GMT -5
Wishing we could all get along posted:
You might make note of the time this initial post was made; it was a "breaking news" post to announce the passage of the revite vote. The reporter was not focused on the counts, but focused on the brouhaha that followed, incited by the SLohA attorney's lie and cH allenged by one member.
Everyone is welcome to add details and correct inaccuracies.
So...since this WAS announced--what was the actual count in each unit? And please, give a complete count of Yes and NO's separate from the Signed Consents in each unit. Said another way, are the 15 NO votes counted in the consent totals for each unit?
I suggest that your report be accurate because a records inspection will be done and the individual NO votes may eventually end up in court.
|
|
|
|
Post by observant on Mar 2, 2016 20:17:41 GMT -5
Dear "get along" Why drag up old, resolved stuff inaccurately? Are you trying to get people riled up again, to be mad at each other or is it just your bad conscious not letting it die a natural death. If you want all of us to "get along" then you need to let it all go and think about the good of the park and how you can get along with everyone else in the park, especially if you are in a position of authority. Spend your time being constructive not destructive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lra on Mar 2, 2016 22:01:00 GMT -5
As to the revitalization parade, perhaps this woman was verbally abused by the Board VP. Does that mean this woman can resort to physically and verbally assaulting the Board VP as well as threatening someone? Shouldn't she have been the bigger woman, taken the higher road and walked away? Were you there? Did you witness the altercation and what led up to it? Do you approve of taunting and then getting in a person's personal space to verbally assault them as being okay? Take into consideration that you expected someone who was within 2 hours of death's door less than a month or so before, who had just been released from a few weeks before needing to use a cane for support do to her weakened condition to respond with: "Oh, honey, blah, blah, blah. ..?" Why was this weakened soul even at that initial parade and hot dog event? Because leery listerine invited both of us to show our support. So we went and paid a very high price for "mob mentality" that ensued. So much so, that a day or two later one of you burned a cross on our lawn. And for the record for, our unit WAS APPROVED by the only person in authority to do so PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL AT SLR. Further, Melonknee Kreemcow WAS PHOTOGRAPHED (as part of a pictorial sequence of the old unit going and the new unit arriving by our brother-in-law) on February' 18, 2014, at 12:08 pm in two time and dated photos VIEWING THE UNIT AND GIVING APPROVAL. Those of you hate mongers, get over yourself. |
|
saddlebagger viewer
Guest
|
Post by saddlebagger viewer on Mar 3, 2016 7:51:44 GMT -5
Lra is right. We have experienced too much hate here in S-bag. It has pitted neighbor against neighbor for a second year. It must be put to rest. Remember, hate only hurts and harms the hater. Look at the toll it has taken on many people's health. It does not harm the ones you hate. If you profess to love SLR, then that means you love its residents. After all, S-bag is each and everyone of us. Love Thy neighbor as Thy self.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 3, 2016 8:24:10 GMT -5
anonymous environmentalist said:
The meeting video recording was requested of Toneesha yesterday. Her response was something to the effect that "you have the right to a copy but it first has to be reviewed and released".
Well, what she is saying IS true; the record belongs to every owner in SLR and everyone has a right to have a copy on request. Under the FS720 law which SLohA is trying to "bring back" with a successful revitalization, SLohA has 10 working days to produce the record. They are welcome to have anybody they want "review and release" the record during that time but they still must release the record. They cannot alter or corrupt the record. If they do not, under FS720 they can be ordered to produce the record and have to pay a fine up to $500.
From Toneesha's statement, it appears that the meeting videotape will be copied and given to the requester.
Reportedly, the Sheriff took statements from both the Instigator, Romeo Blingz and the Victim, Mik Fos ter. If charges are filed and pursued, undoubtedly the recording will be submitted as evidence of WHO STARTED THE FIGHT! The Instigator, in common law, is the MOST CULPABLE party because the attack provokes a reaction which never would have occurred had the Instigator not Instigated. The burden of risk is on the A**hole who started it. As reported, this was in response to a board member's directive to "remove him" and thus, exposes SLohA to risk.
What a sorry group of leaders in here--board members, "management company" and let's not forget "management" company's attorney who incited the unpleasant verbal exchange with an incredible LIE!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 3, 2016 11:48:37 GMT -5
S-bag In The News...but not in a good way! This hit my NewsFeed just a few minutes ago.
Assault
03/02/2016 09:17 AM
400 BLOCK OF S-bag LAKE RD, WKW, POLK COUNTY, FL
BATTERY
Case number: PK160009671
It is rumored that the media has been contacted about this incident.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Mar 4, 2016 0:21:22 GMT -5
The Revitalization Meeting on Mar.2,2016, I believe a resident stated that he may cH allenge these Amendments with the DEO. The Revitalization Committees (SLohA) Lawyer stated that because of the Mediation Agreement in the Lawsuits against SLohA, a Owner in SLR "can not cH allenge" the 1986 and 1989 Amendments in the 2016 Revitalization Application with the DEO.
Is that a true statement by SLohA Lawyers? I am a little confused at this point in time....
I do not remember agreeing to any such thing.... What am I missing?
16RC
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 4, 2016 9:19:45 GMT -5
Dick Tracy said:
Let me reposition this a bit: the actual statement by the Member concerned cH allenging SLohA's attempt to revitalize the named governing documents as a whole--Not the Amendments specifically. The DEO could care less about the Amendments and will not be scrutinizing the internal construction, adoption or workings of the documents submitted. The DEO is pretty much "rubber-stamping" the revite package if it believes that the administrative rules of revitalization have been followed.
The subsequent cH allenge must be based on what the DEO actually has supervision over. This would obviously include statutory standing as an HOA. Two attorneys have stated SLohA does NOT meet the criteria of a statutory HOA (which has been thoroughly discussed under another thread on this forum). There are other aspects as well; most recently a flaw in procedure that was identified and successfully argued by Bar bra St age, Esq. against another HOA revite attempt. The cH allenge can incorporate MANY aspects surrounding the revitalization and subsequent parcel indexing or it can be narrowly focused on the DEO's decision. SLohA will have to pay the first $75K in legal costs for each and every complaint filed against it before D & O insurance will kick in.
With regards to ANYTHING in the Mediation Settlement which binds anyone except the participants--that is HOGWASH and this attorney must have gotten her license from a Cracker Jack Box. The terms of the settlement affect ONLY the parties named and who signed and agreed to conditions. Insofar as a cH allenge--which is not specifically described but understood to be a cH allenge to a DEO approval decision--the prohibition on this is only on Lra, Gngr and me. Any other member of SLohA is entitled to cH allenge the DEO decision. And, anyone who is a member of SLohA can also cH allenge the validity of the 1986 an 1989 amendments.
Recording something in a public record does not give it "legality"; it does invite legal scrutiny as to the underlying authority and truthfulness of the recorded documents. That is what I believe will happen to SLohA some day with regards to the 'over55' amendment that SLohA failed to pass with a 100% vote. Why? Because...it was not an amendment to anything--it was a whole new contractual provision requiring 100% agreement of all affected parties.
This actually touches on another astonishing thing happening in Florida recently. Some HOA's are entering into agreements to exclude certain litigation-prone members from the association. Apparently, it is cheaper and less disruptive to "let them go" and forgo one parcel of assessments than to fight them for years and then they win and get all their money back and S u e again...! Frd O'N eel (Attny) has been particularly successful in effecting this solution in 3 cases currently. This "solution" came up a few years back when a few board members suggested buying me out but I guess that was kaput when several other owners cried "Me, Too!" That is the problem with the solution--everyone must get equal treatment and 100% of owners must agree to take on the prorata assessment burden for the released party.
Actually, SLohA documents DO provide for release of parcel restrictions by a 75% UNIT owner vote! That means that if 75% of the owners in my unit agree to release my parcel from all SLohA restrictions, then I am freed from SLohA restrictions and no longer have any standing to S u e SLohA in the future for wrongdoing and misdeeds.
The REAL solution is for the board/management company to conduct a lawful, transparent and inclusive corporate business which involves common property only so members have no reason to S u e them and win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 4, 2016 9:40:15 GMT -5
Here are the published results of the Revite vote. You will have to use the open user name and password (Saddlebagger/bagless) to enlarge/download. Parkwide, it looks like about the same as Attempt #1. It is hard to tell if the NO votes are counted as Consents. The Consent percentage runs off the side of the page and says "seventy-something". If it is 77%, then the NO votes have not been counted as Consents. If it is 79%, then the NO votes have been counted as Consents. Bear in mind that it was not necessary to even count the NO votes to achieve the affirmative threshold to send the package on to Tallahassee. The important thing will be if SLohA gets a successful DEO approval, will those NON CONSENTING parcels be left off the Index of Lots recorded with Polk County? Stay tuned! Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Mar 5, 2016 16:05:04 GMT -5
We Homesteaders are awaiting the decision in Tallahassee. If SLohA is given the go ahead to reimpose Covenants, Rules and Regulations within S-bag Lake Resort, we will announce a date and meeting place to organize our class action suit under Florida State Law. Stay tuned Homesteaders. We have no idea if this will include those of you who did not submit the Green Consent Form. We will try hard to be all inclusive of those 174 lots who did not submit the form.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 7, 2016 9:42:53 GMT -5
pestcontrol stated:
A little tweak: SLohA will NOT have the go ahead, if approved by DEO, to reimpose Rules & Regulations. These were not included in the Revite package and if DEO approves the application, these old R & R's will be dead forever.
The Members subject to the Covenants will, of course, be entitled to resurrect any R & R that they wish with a 50%+ affirmative vote of the newly-encumbered membership--but that will not be a vote of 787 owners--it will be more like 600+ owners. The remaining 174+ owners did not consent to revitalization and many will certainly reinforce that through judicial review and order should SLohA choose to attempt to reimpose its restrictions, thus triggering extended and expensive litigation.
|
|
GTO
Addict
Life is Tough ! It's even tougher when you're stupid ! Jhn Wayne J ohn Wayne
Posts: 198
|
Post by GTO on Mar 7, 2016 22:55:20 GMT -5
I am amazed that 600 plus Owners in SLR Trust this BoDs, Management Co. and the Attorneys enough to have signed the green consent form.
We have been lied to on so many occasions, locked out of closed door meetings, wasted SLR resources on Lawyer fees, caused SLohA's Insurance Premiums to sky rocket, because of childish decisions and also aloud KCNetwork to take over our common property, with non-permitted communication towers. Plus so much more, yet to be told.
UN-Real!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 9, 2016 9:42:01 GMT -5
Where are the March 2, 2016 Special Meeting (Revitalization) Minutes?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Mar 15, 2016 0:11:55 GMT -5
While I was not at the recent meeting at the clubhouse where there was a police incident, I was informed by a neighbor of what happened. As I understand it a resident was criticizing the Board for certain policies. During that criticism, this resident allegedly started using profanities and obscenities. In reaction, a member of the audience got up and wrested the microphone away from this man. A fight ensued during which the first man ran his wheelchair into the other man, causing some cuts and bruises to the other man's leg. A complaint of assault & battery has been made against the first man.
If the account of the incident as told to me was accurate. I'm not so sure that the assault charge is being leveled at the right person. A strong case can be made that the man who wrested the microphone is the one guilty of assault. If you are walking down the street and are confronted by a homeless person who starts in on a tirade of obscenities directed at you or anyone else in the immediate vicinity, would you be within your legal rights to lay hands upon that man? According to the law, ABSOLUTELY NOT. If that person poses no physical threat to you, the law expects you to simply walk away.
It seems to me, a more common sense way to deal with the disruption being caused by this man would have been to turn off that microphone from the control panel, followed by a firm warning from the Chair, if he man continued to disrupt the meeting, the sheriff would be summoned to arrest him.
I hasten to point out Florida's "stand your ground law". While I completely disagree with this law, an argument could be made, under its terms, that the man from in the wheelchair would have been within his legal right to use deadly force against the other man, claiming that act of the other man's laying hands upon him caused him to "fear for his life or/or great bodily harm".
So from my point of view, the man who attempted to wrest the microphone exercised very poor judgement and could have precipitated a terrible tragedy instead of what turned out as a relatively minor altercation
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 15, 2016 8:27:20 GMT -5
Thanks for a thoughtful post. It was an example of the quality of opinion that Admin hopes for--well described in context and supported by current law and extrapolated with reason to future engagements of this nature which are becoming all too frequent is SLR. This and continued confrontations instigated by the board could very well end in tragedy or high defense costs to SLohA to defend itself from what has become a pattern of behavior by MANBOD.
The proper way to handle the situation would have been to issue a verbal warning to the speaker and ask that he relinquish the microphone. Failing that, the meeting should have been immediately adjourned, rescheduled for later in the day or another day and the board should have exited the dais. End of story.
The law will see that the speaker was acting in the public arena and there was no imminent threat to person or property justifying an aggressive assault. It is immaterial what was being said or how it was said. The content might have been disagreeable, but there were alternate ways to deal with the situation. But then, the board has never been known for reasonable behavior and uttered the "command" at large to "remove him".
When Romeo laid his hands upon the victim, he elevated the encounter by entering the personal space uninvited and physically aggressed upon the victim. The victim had no exit option to "walk away" because he had limited mobility in a wheelchair. He had every reason to fear for his safety and he appropriately defended himself without the use of excessive force. The victim was additionally aggressed upon by additional persons who were reportedly attempting to remove the victim while in the wheelchair. That is another level of force and reason for escalated alarm. Fortunately, for all concerned, this scrap only ended in a skin scrape.
What you described is quite similar to the account that I heard from a very close eyewitness and does not deviate generally from the sequence of events. However, I did hear that the brouhaha was triggered by Clf Jnsn's "order" to "remove him". That apparently set off the chain of events to follow which gave legal liability to SLohA for a misdeed by a board member.
I too, believe the wrong person was cited and hope that the Attorney General will see that as well and decide not to pursue the victim but rather, charge Romeo. The victim of the assault is represented and will be given a complete menu of options for civil redress.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on May 10, 2016 8:37:43 GMT -5
CORRECTION:
Baglady posted:
This is an error.
While preparing my rebuttal to Debra BadNutcake, I happened to be privy to certain material which brought new information to light about the events of the March 2, 2016 revitalization meeting disturbance.
The bottom line is that the content of the dispute was not as described on the forum. The dispute concerned the ability of an owner to appeal the 1986 Amendment to the Covenants. It was originally reported that the dispute was as to the owner's ability to cH allenge the DEO's decision regarding revitalization.
While it does not matter what the dispute was about, it matters to me that this forum maintain its integrity and adhere to the known facts. Insofar as Debra BadNutcake's version of the meeting events, I did not respond to her defensive rendition in substance, since it was not part of my formal complaint.
Admin regrets the error in reporting and, as always, when an error is brought to my attention or otherwise discovered, it is and will continue to be publicly corrected for the benefit of all.
|
|
