|
|
Post by BagLady on May 25, 2014 21:34:17 GMT -5
Anon Poster says:
Anon Poster: Please explain what this means. It makes no sense. I am unaware of any of the CC&R's having been presented for any manner of judicial comment-much less adjudicated "legitamate"--and what actions have been initiated by past and present boards (except to misrepresent and violate the CC&R's repeatedly).
How about Back-ing up your statements with some facts, please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Research Needed on May 26, 2014 7:57:24 GMT -5
The Height of Hypocrisy
How about YOU backing up your statements with some facts, please?
March 4, 2014 BagLady
This is serious. I have never heard of a sewer system blowing up and creating a massive hazmat. Why do YOU think this explosion happened?
How about Back-ing up your statements with some facts, please.
March 14, 2014 Admin
Covenants and Rules & Regs have expired on 80+% of lots. Good strategy, BOD. Spend hundreds of dollars on nothing--piss hundreds of owners off for nothing. Make the lawyers rich. Feed the Queen B at 499. We are in the Dinosaur Age in SLR.
How about Back-ing up your statements with some facts, please.
April 7, 2014 Admin
By recording a restriction on ALL the lots in SLR under the amended Rules & Regulations filed with the county on 3/26/14, SLohA has added one more slanderous assault to my property. This is despite the fact that I have a current lawsuit filed against SLohA for Slander of Title. BOD did it AGAIN! I have advised my attorney who I am sure will take appropriate action.
BTW--ALL the lots that have expired have at least two "clouds" on their titles- the Preservation Notice filed 4/3/2013 and the Rules & Regs filed 3/26/14. Indeed, ANY parcel restriction that SLohA has filed over all the lots since 2002 creates a potential cloud on the title. This is because parcels began to expire in 2002 (the earliest possible MRTA extinguishment date) and continue to expire.
My estimate is that about 75% lots in SLR have expired and have no covenants, but have at least two clouds placed on title by SLohA. This estimate is based on a random sampling of title searches on 150 lots from all three subdivision Plats.
How about Back-ing up your statements with some facts, please.
April 20, 2014 Lra
Great addition to the forum. Hope people get informed about their properties. It certainly helped me to know that 66 Silversides had the Covenants expire 25 days before I bought the property back on March 27, 2012.
How about Back-ing up your statements with some facts, please.
May 19, 2014 BagLady
Ballots and elections, at this point, have about as much credibility as MANBOD, which is to say--little. No one is blaming the Election Committee; they are as caught up in these bad election practices and habits as the Board. So far, no Election Chairman--a BOD--has fixed the flawed system that has corrupted SLohA balloting and elections thus causing the breakdown of confidence by owners in the process. It is not up to the Election Committee to fix election practices any more than it is up to the Rulebook Committee to fix the flawed Redbook. BOD is responsible.
Ballots are NEVER supposed to be beyond the control or outside the possession of the Election Committee members. PERIOD. This means that ONLY Committee members--not the BOD Committee chairman, not a BOD, not the MANGE-not the Security Force--No other person besides an Election Committee person is to touch these ballots from the moment they are placed in a secured receptacle by Owners until the Annual Member Meeting.
I have heard all sorts of stupid excuses why this is not done just like excuses as to what happened to the Director Voting Districts in the Bylaws and how did the two-envelope system come to replace the Election Procedure in our Bylaws? People who ignore our governing documents and make idiot excuses why they have to do it another way have no business on the Board. Any election result in SLohA could be cH allenged by any member and the State would come in and monitor the next election.
Or, as the Board has suggested, SLohA could go to internet balloting. Except there is nothing in the Bylaws to permit this and it eliminates the possibility of ballot tampering. But, heck, why bother with changing the Bylaws to permit internet ballots? And why would MANBOD want to voluntarily lose all control of ballots? I am sure there will be lots of excuses why SLohA can't do that.
How about Back-ing up your statements with some facts, please.
May 19, 2014 BagLady
MANBOD needs to lose the attitude and ask harder questions about its role in why people express these thoughts. MANBOD might like to think--and might like others to believe--that there are only 10 people who are thinking these things, but they are very wrong about how widespread the discontent is in SLR with this abusive management company and the Board's absolute allegiance to it rather than to the owners.
How about Back-ing up your statements with some facts, please.
May 20, 2014 Lra
Thanks for the information. As soon as I "finish off" Ml on Friday, I'll then go after T.
Jhn Wayne said it well: "Don't pick a fight. But if you have to fight, fight to win".
I heard this didn't turn out as good as expected...
May 23, 2014 Lra
Success is measured in different ways by different people. I found today to be very successful as I know that Ml just lived through 10 days of h...
That's a good out....
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on May 26, 2014 9:26:51 GMT -5
@research Needed: The only statements --most of which were my opinions and speculations, which both YOU and I are entitled to, do not require research.
With regard to the ballot and election irregularities--do you own research and read the Bylaws. Everything is there.
The following response to your "cH allenge" is based on law (FS712) and research validated by professionals.
I do not intend to repeat the massive amounts of research and documentation, consultation, verification and professional assessment that has preceded this statement. It is all available both on this forum, on my MRTA-exclusive website, and on the internet.
Suffice it to say that BEFORE I contacted an attorney prior to this lawsuit, I performed much research on my own and title-searched my own property. With my decades of practice in Developer and Broker real estate, this was an easier task that it might have been without the background. I found that my lot had expired after doing a chain of title search and nearly memorizing the FS712. Only after I was 99% certain that my covenants had expired, I contacted an attorney for verification. The attorney agreed with my findings on a casual search and asked if I wanted to order a professional MRTA-qualified title search and get a professional legal opinion and proceed-or not-on that basis. I agreed to do that and found that my lot had, indeed, expired on March 12, 2010.
I then proceeded to pursue resolution with the Board in May 2013, to no avail. I proceeded to FL-mandated mediation in November 2013. The board yawned and an impasse was declared after about 40 minutes of yawning. The lawsuit was then filed in March 2014.
In between those two dates, I did casual title searches (casual = uncompensated and non-professional superficial assessment) for over 200 parcels. Many of those searches were done at the request of other owners in SLR--by my recollection--around 50+. I emailed each of those owners attached deeds in their chain of title along with my opinion, cautioning them that if they wanted to base any action on this casual assessment, they would need to get an attorney opinion. Most of those owners had expired lots and reflected the general 80% "expired" statement. It is relatively easy to do a casual title search and I have explained the process on this forum and elsewhere, as previously mentioned.
Intuitively, one would expect that lots sold in the early seventies would start expiring in the early 2000's by operation of MRTA. This is further supported by the long-standing practice of SLR owners not assisting sales using agents, attorneys or purchasing title searches. There was little awareness of the possibility of Covenants being expired by law--much less any option to "preserve" the covenants by a specific reference to them on a deed.
I could publish my database of expired and unexpired lots but choose not to. If you would like to have me look at YOUR title, I will do so at your request, as I have done for others at their request. I do not solicit this activity but am available to offer an educated "first-pass" opinion. After all, this is not rocket science!
Tell me--what have YOU done to independently validate MY findings which have solid legal basis and validation--to the degree that I am putting my retirement money into a declaratory judgement-- to get the issue settled and clear my title of the recordings placed by SLohA after expiration? Have YOU even read the MRTA law, FS712? Have you followed the instructions here to do your own title search? Have you requested a professional MRTA-qualified title search?
All I see from you is copy/pasting my opinions, most of which are based on some event and characterized in an opinion. Do YOU have any opinions that are based on evidence or fact? That is what I asked of you in my post.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on May 26, 2014 11:22:08 GMT -5
Someone sure loves repeating the crap from the Kings of the Stone-faced liars--(bod's), just stay in your peachy house and stop spitting out pits of uselessness, oh and don't go getting all Ruth-less just because we are correcting you...
|
|
|
|
Post by Lra on May 27, 2014 3:05:57 GMT -5
To Anon Poster: Your " highly knowledgeable" information/speculation truly supersedes the expertise of the Title closing agent and the Bartow County Clerk both of whom confirmed my title as being not bound to any restrictions. I recall at the closing/purchasing how both the sellers and the buyers were informed that it was NOT necessary to pass forward any covenants or restrictions as they were no longer in effect. And the closing documents were written in such a manner to note that the Title to my property would be reviewed for accuracy.
For the sake of community and continuity I tried to follow them, but alas lying and pettiness by management on my $100,000. investment forced me into a corner and required me to act accordingly.
Now I know how you really, really wish that were not true in you little pea mind, but alas it is true and accurate.
Like "show me the money", I want YOU to "show me the court cases".
|
|
|
|
Post by Fact Checker on May 27, 2014 8:45:33 GMT -5
You have been looking to cause trouble ever since you moved in here in 2010. You have done nothing to contribute to this resort and for whatever reason have done everything possible to destroy this beautiful place. You started out being critical of the Board and the budget that was presented for the 2011-2012 year with your Geesee peesee, why would they do that? When you co-edited the Newshound you couldn't wait to point out how bad everything was, even when it wasn't. Claiming the Board was giving the Manager a $20,00.00 raise which wasn't true, telling people that the Board was setting aside $100,000.00 for the Internet, which also was not true. The Newshound even posted a picture of a tank sitting in the middle of S-bag Trail. Giving your opinion is a right you have, but when you start disrupting the lives of others, when they would just like to enjoy their retirement years in peace and are perfectly happy with the way things are, you become a thorn, a pain in the a**, a self centered egotist, looking for your own interests and not caring how many other lives you effect. Some of it started even before you moved into SLR when you tried to buy your house without having to pay the Real Estate agents fee. She helped you finance your home and when she passed on you tried to negotiate a new contract with her daughter. Yes, ST we know more about you than you can imagine.
Here is the conspiracy theory that is well established in SLR. They (the residents of SLR) believe you are out to see how much money you can collect from SLR with a law suit, in an email dated April 6, 2013 at 1:03 P.M. that was intercepted, you said, “There is a right way to approach this thing to get a judge or mediator to award fees to the DEFENDANT- -that's you/me! You must get the HOA to act and to attack and be the PLAINTIFF!” Your posting on the current web site dated May 26, 2014 at 11:00am by BagLady, (ST) states, “I do not solicit this activity but am available to offer an educated “first-pass” opinion. After all, this is not rocket science!” That is a total lie, you go on in the same email asking for everyone to join you and you will help them take down SLR. You give them six (6) steps on how to get it done and go on to say, “Finally, we should try to get as many letters as possible to arrive about the same time, preferrably (misspelled) April.”
We know the reason for all of this is because, you know, going it alone will not get your fees that you are needing so you want to create as much havoc as you can and get your cronies to file law suits against SLR so when your case comes up, you can make a claim that others have filed suits also. What a sick mind.
As for MRTA, I know someone that knows as much or more than you do about it.
We'll have more information from Cape Coral and Bonita Springs soon concerning Limetree Park Drive, Pfaff, etc..
Put your goody two shoes on now and whine and cry some more.
|
|
|
|
Post by BR549 on May 27, 2014 9:28:35 GMT -5
You have been looking to cause trouble ever since you moved in here in 2010. You have done nothing to contribute to this resort and for whatever reason have done everything possible to destroy this beautiful place. You started out being critical of the Board and the budget that was presented for the 2011-2012 year with your Geesee peesee, why would they do that? When you co-edited the Newshound you couldn't wait to point out how bad everything was, even when it wasn't. Claiming the Board was giving the Manager a $20,00.00 raise which wasn't true, telling people that the Board was setting aside $100,000.00 for the Internet, which also was not true. The Newshound even posted a picture of a tank sitting in the middle of S-bag Trail. Giving your opinion is a right you have, but when you start disrupting the lives of others, when they would just like to enjoy their retirement years in peace and are perfectly happy with the way things are, you become a thorn, a pain in the a**, a self centered egotist, looking for your own interests and not caring how many other lives you effect. Some of it started even before you moved into SLR when you tried to buy your house without having to pay the Real Estate agents fee. She helped you finance your home and when she passed on you tried to negotiate a new contract with her daughter. Yes, ST we know more about you than you can imagine. Here is the conspiracy theory that is well established in SLR. They (the residents of SLR) believe you are out to see how much money you can collect from SLR with a law suit, in an email dated April 6, 2013 at 1:03 P.M. that was intercepted, you said, “There is a right way to approach this thing to get a judge or mediator to award fees to the DEFENDANT- -that's you/me! You must get the HOA to act and to attack and be the PLAINTIFF!” Your posting on the current web site dated May 26, 2014 at 11:00am by BagLady, (ST) states, “I do not solicit this activity but am available to offer an educated “first-pass” opinion. After all, this is not rocket science!” That is a total lie, you go on in the same email asking for everyone to join you and you will help them take down SLR. You give them six (6) steps on how to get it done and go on to say, “Finally, we should try to get as many letters as possible to arrive about the same time, preferrably (misspelled) April.” We know the reason for all of this is because, you know, going it alone will not get your fees that you are needing so you want to create as much havoc as you can and get your cronies to file law suits against SLR so when your case comes up, you can make a claim that others have filed suits also. What a sick mind. As for MRTA, I know someone that knows as much or more than you do about it. We'll have more information from Cape Coral and Bonita Springs soon concerning Limetree Park Drive, Pfaff, etc.. Put your goody two shoes on now and whine and cry some more. 206.71.178.79 La Mesa CA |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 27, 2014 9:35:25 GMT -5
I care little what you discover by delving into my life; have at it-you will find nothing of interest and I have nothing to hide.
One absolute lie and one ignorant misrepresentation. (The rest is just disgruntled yak yak--for pity's sake, hit the Delete Key or don't read material which is likely to conflict with your belief system!)
First, the lie. I worked in the real estate business for many, many years and fully expect to pay a real estate fee, when necessary for the transaction. I readily paid the agent fee on my current SLR home; in fact, if you had any clue what you were talking about, you would know that sales fees are on the settlement statement and paid at closing. It is not external (and optional) to a transaction. Fees are subject to negotiation, like any business, but in real estate, sales fees are usually discussed/adjusted by the Seller during a listing meeting. As a Buyer, I did not attempt to negotiate with the Seller.
Now, the misrepresentation. Negotiation works both ways; both parties must agree to a change in the terms of a contract--just like "amending" Covenants! When someone offers a large payoff sum of money ahead of the amortization, it is frequently discounted. This is what I did; I made a general offer of a large sum of money to pay off the Promissory Note. The holder declined. No transaction. There is nothing nefarious about this--it is done all the time in many business transactions and is part of personal financial management.
Hope this helps you accurately document your dossier.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on May 27, 2014 11:40:49 GMT -5
This moron calling themselves "fact checker" needs to get their facts straight, perhaps should call themselves "fact mutilator," since that's what you've done; all your posts, all you do is tear down a good person based on nothing more than what you've heard from liars.
You can't even prove anything you say, and if you are concerned about facts, you should at least show some proof of at least one of things you've said--but have come on here with NO proof to back up any of the hearsay that you're repeating.
Where did ST say this about the management company, and is it $20K or $20? You can't even write a number correctly, that doesn't say much about your credibility either. And another thing, where did ST say anything about the $100K to the internet provider? Another resident that was talking to PB--our current president, who did in fact say in 2010 that the board had just signed a 3-year, $300K contract w/this internet provider. While that is hearsay, it DID IN FACT come out of PB's mouth. You were NOT there when that was said, I was, I was standing there when he said it, and another resident was standing there too.
I seriously doubt you know much if anything about MRTA, like ST's lawyer does, or even the JA's lawyer--both of these attorneys are far more knowledgeable about HOA law than you seem to think--which brings me to another comment--WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK!
Since you obviously have nothing factual to back your hearsay, repeated lies and other assorted spew, then politely f-off of this forum!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fact ory on May 27, 2014 12:14:42 GMT -5
You are right for a change. It should have been $20,000.00. Jimmy, you better ask ST if she wants the email posted for everyone to see. It shows the address of all eight (8) of her cronies including yours. BTW...this is before she got the latest two (2) which brings you up to ten (10) the super majority. Do the math.
|
|
|
|
Post by J Grnt on May 27, 2014 12:21:03 GMT -5
You are right for a change. It should have been $20,000.00. Jimmy, you better ask ST if she wants the email posted for everyone to see. It shows the address of all eight (8) of her cronies including yours. BTW...this is before she got the latest two (2) which brings you up to ten (10) the super majority. Do the math. Go ahead and do it, put your name on it also unless you don't have a hair on your cowardly ass.
Also, I don't know what comment you are referring to that I have made. You are obviously assuming to be in the know who is who making Anon. comments. Bring it on stupid!
Like ST, I have nothing to hide from anyone but you obviously do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on May 27, 2014 12:23:01 GMT -5
You are right for a change. It should have been $20,000.00. Jimmy, you better ask ST if she wants the email posted for everyone to see. It shows the address of all eight (8) of her cronies including yours. BTW...this is before she got the latest two (2) which brings you up to ten (10) the super majority. Do the math. IP 206.71.178.78 |
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on May 27, 2014 12:45:17 GMT -5
You are right for a change. It should have been $20,000.00. Jimmy, you better ask ST if she wants the email posted for everyone to see. It shows the address of all eight (8) of her cronies including yours. BTW...this is before she got the latest two (2) which brings you up to ten (10) the super majority. Do the math.
My name isn't Jimmy, you idiot! Once again, you are confused, and with your closed mindedness, will no doubt remain that way since all you keep coming with is your obvious hatred for certain individuals that are merely exposing the truth--something this board and manager find impossible to speak.
And by the way, the 10 people you seem to think are the only ones on the forum are members, we have many, many more "guests" that read and/or comment with truth and facts--unlike you.
Another obvious flaw you have is getting numbers and figures wrong; stay away from trying to prove any mathematical quandaries or conundrums, because you suck at it.
Once again, my name isn't Jimmy, I thought I'd reiterate this since you obviously have a real short attention span also.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on May 27, 2014 13:33:08 GMT -5
You are right for a change. It should have been $20,000.00. Jimmy, you better ask ST if she wants the email posted for everyone to see. It shows the address of all eight (8) of her cronies including yours. BTW...this is before she got the latest two (2) which brings you up to ten (10) the super majority. Do the math. What if I post an e-mail that I intercepted about Financial Statements that went to Bb De Bolt-B ob Bl air-Gi nny L owell-K en Le wis- & R ob K ight ly? I have all the email addresses and some very damning information.
I also have 1st person written statements from certain Board members that admit that the CC&R's have in fact EXPIRED, its amazing the information that I have . Go ahead, doubt the validity of my intercepted information!
I may have to hand it all over to an Attorney who is waiting to get this in court, after all, it does me no good but I like helping people with info that as far as the BOD thinks never got out to the SLR community. They were not careful and the info just happened to be handed off to me and I have it. Oh, thanks for referring to me as Jimmy. That was my Grandfathers name and it is nice to remember!
Here is just a sample, the rest is far more damaging to some. ;+)
Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2014 20:12:12 GMT -5
You are right for a change. It should have been $20,000.00. Jimmy, you better ask ST if she wants the email posted for everyone to see. It shows the address of all eight (8) of her cronies including yours. BTW...this is before she got the latest two (2) which brings you up to ten (10) the super majority. Do the math. What if I post an e-mail that I intercepted about Financial Statements that went to Bb De Bolt-B ob Bl air-Gi nny L owell-K en Le wis- & R ob K ight ly? I have all the email addresses and some very damning information.
I also have 1st person written statements from certain Board members that admit that the CC&R's have in fact EXPIRED, its amazing the information that I have . Go ahead, doubt the validity of my intercepted information!
I may have to hand it all over to an Attorney who is waiting to get this in court, after all, it does me no good but I like helping people with info that as far as the BOD thinks never got out to the SLR community. They were not careful and the info just happened to be handed off to me and I have it. Oh, thanks for referring to me as Jimmy. That was my Grandfathers name and it is nice to remember!
Here is just a sample, the rest is far more damaging to some. ;+)
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nGeKSiCQkPw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 27, 2014 21:59:20 GMT -5
Factory Guest: I personally have no problem with your posting my email. I don't say things in email that I don't mean and take responsibility for what I do say. However, you should think carefully about your illegal "intercept" of private email and the possible legal ramifications of anyone on my email distribution who might not be as unconcerned as I am about your violating privacy. In pursuing your vendetta against me, you will be treading on the civil rights of 10 other owners. The one who gets a civil suit will not be me; I and my correspondents have the legal protection--an "expectation of privacy" --in email that is not in the public domain. If your intercept of private email is something that you want to answer for someday, be my guest and post away.
And, while you are chewing on that, I will respond to another hairbrained comment you made:
IF you had some common sense and read carefully, you might think that such a statement would be based on "something" besides a lay opinion. I am not an attorney--but I hired an attorney for legal advice. After getting my title search and legal opinion, I asked my attorney if we should go ahead with the next step (didn't you intercept THAT email?!). This was in early April and SLohA had not yet filed the Notice of Preservation. Neither he nor I knew why the Notice was not recorded until April 25th--6 weeks after adoption at the BOD meeting. Hence, at that time, my attorney advised me that it was best to await the action of the BOD that would constitute the "slander" to my title (the legal injury to form the basis of a complaint). SLohA would then be the aggressor and my strategic position would be better protected by being victimized by SLohA. That was the context of the comments; ie it being strategically preferable to be a "victim" and let SLohA launch the attack. Simple legal strategy communicated to me by my attorney and relayed to others.
Re: fees and damages: You are just not informed but could be if you took 30 minutes to read FS712 which provides:
That is the law whereby my actual documentable costs will be returned to me by SLohA. Read that there is no guarantee of an award to the prevailing party (note the court MAY award...) This is totally in the discretion of the court. Nowhere does the law provide for punitive damages or recovery of monies in excess of those actually spent. The only thing I can't recover, if I prevail, is the time spent pursuing this unfortunate matter. The people you should be upset with is not me-the victim of this Board's trespass of my property rights--but the Board itself for failing to resolve its problems without involving the financial health of SLohA.
Sorry to disappoint you.
|
|
