YOUR WPA BOARD ANNOUNCES "WHAT'S NEW"

The following announcement was posted on the WPA website.  "What's New?", truly is new to this Board.  After several closed Executive meetings that were held against the Attorney of Record's advice, against passed motions, and many of their own platform promises, they have decided to open this meeting to us.  Please plan on attending.

What's New Last update: March 29, 2012

**Home Page**

Per Jacky Walton,

A Board Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 4th @ 7:00 pm.

The Agenda is:

Interview the candidates to fill the open board position. This part of the meeting will be closed.

The second part of this meeting will be discussion of the Management Company & Policy Manual. This part will be open to the residents.

The doors will be open at 7:30 pm for the residents.

RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS RESPONDS TO "WHY WASN'T THIS THREAT BROUGHT TO THE BOARD TABLE", AND MORE

HERE IS HER LETTER TO THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER:

Dear Madeline,

The timing of your posting of the ‘threatening e-mail’ was so appropriate. I was discussing the motion that Jason made regarding Bell and malpractice with several residents after the March meeting. We were all wondering about what he, Jason, meant by the statement concerning a ‘letter’ and ‘must’ make the motion. One of the people that I was speaking with asked at the office for a copy of this letter only to be told that there wasn’t one.

I asked several times for the same letter and was given permission to see it today. You are correct in saying that this was an attempt at extortion. I do not understand why members of the Board tried to hide its existence and did not bring it to light at the March meeting. Bob spoke about compromise and working together knowing this letter was in the background. I hope that the Board has forwarded the e-mail to Mr. Moody and that Moody will respond to the sender. It is also my hope that Jacky Walton will bring this threat to the membership at the next meeting with the caveat to all that the Board will not succumb to threats.

Surprise! Surprise! I received an answer from our Community Liaison, Jason Barrier, today. I asked to see the above mentioned e-mail as well as the correspondence file. Jason said he didn’t care, it was Al’s decision. Jason went on to chastise me about writing too much, the state of the legal affairs here, etc. I am waiting to be blamed for the economy and high gas prices. Jason seems to levy charges without having the facts. I decided that, having no opposition, I would go look at the correspondence file.

My reception at the office was cold. I think I have been put in your boat, Madeline. I did receive the file, earmarked five items that I wanted copies of, and was prepared to leave. Another resident game into the office as I was making a list of the pages that I wanted. This resident was greeted warmly and with great enthusiasm. In fact, this resident sat in the inner office reviewing papers. I guess we’re back to different strokes for different folks.

Madeline, please post the following facts on your blog:

Jude Davis alone is not suing Bob Garrison, Roger Armistead, Johnny Huggins, Carol Zieske, Fred Thomas, and George Wilson. The plaintiffs in this suit were formerly defendants in the suit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas. The new plaintiffs are: Madeline Claveloux, Jude Davis, Karl Gettmann, Brenda Martin, Larry McMillin, and Ruth Reames.

I have complained about the communication between Moody and Perrow as unethical. Today, I found in the correspondence file a letter from Carol Zieske saying that she was at a meeting with Moody in order to “explain the legal situation out here.” I doubt that her opinion of the legal situation is the same as mine. When I asked about the rumor that I heard about this meeting, I was told that Moody met with Carol solely about her proposed By-law change. Someone’s nose is growing!

The canal assessment was an individual assessment as allowed by our By-laws. This By-law doesn’t say that it has to be a small amount but does say it can be used in any way the Board of Director’s sees fit. AT THIS TIME, NO ONE IS CHALLENGING THIS ASSESSMENT IN COURT. It continues to amaze me that an individual assessment was levied when Carol Zieske was on the Board for front ditch maintenance. Members paid $2.00/foot to clean WPA property.

And the beat goes on...

Jude

WHY WASN'T THIS THREAT BROUGHT TO THE BOARD TABLE?

Your Board had the following letter the evening of the March 20th Board Meeting.  Why weren't we told about it?  Think about how the stage was set.  Morabit was speaking again on "UNITY????", and the Board knew that a motion was going to come to the table.  They might not have known who would bring it, but in the end it was Barrier.  While there are times I don't agree with the Board, I don't believe ANY Board or individual Board Member should have this kind of extortion!  HERE IT IS:


From: Ronald Pietkewicz Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:03 AM

Subject: Forwarded email for all Board members



Board members: Friday afternoon,  March 16, I was asked in a phone conversation
to send you the following message under my name. I won't sign it since I didn't
write it.  Make no mistake about it, though. I agree with its content.  Its
purpose is to ask you to seriously consider the motion that will be put before
you this evening concerning its content. It also points out " that each of you
has a fiduciary duty to vote to have the WPA bring suit as plaintiffs on behalf
of our membership."  No response to me is needed! It's for you to digest.


________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________



Dear Board:





It is vitally important that you are aware that a suit will be brought against
Attorney Thomas Winslow and the Bell Law Firm for malpractice in his
representation of the Wedgefield Plantation Association. The most egregious
legal advice pertained to his opinions and counsel concerning the board’s rights
and actions that resulted in using Association funds for the dredging of the
canals at Wedgefield Plantation.  What is even more important is that you
realize that each of you have a fiduciary duty to vote to have the WPA bring
that suit as plaintiffs on behalf of our membership.





The Richter Law Firm in Mount Pleasant, SC has been provided with a large amount
of documentation which supports the facts that Attorney Winslow completely erred
in his official opinion regarding the ownership of the canals as well as his
advice that the Board had a legal right to require “special assessments” against
all canal lot owners.  This firm is ready and willing to pursue this litigation
and believes we have a very strong case.





There is also another suit that will be filed soon by a group of our members for
“Breach of Contract” resulting from the prior board’s vote to issue a “special
assessment” against the canal lot owners and to determine once and for all
whether maintaining the canals constitutes a “general benefit” to the entire
plantation.





That suit could result in having to return illegal assessments to our
membership.  Now, where will the funds come from to meet that requirement?  It
should be borne by a suit against Thomas Winslow and the Bell Law Firm who
provided the legal advice that has put this Association in such legal jeopardy.


Each and every one of you must be aware that to vote no on a motion to proceed
with this litigation will place you in jeopardy of being individually sued for
failure to act in the best interests of our membership, in other words, failure
to accept your fiduciary duty and act accordingly.





Why would you not vote to do so?  Mr. Winslow acted negligently over and over in
his advice to the Board that has so harmed this community.





If you unfortunately choose to not accept this opportunity to hire the Richter
Law Firm and attempt to recover much needed funds for our Association treasury,
then a group of our residents will go forward and bring that suit.  In that
case, when we win, it will be our decision as to how the proceeds of that suit
will be distributed to the membership.





Please consider this decision very carefully.  Your vote is very important.  You
do not want to place yourself in very personal legal jeopardy.  This is
definitely not our desire.





________________________________________________________________________________
 DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION?  Send it to:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com be sure and note whether you want your name printed.

DOES WHAT GOES AROUND COME AROUND?

Yes, sometimes what goes around, comes around.  Today was a busy day.  We were in and out several times.  When we got home near dinner time, my husband said there was a paper stuffed in the door.  This isn't an unusual occurrence at our house.  Often, a resident will want me to have a document but not want to be involved.  Obviously, I reviewed the document to make sure I felt it was legitimate and it is.

It is an email regarding an attempt to secure a loan for the condo area to do pool restoration.  The person goes on to say that they have spoken to the bank.  I quote, "I have talked to our bank.  They turned us down due to the fact that our name is Wedgefield. Their attorneys have advised them, because of the pending law suit, to stay away from any association in Wedgefield."

I don't wish on the condo residents and boards, what the 2009 Board has been through.  However, I was at the door the night of the canal vote, holding back the press, having one of them removed, and many of the protesters who came on golf carts carrying signs for the newspaper photo op  were from the condo area.  Many were part of the Concerned Citizen movement that sued, invited and talked to the press, and spread Wedgefield's "what they made dirty linen" all over the local papers. 

It was the Concerned Citizens that took the 2010 Recall to the newspapers.  There were front page articles.  I attended the Recall Meeting and the reporter who had harassed me at the door the night of the canal vote, wanted me to tell "our side".  I refused.  No thank you!

It was a person associated with the condo area that disrupted the August 2009 WPA Board Meeting.  That same person threatened the Board and one particular Board Officer's life at another meeting. 

It was the same group that took the canal  lawsuit to the papers, settled, and now may be at it again.

When the Board tried to tell the Concerned Citizens that they were destroying our future property values and our ability to conduct business with high quality vendors and professionals, they were laughed at.

Now some Concerned Citizens want to sue the bank, a top notch law firm, and a great attorney.  When that goes public, how will it impact any Board in Wedgefield from securing a loan? If you are selling your home, how will a local bank view a buyer's request for a loan for a home in Wedgefield?

I hope they are able to find financial resources to fix the pool.  It is one of their amenities and they should be able to enjoy it.  Perhaps we can learn to protect each others' property values, our community's reputation, and let us all enjoy the amenities we thought we were buying when we purchased our homes.

Recent rumors tell me that not every one has learned that lesson.

Do you have a comment?  Send it to:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com   Remember to note whether you want your name published or not.

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER ANNOUNCES 4,000 HITS TO THE BLOG

BRADY, THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER'S TOP DOG SAYS, "STAYED TUNED"

While we are pleased to announce 4,000 hits to the website. Brady advises that we don't spend too much time celebrating and get back to work.  There are a lot of rumors flying in the neighborhood that we have to find the facts for.  Is the rumor true that another lawsuit may be coming our way?   What's up with the Arbors? What letter was Barrier talking about before he made his motion to sue Attorney Winslow and the Bell Legal Firm?  No one else on the Board mentioned the letter.  What's that all about?   We have a lot in development.  Follow the advice of our wise investigative sniffer, and STAY TUNED.

MY RESIDENT RIGHTS ACCORDING TO THE BYLAWS ARE DENIED

ON MARCH 21 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO THE BOARD:

Board,

I'm aware that legal steps are being taken regarding "curb man".  It has been well over a year that my family has lived with the curb.  Often it is unsafe for us to back out.  Vendors, repair people, etc., working at the (I named the resident in my letter to the Board but I've taken it out  here.) premise park on the street away from the curb.  It puts parked cars/vans near or over the center of the road.  Last week was the worst.  At some point we had vehicles parked on both sides of the road.  I don't know how cars get through.  We also have children who skateboard down the road.  I have no complaint about them but when you are backing out it is almost impossible to see them when cars are parked as they are.  This is an accident waiting to happen.  When cars are parked on the other side we have to back at an angle into flower beds.

My main concern is safety.  I don't want children hurt or one of my family members.  Who knows how long it will take to settle this. How long will the curb be there?  Our residence is impacted more than others.  I've written several times.  I'd like to come in and review the correspondence file.  I'd like to visit the office on the 22nd.  Can I just drop in during business hours to review the file?

Respectfully,

Madeline Y. Claveloux

______________________________________________

THE BOARD RESPONDS:

March 22 Per Al DeMarchi

"I have 10 days to answer you and at this time it is denied.  Please provide a list of dates and subject of correspondence you would like to review and you will be emailed when it is ready."

___________________________________________________

MY IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO THE BOARD:

Board,


Since when is there a ten day hold?  Since when is the correspondence file off limits?  How do you as individuals, or Board Member DeMarchi get the authority to deny me access?  See ARTICLE XII, BOOKS AND RECORDS, Section 1:  "All books and records of The Association may be inspected by ANY MEMBER, or his agent or attorney, for any proper purpose at any reasonable time."


In the past anyone has been able to review the file.  IT IS ONLY WITH YOUR BOARD THAT THESE DENIALS TO ACCESS HAS BEEN INITIATED.  I want a concrete, according to the By-Laws answer.  My proper purpose could have been that I want to make sure you are keeping it up to date.  Is that the problem?


Please respond as soon as possible.


Not with that much respect,


Madeline Y. Claveloux

___________________________________________

More secrecy?  I initially wrote with respect and genuine concern.  I pay my dues like every other member, on time, every time.   You'll note as usual my concerns weren't answered but the swift hand of denial of my rights under the By-Laws was. Stay tuned.

BOARD HELD MORE INFORMATION FROM RESIDENTS

Jackie Walters resigned from the Board a few days prior to the meeting on the 20th.  Why didn't the Board announce her resignation and when they would be posting the vacancy at the Board Meeting? 

During the resident comment period at the end of the meeting, a resident asked who would take over the Easter Egg Hunt.  The Board didn't really answer, but wouldn't that have been an opportunity to announce that she had resigned, if they FORGOT TO MENTION IT DURING THE MEETING? 

Stay tuned.

WPA MARCH 20TH MEETING

This will be short, unlike the March 20th Board Meeting that started at 7:00PM and ended around 9:20PM.  This morning I'll just provide a few highlights:

*We have a management firm.  

*Resident Morabit spoke finishing his presentation on his kind of "unity". 

*A resident, former Board Member, was denied their request for the Board to pay their legal fees stemming from the issue as to whether they were a member or not.

*The issue of whether the Arbors should be part of the WPA was sent back to the attorney.

*The confidentiality agreement was thrown into the future discussion pool.

*Board Member Barrier brought a motion to the table to sue the Bell Law Firm for malpractice.  No one would second it.

*Discussion regarding how to collect on three canal lot owners who hadn't paid any of their assessment was long and a decision was made to take them to Magistrate Court. 

*Attorney Moran (fired last summer) entered discussion.  There is an upcoming court date.   Moody will become involved to replace Moran.

*Assessment payment policy in violation of our governing documents.

There is much to cover on several of these topics and others.   It was a long meeting.  Look for new articles over the next week or so.

Observation:  Your Board has been working hard.  My major concern is that they do it under cover with most of the discussion on critical topics taking place during CLOSED EXECUTIVE MEETINGS, which leaves them looking like they rubber stamp everything.  For instance, I believe we should work with a management firm.  Yet, when the Board voted we did not know who the contract was with, the total cost, or the services to be provided - not good.  Stay tuned!

HOLD THE PRESSES THERE IS A REVISED MARCH AGENDA

For your convenience, earlier this morning I went to the WPA website and copied  the WPA March Board Meeting Agenda.  I printed it as presented and noted that there had been RUMORS that Vince Morabit had requested the opportunity to speak in one of the two resident speaker spots. As you'll remember he surpassed the 5 minute time limit at the Feb. Board Meeting and stated he would leave a copy of his entire presentation with the board.  I requested a copy and printed his entire presentation for you.

Be still my heart.  Even in the revised edition, they still have Karl Gettmann doing the call to order.  WELCOME BACK KARL GETTMANN!

I'm told the Board is disapointed in my blog.  One would assume they don't read it.  Why, then, after I printed the agenda this morning, is there a correction?  PEOPLE AjTTEND THE MEETING ON TUESDAY, because the rumor has become fact and Morabit IS SPEAKING.  Here is the REVISED AGENDA:





AGENDA FOR THE MARCH 20TH BOARD MEETING - WILL YOU ATTEND?

Please plan on attending.  RUMOR was that Vince Morabit was going to speak again.  He's not on the agenda.  You'll have to attend to see if the rumors were true.

THOSE OF US WHO WANT OPEN MEETINGS, ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS AREN'T SO UNUSUAL AFTER ALL!

As I was reading my Sunday newspapers I came across the following article in THE POST AND COURIER.  It did my heart good.  Those of us in Wedgefield who write and ask to review documents, want the Board to follow their attorney's advice and their individual campaign promises for open meetings, are treated like trouble makers.  When you read the following article you'll find that we aren't up to mischief, we just want good, open, honest governance.  It is just good business and good policy.

HERE IS THE STORY FROM THE POST AND COURIER

PUBLIC OFFICIALS HIDING INORMATION YOU'RE ENTITLED TO
By Tony Bartelme

In the past year, police have refused to hand over documents describing employee misconduct; municipalities and school boards have charged citizens thousands of dollars for public records; public panels have ignored laws requiring them to tell people when they're going to meet.

In one bizarre case last summer, the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce blasted "Achy Breaky Heart" and Alvin and the Chipmunks Christmas tunes while a sweat-soaked reporter sifted through piles of boxes in a hot warehouse.

"From SLED to local agencies, they're inventing new reasons not to make records public," said Jay Bender, an attorney in Columbia.

---

Bender is the mustachioed, motorcycle-riding lawyer for the South Carolina Press Association who has spent decades working on cases and legislation to make it easier for the public to see what our elected officials and governments are up to.
The good news, Bender said, is that South Carolina has mostly moved away from a deeply rooted cultural inclination toward secrecy.
"I believe it has to do with the folks who came here from Barbados to set up the colony," he said. "There was a minority white population running a majority black society. So from the earliest days, a small number of people were in charge and told the rest of us what to do."
This mind-set moved from the plantation to the mill village to city and county halls and lasted until the 1970s, he said.
Open-records laws, such as South Carolina's Freedom of Information Act, are based on the idea that citizens make better decisions about their government when they know what their leaders are doing, or not doing.
In 1978 the General Assembly passed the Freedom of Information Act. In its second paragraph, it describes its purpose:
"The General Assembly finds it is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that citizens shall be advised of the performance of public officials and of the decisions that are reached ..."

---

Since then, most public agencies have made it easier for citizens to learn about budgets, meetings and policy decisions, he said. But some agencies resist, and law enforcement officials are among the worst offenders. "Perhaps it's an authoritarian impulse to say, 'I'm in charge and do as I say.' "

Last week, for instance, after a top Mount Pleasant police commander was charged with driving under the influence, the department initially refused to allow a reporter to view documents describing the officer's commendations, promotions and disciplinary records, and said it would cost $209 for a copy of the redacted file. The department later relented.

In January, Seneca police refused to release information about why they fired or demoted four officers in the wake of sexual harassment allegations.
In recent years, the South Carolina Highway Patrol had routinely refused to release videotapes of arrests, including one in 2010 of a Greenwood city councilwoman. A court last year told the agency to comply with the law. Closer to home, a Charleston police commander recently wrote an internal memo instructing officers how to hide information from reports.
Educators are another problem group, Bender said.
South Carolina State University, which has had its share of management issues in recent years, initially refused to release President George Cooper's performance evaluation. Cooper announced his resignation March 2 amid an investigation into criminal allegations.
The Berkeley County School District resisted releasing school board evaluations of its superintendent by cloaking the documents in attorney- client privilege. (The Post and Courier sued the district and eventually won in 2011 after a nearly four-year legal battle that reached the S.C. Supreme Court.)

---

This week, The Post and Courier explains why state Freedom of Information laws are important to you.
TODAY: Who is ignoring and blatantly violating sunshine laws, and why you should care.
Monday: How technology enables government agencies to provide records -- but avoid providing them as well.
Tuesday: How federal medical-record laws are used as an excuse to hide state records.
Wednesday: S.C. State University continues keeping secrets when transparency is needed.
Thursday: The legal battle over school superintendent evaluations.
Friday: The education of police departments on what the public has a right to know.
Saturday: What happens when residents request public records.

Reporters often find themselves in the middle of Freedom of Information Act fights because of their watchdog role, but citizens also use the act and run into the same kinds of roadblocks.
When Alberta Wasden filed a request to the town of Swansea to find out how a town of 500 people could end up nearly $500,000 in debt, they told her it would cost $10,000 to search and copy documents.
But that's chump change compared to Lexington- Richland District 5's response to a request. When asked for its email records from school board members and administrators, the district said it would cost $550,000.
Several years ago, Marcia Rosenberg of Charleston wanted to know more about the state veterinarian board after she said her cat Pumpkin was mistreated by a local vet who had been sanctioned in another state.
When the board barred her from a meeting, she made a vow to force the board to become more transparent. She attended every meeting and submitted so many FOIA requests that the board found it easier to put their documents online. Now you can find in seconds whether your veterinarian has violated state laws.
"The existing vet board is a thousand times better now than it was in 2000," she said.

---

Some agencies hope people like Rosenberg will lose interest and go away.
The Nerve, an online news organization in Columbia, has battled the S.C. Research Authority over its delays in fulfilling requests, including one that languished for more than seven months.
Because of stories like these, Rep. Bill Taylor, R-Aiken, introduced an amendment to strengthen the state Freedom of Information Act by putting a lid on costs and the time it takes an agency to supply documents.
"It's a human tendency to want to hide things, but we work for the people, and they have a right to know how their government functions," Taylor said.
Other elected officials, meanwhile, are trying to make it harder to get information from public agencies. In 2008, the General Assembly passed a law exempting state pension records from being released to the public, even though the companies that run these funds earn hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees.
The state's $28 billion fund has a shortage of $13 billion. Other states make their records public.
This year, Rep. Chris Murphy, R-Summerville, introduced legislation to further restrict information that law enforcement officials give out about crimes, even though the act already allows police to withhold information if it would harm an investigation.
In the end, automation could help citizens and governments. Several federal agencies studied the costs of FOIA requests and estimateed that automating and standardizing the way requests are handled could save the federal government $200 million a year.
Anderson and Aiken counties put vast amounts of data and records on their county websites, including information on every check that's written. Those two counties received an A-plus Thursday from Sunshine Review, a nonprofit organization that tracks government transparency. (Charleston and Dorchester counties earned C-minuses, and Berkeley got a C.)
Taylor said officials from small towns sometimes grumble that they don't have the staff or computer know-how to put public documents online. But that's no excuse, he said.
"I tell them, 'Welcome to the new brave world. Learn how to make a PDF. Get a scanner and put it on the Web.' If they do this, they'll have fewer FOIA requests, and we'll get to a culture that believes this is the public's business."

MY MISTAKE- JUDE DAVIS

 This is a correction to the following article, "Resident Jude Davis Writes The Board Regarding Morabit Presentation".

FROM:        Jude Davis  

TO:              The Wedgefield Examiner

 

Friday, March 9, 2012 9:57 AM

Dear Wedgefield Examiner,

I erred in my previous communication to you.  Please print a correction.

We—Davis, McMillin, Clavelous, Gettmann, Reames, and Martin –are the PLAINTIFFS in the countersuit.  We have brought charges of slander, defamation of character, intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment, etc. against the DEFENDANTS—Garrison, Armistead,Huggins,Zieske,Thomas, and Wilson.

Since we,the plaintiffs, have newspaper articles, letters, e-mails, audio tapes,  a petition drive,etc. to document these charges, I can only assume that the delaying tactics from the defendants is their attempt at wearing us down until we drop our suit. After putting Wedgefield after 2 1/2 years of hell only to chicken out at the last minute and leave the underlying ‘who is responsible for the maintenance of the canals’ unresolved, these plaintiffs, now defendants, refuse to step up to the plate and have the countersuit heard.

Does anyone remember Vince Morabit standing up at one of the concerned citizen meetings saying, “This is war.  it is time to put the war canoes in the water?”  Is this the same man preaching peace and harmony?

As you have said before...and the beat goes on.

Jude

RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS WRITES THE BOARD REGARDING MORABIT PRESENTATION

. 

Dear Wedgefield Examiner,

This is a copy of an  e-mail that I sent to the Board.  Feel free to print it.

Jude

From: Jude Davis

Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 9:55 AM

To: Office WPA

Subject: Legal opinion or illegal?

All,

I just finished listening to the tape of the February meeting as presented on The Wedgefield Times and reading the reports printed on the Wedgefield Examiner.  I continue to be disturbed by the rudeness displayed by some members against another member and by the silence of the rest of you.

I believe that the legality or illegality of something, say the $5,000 assessment, can only be determined in court.  Please ask Mr. Moody if I am correct.  A lawyer van give an opinion, but this opinion does not determine legality.  As of March 7, NO ONE is challenging this assessment in a court of law.  The disgruntled three, Zieske, Thomas, and Wilson, had the opportunity but chickened out.  Read the release, they signed off on behalf of Wedgefield Plantation Association.   Look very closely as to who was sued.  They chose to sue the Board and all of the individuals.  Zieske, Thomas, and Wilson made their attacks very personal and continue them to this day.

You have already filed a lien and collected the $5,000 from one property—16 William Screven Road.  Why aren’t you applying the same rules to everyone else?  I hope that one of you will answer me.

I read Morabit’s commentary in its entirety.  Having been the victim of some of his personal attacks, including letters to my home, I find his call for peace and harmony  somewhat disingenuous.  He did not have the opportunity to finish his soliloquy, but left it in the office.  Sue the Bell Legal Group for giving the wrong opinion—get real.  Each time two lawyers go into court, they have different opinions.  It then becomes up to a judge to determine the ‘right’ one.  Sue the bank, get real on that one ,too.  The 2009 Board jumped through hoops for the bank and the VOTE was taken at the August, 2009 meeting.  Although Karl and I have been criticized, ridiculed, and removed from office for securing a loan without the Board’s knowledge, the fact remains that the loan was voted on at an open Board meeting.

Morabit seemed to call for us “not to sue inside the gates.”  The only legal action pending is the countersuit charging defamation of character, intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander, harassment, etc.  The plaintiffs in this suit-- Garrison, Armistead, Wilson, Zieske, Thomas, and Huggins—through their attorneys, have been delaying any action towards settlement since November hoping we’ll get tired and drop the suit.  Sorry Vince, the defendants—Davis, Gettmann, McMillin, Claveloux, Martin, and Reames—are determined to see this to the end.

Judith Davis

PS I can only find 3 properties listed on the GIS website for a Julie Morabit.  Where are the other two he claims?

Do you have a coment ?  Send  it to wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com and note whether you would like   your name included. Don't forget to read "THE REST OF THE STORY - MORABIT'S FULL PRESENTATION DOCUMENT" or you won't know what Jude Davis is writing about. 



THREE DOCUMENTS - COMMON THREADS- AND THE BEAT GOES ON -WHEN WILL THEY STOP SINGING THE SAME OLD, HARMFUL SONG?

Please spend some time reading the following articles:  "The Rest of the Story - Morabit's Full Presentation Document",  "McBride's December Legal Report", and "The Release Signed By Zieske, Thomas, Wilson".  Each of these articles contain documents.  I've obtained each of them legally and ethically.  After reading them I'm left with the question as to where ethics play into anything in our Wedgefield governance.  Quite frankly, I'm not chicken little, and the sky is not falling, but I am genuinely concerned for our community.  The three documents provide a snap shot of lies and cover-ups - some by the Concerned Citizens and others by members of our Board.  I have no patience with individuals who sit by while others are harmed, or pretend a document doesn't say what it says, or tell me they are doing something for my own good and they aren't, or who think we aren't smart enough to figure out what is going on.

Morabit titles his presentation "Appeal For Unification". He states, "We need to unify...we're all good people!  Enough! please reconcile our differences. We're all good people and need to respect each other." Did he really mean we are all good people?  What about the 2009 Board?  The now famous Dredging Board, are they good people?  They must be because he said we are all good people. 

Whoops he didn't mean what he said., "some residents, adverse to the majority of residents and non-canal property owners, manevered to control the Board only to violate its own Code of Ethics...Assessments were Rammed down our throats!"  You must not be good people if you did that.   The 2009 Board maneuvered to control the Board?  That is a lie.  One last time, on the day of the 2008 annual meeting the Concerned Citizens had six seats on the nine member Board, after the election. 

On the day of the 2008 Annual Meeting Davis, Gettmann, and Mc Millin were elected to serve with six Concerned Citizens.  They hadn't left the meeting when Peitkowicz and Foxwell resigned.  Later that day Buno resigned.  The Board totaled six now, three Concerned Citizens - Zieske, Aberle, and Phillips and two canal lot owners - Davis and McMilllin, and non canal lot owner, Gettmann.  They posted the three vacant positions.  They filled them with Huggins, Arendt, and Claveloux.  Two of the three were non canal owners.  It is important to remember before they filled the vacancies that non canal lot owners were were 4-2.   I, Claveloux, was the third canal lot owner added and I was told that I was the unanamous choice of the group which means that even Zieske voted for me. 

Within a few weeks Zieske, Aberle, and Phillips all resigned within hours of each other.  Where was the maneuvering?  It is all a lie.  Their vacancies were posted and filled by Reames, Martin, and Marlowe.  Not one of them was a canal lot owner!   Again, where was the maneuvering?

Who is maneuvering now? Morabit.  He wants the Board to sue the bank and the Bell Legal Firm, with our association money.   You'll see just how covert they are when you read the document - McBride's December Legal Report.

Finally, Morabit says, "answer the legal issues regarding'Common' interests, and 'General Benefit of the Subdivision'; canal dredging assessments are not legal....placing liens associated with illegal assessments are not proper"  This takes us to another document.  Morabit's Concerned Citizen warriors - Zieske, Thomas, and Wilson sued in behalf of Morabit, and each and everyone of us, whether we knew it, or liked it.   They settled!  See how they settled it and review The Release Signed by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas.  What is Morabit's problem?  Why isn't he accusing them of manuevering?  As you view their signatures each sign "individually and on behalf of Wedgefield Plantattion Association".  Why doesn't he ask them why they signed off on behalf of him?   Looks like he doesn't like their representation because he's back at it.  I believe they prompted him to speak.

As you review McBride's December Legal Report you'll see that your Board has remained silent, with full knowledge that meetings with Attorney Moody with Huggins, Wilson, Thomas, and Perrow were billed to the association for services rendered on October 11 and 12.  From McBride's report, "Mention was made that the State and First Federal just might have some responsibility and therefore might be potential law suits.  In fact Mr. Moody did say he put First Federal on notice."   Huggins, Wilson, and Thomas as Board Members, met with the attorney, prior to any Board approval.  Later in the document, As it turns out more than $5,000 of work was done and paid for and none was ever approved by the Board."  Why isn't the Board acting on this?  Why isn't the Board reporting any of this?  Is it all covered in their closed executive meetings?

Additionally, you'll note that during the meeting McMillin questions loose leaf binders on the table.  Moody tells them Fred Thomas provided them to him.  It is noted that at a glance there might be some of the legal documents that were removed from the office during Thomas' reign as legal chair.   How can that be?  Thomas keeps accusing Jude Davis.  Remember the lock changes after the recall?  She didn't even have access.   This is just more of the dog chasing his tail.  They never get to the bottom of it.  

Spend time with the report.   In the end McBride states, "It's incumbent that this matter be discussed with the people involved, (past and current Board members), and that this situation be ameliorated."   Thank you John McBride.  Why won't this Board allow you to bring these items to the Board table?  I would like to be able to trust the Board.  It appears they hide these topics to sing let there be peace.   I want peace, but not at the expense of an underground war.  We'll lose, buried by the Board's failure to clear the table of this filth.  We have some very capable Board Members.  It is time for them to step up to the plate and level with us.

Do you have a comment?  Send it to:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com   Note whether you want your name included.                               

THE REST OF THE STORY - RESIDENT MORABIT'S FULL PRESENTATION DOCUMENT

Morabit spoke in one of the two resident speaker slots at the February WPA Board Meeting.  A resident is allowed five minutes to present their information.  Time was called.  He asked for more and it was denied, as it should have been.  He said he would leave a copy of his presentation.  I requested a copy and the Board provided it.  You'll note numbers in the margin.  That is the only alteration I made.  I numbered the colored highlighted areas in his report before I scanned it.  I wasn't sure whether you would be able to read the highlighted areas and I might have to type them for you.  It all worked out and it is legible.

Morabit's presentation was cut off on page five.  Read pages five through nine and see if you ask yourself where the peace. love of neighbor, harmony, etc. are.  It appears to me that the Concerned Citizens just sent another soldier to the front line to sing the same old fight song. 

Morabit gives his address and phone number, perhaps you'd like to send him your thoughts on his presentation.

If you have an opinion you would like to share you can email the blog at:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com  Be sure and note whether you would like your name included with your comments.

MCBRIDE'S DECEMBER LEGAL REPORT

During the February Board Meeting, as the Board prepared to vote on the December Board Meeting minutes, John McBride asked that his legal report be attached.  There was some discussion and the Board voted against it.  I wrote the Board and asked for a copy of his report.  It is provided below.  You may have to enlarge it.  You know I'm not terrific at the computer but I did manage to scan it and insert it in poper format for the blog. 

Please take time to read through.  McBride is reporting on a meeting that took place at Attorney Moody's.  You may want to ask yourself why your Board isn't taking action regarding unapproved legal expenses.  You might also wonder why resident Zieske had opportunity to discuss her amendment with the attorney at your expense, if that is really what the meeting was about.  You might question why Moody met with the attorney for the Zieske, Thomas, Wilson lawsuit?  What is Garrison up to?  He might recall and later does recall!  Same old stuff with Garrison snaking around?  Finally, it appears McBride recorded significant detail from the meeting, why doesn't your Board want it included "in the record"?  You'll decide but it may be that if they included it, they would have to deal with it.



THE RELEASE SIGNED BY ZIESKE, THOMAS, WILSON

HERE IS THE RELEASE SIGNED BY ZIESKE, WILSON, AND THOMAS REGARDING THE DREDGING SETTLEMENT:

YOU MAY WANT TO ENLARGE THE DOCUMENT ON YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN



STAY TUNED - NEW ARTICLES ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION

We have a lot going on in our community.

  The Board is going to hold ANOTHER CLOSED EXECUTIVE MEETING ON MONDAY EVENING.  FOUR, (YES (4))  Board Members pledged in their platform letter to us, that they would open all of these meetings.  This is the  fourth closed executive meeting since they took office. Why?  What is it that they don't want us to see and hear?  We'll see.

During the February Board Meeting, Board Member McBride continued to ask legitimate questions and requested that a copy of his legal report be attached to the December minutes before they were approved.  Again, your Board ignored, humored him, promised they would explain things to him after the meeting, and in general, treated him like a child through out the meeting.  We'll get a copy of the report.  In the mean time ask yourself why your Board Members would treat an intelligent, educated, experienced Board Member this way?  McBride's questions are current to the issues at hand and appear to be directed to our benefit in regard to open meetings, documentation, and your Board operating openly, and treating the residents as though they had a  functioning brain and could handle the details of our community governance.  I respect McBride.  The Board should remember that WE  elected him for a THREE YEAR TERM because of those qualities!  Where are some of these Board Members backbones?  Why aren't they keeping their pledges?

We've had a report on resident Morabit's talk at the February meeting.  He was only able to deliver a portion of the his talk when time was called.  He stated that he would leave a copy of his entire presentation with the office.  I transcribed the first part for you in another article.  I've written the Board and requested a copy.  I want to know what else Morabit was going to say.  The Board has said I can have a copy.  Wouldn't you like to know how he justifies recommending that the Board sue the Bell Legal Firm and the bank for the 2010 dredging?

Stay tuned, next week.