THE WORDS IN QUESTION: FORGED, FORGERY, & CRIMINAL
My questions revolve around the fact that we have two rulings, by the same referee (Board called judge.) regarding the canal dredging assessments. I reviewed both rulings in person, I've had the documents in my hands. They are both, on review, signed by the same referee. The first agrees with Individual Assessment. The second removes Individual Assessment as a legal assessment. I questioned a board member who was in the office the day of my review, as to why we had a second ruling, when the first answered, and supported the board's collection of the assessments. The ruling should have been good news to a board making a sincere effort to collect. I was told that even though the document was signed with the referees name, and delivered to the WPA, that the referee hadn't signed it. Later, I asked questions from the floor at the annual meeting, and initially our Legal Chair said that he didn't want to talk about it. I did, and it was publicly acknowledged that they had to go to the second document, ruling, because the referee had not signed the first. No one knew who signed the first, and yet, your board relied on it, and collected, with fines, from one of the last outstanding canal lot owners, according to the first ruling. You'll have to go back to documented articles on the blog, if you haven't been following.
The fact that someone signed ruling number one, and your board relied on it, and said nothing to any of us from the board table, and then paid the same referee to work again bothered me off and on, since I discovered it. This was a BIG ruling for the toxic elephant in the room, dredging, for Wedgefield. Today, I didn't feel I needed to, but I got the dictionary out anyway. Was it possible that forged (signature), and forgery, were words that were too big for the situation? No, they weren't, and a new word appeared - CRIMINAL. So here is the definition for FORGERY: "The CRIME of FALSELY and FRAUDULENTLY making or ALTERING a document, something FORGED." If the referee didn't sign the first ruling, and that's what we were finally told, and yet his signature (it is his name) it is signed, then it is forged - signed intentionally, by someone else, and delivered to the WPA, as a legal document. So here are the questions:
*Why wouldn't a duly elected board not want to know who, and why, someone forged a signature on a legal document carrying the toxic weight of this one?
*Why wouldn't each and every duly elected board member want answers to an action that represents their constituents, carrying words like FORGED, FALSELY, FRAUDULENTLY, ALTERING?
*Why doesn't our Legal Chair, and Legal Committee want answers to this? If they aren't afraid of their actions, or who was involved, or who directed this criminal fiasco, don't they want to know who, and what exactly happened?
*At the moment that the referee was informed, why didn't he want to know?
*Why wasn't this reported to the appropriate authorities?
*Why did every board member, our President, and Legal Chair hide all of this from us, and not want to talk about it?
*Our Legal Committee recommended, and our board approved the hiring, and firing of several attorneys during this lengthy legal tango. The two documents in question were signed about a year and a half apart. One of the attorneys was disbarred. What kind of attorneys, would knowingly not take this to the proper authorities?
*Whether you are for or against the issues of dredging, why don't you care about our board being involved, or staying silent when the issues are FORGERY, FRAUDULENT, ALTERING OF A LEGAL DOCUMENT, CRIMINAL, and in my humble opinion - COMPLICIT?
