Hello VEHOA.
There are some very important facts and truths in your report and some incidents and actions that caused distrust among some of us homeowners who now amount to at least 90 owners or more. Pls take time to see my replies as I took time to read your report. My points and replies are in CAPITAL LETTERS;
HOMEOWNER STATUS REPORT
INTRODUCTION
Most Homeowners are aware of the tension between the Steering Committee (SC) and a group of homeowners that refer to themselves as Valle Escondido Neighbors (VEN). There have been accusations, misinformation, and intimidations ( THERE HAS BEEN INTIMIDATION ON BOTH SIDES) directed at the existing SC by VEN.
This report will explain the issues facing the SC, and the SC position on these issues. At the end of this report we will ask you to reply to the SC either approving or disapproving the actions of the SC. We would also like any comments or suggestions you may have. Your reply will be taken seriously and will influence the direction the SC pursues. Below are the most important issues to consider.
SECURITY
While working on the Government mandated minimum wage increase the SC discovered that Boquete Consulting Services (BCS) the company providing the security for VE, and more than half owned by the developer, did not have a license from the Panamanian Government Agency MINSEG/DIASP to operate as a security company. There are requirements required by the government that were not being performed. For example, in order for a guard to carry firearms he must have firearms training, must have drug testing, and have psychological evaluations. In addition MINSEG/DIASP requires that the Director of Security of Operations for a business selling security services must be a Panamanian Citizen which BCS’s Director Ralf Henrich is not. The SC concluded that BCS was not a security company, and therefore had not met the provisions of the contract. The SC decided to cancel the contract and refused to pay BCS for future services. BCS continued to provide gate keeping vigilante services without receiving monthly payments. THIS WAS A REALLY BAD MOVE BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT STARTED US DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE INTO HELL. YOU COULD HAVE HELD BACK THE INCREASE IN MONTHLY FEES AND PAID THE OLD AMOUNT OWING AND YOU COULD HAVE CONSULTED WITH 2 ACCOUNTANTS TO PRESIDE OVER THE DISPUTED AMOUNT; BESIDES A handful OF FOREIGNERS WHO FLAT OUT CANCEL AN APPROVED CONTRACT (APPROVED BY THE PREVIOUS SC AND THE SECURITY SUB COMMITTEE THAT I SERVED ON) WITH A PANAMANIAN CORPORATION IS ASKING FOR WAR. I PERCEIVED THIS AS A SC THAT HAD BEEN BAMBOOZLED BY THEIR PRESIDENT, A PRESIDENT WHO HAD LIED TO US REPEATEDLY WHILE THE SC STOOD SOLIDLY BEHIND HIM. THIS WAS UNFAIR TREATMENT OF BCS AND A FLAGRANT SLAP IN THE FACE OF PANAMA LAW AND ORDER. NOT FAIR GUYS AND GALS. WE HAVE TO PLAY FAIRLY. THIS IS NOT USA POLITICS.
BCS sued and got a court order to sequester the HOA bank account in the amount of approximately $25,000.
AND RIGHTLY SO. THEY COULD NOT PAY OUR HONEST BOQUETE BASED GUARDS WHO HAVE TAKEN CARE OF US FOR ABOUT 30,000 NIGHTS WHILE WE SLEPT PEACEFULLY AND CONTENTED.
After four and one half months of negotiations (BROUGHT ON BY YOURSELVES WHICH ALSO CAUSED THE FORMATION OF VEN) an agreement was reached whereby the HOA would pay BCS $65,000 and the contract would be canceled. The four and one half months that BCS had provided security service at their existing monthly rate without compensation was worth $50,000. The other $15,000 paid to BCS was for canceling the contract.( HOW ABOUT LEGAL FEES YOU SPENT DURING THIS FIASCO? JULIO BROWN WAS PAID $40,000 IN FOUR MONTHS. THIS MONEY PLUS THE $15,000 COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE ETC . WHY COULD YOU NOT LET THE CONTRACT RUN TO ITS END THEREBY SAVING THAT MONEY AND SAVING BREAKING THE VALLEY INTO 2 SIDES AND REALLY ANGERING THE DEVELOPER RIGHT WHEN WE NEED TO EXTRACT COMPROMISES FROM HER DURING THE TRANSFER OF ASSETS THAT HAS BEEN DENIED US. I CANNOT IMPRESS UPON YOU STRONGLY ENOUGH HOW THIS BCS FIASCO WAS THE HUGE WRENCH IN OUR GEARS AND WAS HANDLED IN A RUDE , HOSTILE , EGOTISTICAL AND ARROGANT MANNER Since the cancellation, the SC has contracted with a licensed security company whose guards meet the government requirements. The monthly cost of this licensed security company is approximately $2,500 LESS than the amount paid to BCS. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE HIDDEN COSTS OF THIS NEW COMPANY? YOU HAVE SECRETLY HIDDEN ALL MENTION OF THESE OTHER COSTS LIKE MAINTENANCE , PURCHASE AND FUEL, COSTS OF VEHICLES, NOT TO MENTION THAT WE NEED TO BUY ANOTHER CART FOR A BACK UP. IT IS THIS KIND OF SNEAKY HIDING OF THE TRUTH THAT HAS FORCED US TO LOSE CONFIDENCE AND TRUST. SO RIGHT NOW PLEASE ANSWER US TRUTHFULLY; 1)hOW MUCH DID THE CART COST? 2)WHAT IS THE MONTHLY FUEL BILL? AND WITH THE COST OF ANOTHER CART AND MAINTENANCE SPARE PARTS ETC, ONE ENDS UP WITH A FIGURE OF ABOUT THE SAME AS BCS WITH THE ADDITIONAL AGRO OF US HAVING TO SUPERVISE THE MAINTENANCE OF 2 CARTS THAT WE DID NOT HAVE TO DO WITH BCS.
The attorney for the HOA at that time was Julio Brown. The $65,000 was placed in his escrow account. As part of the agreement, BCS was required to have this sequester removed. Julio Brown was instructed not to release all of the funds to BCS until this sequester was lifted. This he did not do. He gave BCS all of the funds. To this date this sequester has not been removed. The SC is pursuing every legal method to get this sequester lifted and have the funds returned to the HOA. The savings on the security contract plus the recovery of the sequestered funds will provide over $50,000 that can be used on (NONSENSE….SEE ABOVE WHERE YOU HAVE WASTED MONEY THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SPENT ON road repairs, booster pump, and blower unit for the concrete WWTP, and the purchase of a spare electrical transformer. YOUR SC HAS SPENT OVER $70.000 ON LEGAL FEES THIS YEAR AND THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE YOUR PRESENT LAWYER WHO ALLEGEDLY HAS BEEN PAID OVER $20,000.
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
An original design of the proposed electrical system was never presented to Union Fenosa for their approval. Therefore, Union Fenosa had no obligation to accept the system. Instead the developer negotiated a “grand user” contract between Liberty Services (a developer company) and Union Fenosa. This meant that Union Fenosa was only required to bring electrical service to the gate of VE. The developer took over the construction of the electrical system inside the VE development. The system was not constructed to Union Fenosa specifications. The underground cables were not encased according to Union Fenosa specifications. The 12 transformers that are part of the system were not new transformers, but rebuilt transformers no longer used by U.S. utilities. Therefore, Union Fenosa was not obligated to take the system. Since Liberty Services is a “grand user” Union Fenosa is allowed to bill at the commercial rate including a demand charge. Union Fenosa is not required to give any discounts.
In the beginning, Liberty Services billed the homeowners on an arbitray basis. This method became very unpopular with the homeowners. FOR GOOD REASON.
In November of 2011 the HOA reached an agreement with Liberty Services whereby the homeowners would be invoiced on their actual KWH usage times the Union Fenosa per KWH rate. Liberty Services was allowed to add $0.02 per KWH for doing the accounting and providing the maintenance for the system. Since the average monthly consumption is around 100,000 KWH, this would amount to $2,000.00 per month. Over the 36 months this has been in place the total amount collected by Liberty Services would be about $72,000.00. Allowing 25% for book keeping, this would leave $54,000 for maintenance. Liberty Services is now taking the position that the total revenue from this $0.02 per KWH is for book keeping only. This is confirmed by their refusal to pay for any part of the replacement of the recent transformer failure.
I AGREE THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN UNFAIR IN MANY INSTANCES IN THE PAST AND THIS HAS ANGERED US OWNERS. THE SAME ANGER YOU FEEL WHEN THINKING ABOUT THIS LACK OF FAIRNESS IS THE SAME ANGER VEN FEELS ABOUT THE LACK OF FAIRNESS AND TRANSPARENCY DISPLAYED BY YOUR SC TOWARDS ANYONE WHO HAS DISAGREED WITH YOUR ACTIONS. WE BECOME IMMEDIATE ENEMIES BY VOICING OUR CONCERNS. HOW DARE WE QUESTION OUR HARDWORKING UNPAID VOLUNTEERS. THIS, MY FRIENDS, IS NOT THE RATIONALE OF A SC THAT HAS THE OWNERS IN MIND….RATHER A HEAVY HANDEDNESS THAT IS DICTATORIAL.
The SC has offered to take over the bookkeeping and maintenance in order that the $0.02 charge will be available for future electrical problems, but Liberty Services has not agreed to this. The SC intends to pursue the resolution of this problem. GOOD. THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE.
CC&Rs
There are two documents of CC&Rs. The first is generally referred to as the 1937 CC&Rs. They were created by the developer around 2003. THIS IS TRUE
They were very simple and did not address many of the issues. ALSO TRUE
In 2010 the SC proposed a new set of CC&Rs to address and clarify the problems of the 1937 CC&Rs. These changes were presented to the homeowners, and the homeowners approved the changes by a vote of about 96 for and 2 against. There is some question if the 2010 CC&Rs were registered correctly with the government. Consul has advised that with such an overwhelming majority of homeowners approving the 2010 CC&Rs and the fact that the HOA has been governed by the 2010 CC&Rs for four years, that the 2010 CC&Rs are valid. The VEN disagrees with this position. This disagreement can be resolved in one of two ways. The first way is litigation and thus generating legal fees.
YOU HAVE ALREADY GENERATED OBSCENE LEGAL FEES WHILE PROCEEDING TO ALIENATE US The second way is to form a committee acceptable to both sides that will create a new set of CC&Rs that addresses all of the problems of both of the existing CC&Rs. The SC strongly supports the second way.
WE DO TOO. WE WANT THE NEW CCRS TO LIMIT THE SC FROM THE UNNECESSARY WASTING OF OUR MONEY ON LEGAL FEES AND THE BREAKING OF CONTRACTS WITH PANAMANIAN COMPANIES. WE WANT LIMITED POWERS FOR THE SC SO WE CAN AVOID THE HUGE PROBLEMS CREATED BY STEERING COMMITTEES OVER THE PAST 3 YRS.
VEHOA OFFICE
The VEHOA office is located on common area, and the SC believes they control this area as well as any structures on this area. They therefore occupied the building on this area and turned it into the HOA office. The developer did not agree with this position. On Monday morning in July, Analia, Thalia, and others attempted to take over the building. There was a confrontation. Several Boquete policemen came to the site as well as the Corregidor. After much discussion, the Corregidor ruled that the HOA could remain in the office until a judge decided who had the right to be there. WAY TO GO.
Apparently this decision was not accepted by the VEN. YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS. I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH VEN FROM THE BCS DEBACLE ONWARDS AND HAVE NOT HEARD OF THIS
On October 29, 2014 Chuck Thomas and Julio Brown came to the VEHOA office and changed the locks and keys. MR THOMAS DID THIS AS A FAVOR TO JBELL.As soon as the SC became aware of this, they changed the locks and keys again. On Tuesday November 18th in the evening, Analia, Julio Brown, and a locksmith came to the HOA office and once again changed the locks, told the Blasco guards they must vacate the office, and sized VEHOA’s computer and files. As of this date, the computer and files are in the passion of VEN.
VEN DID NOT MASTERMIND THIS. ONCE AGAIN, I KNEW NOTHING OF THIS TAKEOVER .The VEHOA office has been moved to a safe location in order that the SC can continue to function. The SC is investigating the possibility that the breaking and entering into the HOA office is a crime that can be prosecuted.
MORE LEGAL FEES. WHEN ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO STOP THINKING YOU ARE IN THE USA? YOU CAN GET SO MUCH MORE DONE IN PANAMA BY BEING HUMBLE, PATIENT AND NICE RATHER THAN LITIGIOUS. LAWSUITS ARE MOSTLY A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY SO LETS JOIN TOGETHER AND AGREE TO NOT SUE.
JULIO BROWN
Julio Brown became the attorney for VEHOA when Richard Charbit became president of the SC. Richard Charbit was legally elected to the SC because there were only enough candidates to fill the vacant positions. The new SC voted to name Richard Charbit president of the SC. Richard convinced the other members of the SC that their existing attorney from Panama City was too expensive. Richard proposed that the Panama City attorney be replaced by a local Boquete attorney named Julio Brown. The SC agreed to make this change. This all happened before Richard’s past criminal issues became known.
YOU BACKED RICHARD AFTER YOU KNEW HE HAD LIED TO US AND KNEW OF HIS PAST AND YOU USED HIM TO BE THE BIG GUN AGAINST THE DEVELOPER AND THEN WHEN IT SUITED YOU, YOU DUMPED HIM AND DUMPED ALL OVER HIM. PLAY NICE. BE FAIR. BE TRANSPARENT. THIS HAS BEEN LACKING IN YOUR SC.
By law, VEHOA is required to have a Board of Directors (BOD). Also, by law, the members of the BOD must be Panamanian citizens. In VE there are very few Panamanian homeowners who will volunteer to serve on the BOD. Therefore, to fill the five member BOD non homeowners have to be found. Richard Charbit suggested that Javier, who was employed by Richard Charbit, be appointed to the BOD. This was done, and Javier was picked to be President of the BOD.
It is alleged that in April of 2014 a contract was signed by Javier acting in his position as President of the BOD whereby VEHOA agreed to hire Julio for a period of two years at a rate of $850.00 per month. This alleged contract was not known to the other members of the SC until the end of October 2014. The SC did not vote to accept this alleged contract. We believe that the full BOD also did not know of this alleged contract and did not vote to accept it. The SC believes that this alleged contract is not valid and is unenforceable.
OH OH! NOW YOU WILL SUE BROWN, A PANAMANIAN LAWYER WHILE HE SUES US FOR BREAKING A CONTRACT. CAN YOU SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING ? AND ALLEGEDLY, YOUR NEW LAWYER IS ALREADY WORKING ON THIS WHILE GOBBLING UP MORE MONEY…..PHEW! ONE COULD NOT INVENT A SCRIPT LIKE THIS EVEN IF ONE TRIED TO…………. RIDICULOUS.
Also, at this time in April there is an alleged document signed by Javier whereby he acting as President of the BOD gave to Julio Brown the Power of Attorney for the HOA. Again this document was not made known to the SC until late October 2014. The SC did not vote to give this Power of Attorney to Julio, and we believe the other members of the BOD did not vote to give Julio this power. Again the SC believes this alleged Power of Attorney is not valid and is unenforceable.
OH NO. ANOTHER LAW SUIT…..YIKES. WHERE DOES THIS END?
Julio Brown, using his self-serving Power of Attorney, approached the VEHOA authorized check writer on October 29, 2014 and ordered the check writer to make out a check to Julio Brown in the amount of $4,000.00. The check writer followed Julio Brown’s order. The check writer reported this to the SC. The SC instructed the check writer to not issue any checks unless there was written approval by three SC members. Several days after this incident Julio Brown approached the check writer again and instructed him to make a second check out to Julio Brown. The check writer refused to do this and reported this event to the SC. Also, at this same time, Julio Brown through emails threatened to sequester the VEHOA bank account. Because of these illegal attacks on the HOA funds, the SC decided to secure the funds still available (24,000) whereby they could not be absconded by Julio Brown. As these funds are used to pay HOA bills, a complete record will be kept and available for audit.
THANKS FOR LETTING US KNOW ABOUT THIS… WHY ONLY NOW THAT AN ELECTION IS BEING FORCED ON YOU? WHY DID YOU NOT MENTION THIS WHEN IT HAPPENED SO US VEN FOLKS COULD REST ASSURED THAT THE MONEY WOULD BE SAFELY IN YOUR HANDS…… TO PAY FOR ANOTHER LAW SUIT OR BROKEN CONTRACT?
TADASLY TRUST
There is a document called the Tadasly Trust. The founder of the trust is Tadasly S.A. The trustee of the trust is VEHOA. The beneficiary of the trust is Tadasly S.A. The term of the trust is twenty years. The trust document requires the trustee, VEHOA, to assume certain responsibilities. The body of the trust is composed of the infrastructure of VE, the common areas, and the public areas. The trust was supposedly created in June of 2007. For the reasons listed below, the SC does not believe the trust was legally created at that time, and that VEHOA did not agree to become the trustee.
First: The trust document states that on July 2 of 2007 a meeting attended by 75% of the homeowners was held. The trust document then says the membership elected Thalia President of the meeting and Analia Secretary. The meeting was held in Boquete. The HOA had officers at this time. Why was it required to elect new officers for this meeting? The only item on the agenda was for VEHOA to approve and accept their position as trustee of the Tadasly Trust. There has never been a time when 75% of the homeowner have been in VE at the same time.
Second: The SC has been unable to find a single homeowner who will say they attended this meeting.
Third: The minutes of the SC both immediately before and after July 2, 2007 do not refer to this meeting.
Fourth: There were never any proxies sent to the homeowners.
Fifth: The 25 day notice requirement before a meeting can be held was not sent to the homeowners.
Sixth: A copy of the trust document, which was the most important document that VEHOA would have, was not given to the HOA.
Seventh: The SC was not informed of this trust until September of 2012.
Eighth: The document names Thalia as a single women. In 2007 Thalia was a married women.
Ninth: This 2007 Trust document contains a reference number that was not created until the 2010 CC&Rs were presented to the government for registration. How can this be explained?
Unless plausible explanations can be produced to explain the events listed above, the SC has no choice but to believe their agreement to be the trustee of the Tadasly Trust is invalid.
The question is why the developer put the infrastructure into the trust. Panamanian Law requires that in a Private Roads development the developer must turn over the infrastructure to the HOA. Why was this not done? Why was the infrastructure placed in a twenty year trust and then returned to the developer?
The homeowners bought and paid for the infrastructure, provide the maintenance and improvements, but are not allowed to own and control the infrastructure. GOOD VALID QUESTIONS. I CANNOT SAY WHETHER ALL OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE BUT CERTAINLY IF THEY ARE TRUE, THEY NEED TO BE INVESTIGATED. SO IF THEY ARE TRUE SHOULD WE SUE THE DEVELOPER? DO YOU SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING? MORE LEGAL EXPENSES WITH AN UNSURE OUTCOME. THE ANSWER IS TO SIT DOWN WITH THE DEVELOPER AND WHEEL AND DEAL. THIS IS WHAT VEN IS INTENT ON DOING. WE ARE NOT IN BED WITH THE DEVELOPER AS YOU HAVE BEEN UNFAIRLY CLAIMING. I WISH YOU COULD HAVE BEEN FLIES ON THE WALL WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS TRANSFER AND THE NEGOTIATIONS THAT WILL TAKE PLACE. I BELIEVE WE, IF ALLOWED, WILL DRIVE A BETTER BARGAIN WITH THE DEVELOPER BECAUSE WE ARE NOT SLANDERING HER AND THREATENING HER WITH LAWSUITS. VEN WILL NOT BE A PUSH OVER IF INVOLVED IN THE TRANSFER. ON THE CONTRARY, WE HAVE SEVERAL GOOD BUSINESS MINDS IN OUR CAMP WHO YOU MAY NOT LIKE AT PRESENT BUT WHO CAN EXTRACT A FAIR DEAL FOR BOTH SIDES. YOU NEED TO GET OVER THE IDEA OF THE OWNERS ” WINNING” THIS TRANSFER. IT WILL REQUIRE COMPROMISE ON BOTH SIDES.
“AS IS OFFER”
On October 13th 2014 the SC made an offer to the developer whereby VEHOA would accept the infrastructure of VE on an “as is” basis, subject to approval by the homeowners. Homeowners have asked why the SC would make such an offer. Homeowners who live here for a good part of the year know there are major problems with the infrastructure, and the infrastructure has not been constructed according to the original Master Plan. THIS IS TRUE
In many places the roads are in bad repair. The unlicensed water distribution system is unable to supply sufficient water to the Baru Vista homes. This is because the original design of the system was flawed. The electrical distribution system is working but is not acceptable to Union Fenosa standards, and Union Fenosa will not take over the system. The rebuilt electrical transformers are now about eleven years old. The company that rebuilt these transformers says an average life for this type of transformer is about twelve years. The fiberglass WWTP is not functioning properly and may require costly repairs. ALL TRUE
With the problems outlined above, and they are not all of the problems, why would the SC make an offer to accept the infrastructure in its present condition? The answer is that the developer has demonstrated on many occasions that they will not contribute any funds for up-grades or repairs. The only way the developer could be compelled to contribute to the costs of fixing the infrastructure is through litigation. ANOTHER LAW SUIT.
A COMPROMISE IS A STRONG POSSIBILITY THAT WILL RESULT IN BOTH SIDES FEELING THAT THEY HAVE GAINED SOME AND LOST SOME. VEN EMPHATICALLY DOES NOT PROPOSE THE ACCEPTING OF THE ASSETS “AS IS”
This would be costly and lengthy. And if the HOA won the litigation, what would they have won? A judgment against a defunct corporation.
VEN HAS BEEN SAYING THIS SINCE OUR INCEPTION. I SAT IN BILL DAYS HOUSE MONTHS AGO AND SAID EXACTLY THAT TO SUE WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY AND THAT WE NEED TO SETTLE THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS BUT HOW CAN THE DEVELOPER SIT DOWN WITH A HOSTILE SC THAT HAS RAKED HER, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, OVER THE COALS IN E MAILS AND IN PUBLIC. This is why the SC made the “as is” offer. On October 21st the developer’s attorney replied that they were interested in pursuing this offer, but then VEN sabotaged the process.
NONSENSE. WE COULD NOT BELIEVE THE SUDDEN 180 SHIFT OF THE SC FROM A LITIGIOUS THREATENING POSITION, TO ABSOLUTELY ROLLING OVER TO THE DEVELOPER……AND YOU ACCUSE US OF BEING IN BED WITH THE DEVELOPER???????? More on this later.
VE NEIGHBORS (VEN)
A small group of homeowners has banded together to oppose every action of the SC.
NOT TRUE. WE HAVE OPPOSED ONLY WHAT WE HAVE FELT WAS UNTRUE AND A LACK OF TRANSPARENCY They make false accusations and untrue insinuations about the SC members.
NONSENSE
They have created a website that is open to the whole world.
NONSENSE. THERE IS A MODERATOR ON OUR SITE. YOUR SC ALLOWED OLGA AND MCBRIDE TO POST ON THE VEHOAS WEBSITE WHILE BLOCKING SOME OF OUR POSTS AND REMOVING POSTS. STOP IT. PLAY FAIR. WE ARE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT OUR PARADISE. WHY DO YOU LOWER YOURSELVES TO THIS LEVEL OF ONLY ALLOWING CERTAIN POSTS….HUH J BELL?The post these false allegations and untrue insinuations on this website. They threaten to sue the SC members. They sign many of their postings as anonymous. SO DO YOU. They generally try to impede and disrupt every action the SC is trying to do.
ONLY WHAT WE FEEL IS UNFAIR.For example, when the developer’s attorney replied that the developer was interested in exploring the transfer of the assets, the VEN group started a campaign to declare the SC illegal, and that they were going to have a coup and create their own SC.
NOT TRUE. WE WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO CONTINUE ON THE SC IF YOU HAVE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND THE NEW CCRS THAT WILL PREVENT YOU IN THE FUTURE FROM BLOWING WHAT MAY BE CLOSE TO $90,000 ON LEGAL FEES IN 2014
This allowed the developer to stop the transfer process on the grounds that they did not know who they should negotiate with.NONSENSE
The SC does not know what the motives of the VEN group are. SEE ABOVE.They dislike some of the SC members for personal reasons.
DITTO WITH YOU ALL AFTER USING THE F WORD REPEATEDLY ON OWNERS WHO WERE BEING CIVIL YET DISAGREEING WITH YOU.They claim that they want peace in the valley, but ask yourself the following questions, and determine for yourself who is causing strife in the valley.
- What is the hidden agenda of the VEN group?
NOTHING HIDDEN YOU ARE THE ONES USING THE HIDDEN WORD ON US. WE WANT WHAT THE OWNERS WANT. A TRANSPARENT SC WHO CALLS A LIAR A LIAR AT THE TIME OF THE LIE….NOT AFTER YOU DONT NEED THE LIAR ANYMORE.
- Who created the VEN website where every problem of VE is available for the world to see?
YOU HAVE HIDDEN MANY TRUTHS FROM US. WE ARE BRINGING IT OUT IN THE OPEN BECAUSE YOU ARE FORCING US INTO A POSITION FROM WHICH WE HAVE TO FIGHT TO BE HEARD.
- Who is making all the false accusations and untrue insinuations?
OH COME ON SC……..YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY MADE FALSE ACCUSATIONS AND UNTRUE INSINUATIONS.
- Who has through the efforts of Julio Brown have gotten the bank accounts of VEHOA sequestered and unavailable for VEHOA to pay their bills?
IF YOU HAD NOT SPENT ALL THIS MONEY UNNECESSARILY ON LAWYERS, WE WOULD HAVE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE WELL ON ITS WAY TO BEING PARTIALLY REPAIRED.
- Who has a financial relationship with the developer? NO ONE.
- Why does the developer resist the transfer of the infrastructure to the HOA as required by Panamanian Law? ASK THE DEVELOPER
- Why was the infrastructure placed in a Trust with the developer named as the Beneficiary? ASK THE DEVELOPER
Again who is causing this discontent in the valley?
THE SC HAS CAUSED THE PROBLEMS AND ARE STUBBORNLY STICKING TO THEIR GUNS. IS THIS EGO, POWER HUNGER OR PLAIN STUPIDITY?The VEN want to replace the legal SC through a coup. NONSENSE They claim that if they are successful, peace will be restored in the valley. Do they really believe that? It will only start new law suits with legal costs.
OH NOT AGAIN…..WITH WHOSE MONEY THIS TIME? VEN can restore peace in the valley by stopping their efforts to undermine the SC. THE SC HAS LOST THE SUPPORT OF THE OWNERS
In March of 2015 three out of five positions are up for election.
YOU HAVE LOST THE SUPPORT
If VEN, as they claim, have the support of the majority of the homeowners why not follow the legal path of the CC&Rs.
BECAUSE WE DONT TRUST ANYONE OF YOU TO STAY ON THE NEW SC. This legal election method has been used successfully for many years. Nothing earth shaking will take place in the two months leading up to the nominating process.SEE ABOVE.
CONCLUSIONS
If you have taken time to wade through the above, we thank you. There is much more detail that we could have added to the above items. TRUE. However, we did not want to overload you. We will answer any question you may have. We will also take seriously any suggestion or comments you may have.
YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO IN THE PAST. YOUR TRACK RECORD SHOWS THAT ONCE A PERSON DISAGREES WITH YOU, THEY BECOME THE ENEMY AND EVEN ARE SWORN AT BY HYSTERICAL SC MEMBERS AND TOLD TO GET THE F… OUT OF THE HOME OWNERS OFFICE
The SC’s agenda is very simple. We want to complete the transfer of the infrastructure to HOA ownership as required by Panamanian Law. DITTO We also want to maintain the quality of life style that you believed you were getting when you purchased your property. DITTO There is no hidden agenda. DITTO Collectively the homeowners have invested more than $50,000,000 in this valley. They were convinced that they were buying into an upscale gated development with a golf course. However, the homeowners have no control or even input into the future course of VE.
We have been told that the developer has the right to build anything they want on the golf course. We have been told that they are considering shortening the seventh golf hole and putting a convention center were the tee box is now located. THIS NEEDS TO BE NEGOTIATED WITHOUT….DARE i SAY IT….ANOTHER LAWSUIT. OK?
Homeowners should not worry about legal fees at this point, PAHLEEASE! ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU ARE SAYING; TRUST US. DONT WORRY ABOUT LEGAL FEES . AM I HALLUCINATING WHEN I READ THIS?
Being on the SC is not an easy position. In fact it is very hard. You are exposed to ridicule, false accusations, and loss of your membership in the Country Club. ALL TRUE
If you believe and stick to your convictions, you could lose friendships.
TRUE. IT GOES WITH THE POSITION AND GETS REALLY BAD WHEN YOU STICK TO YOUR GUNS ON DECISIONS THAT YOU BELIEVE ARE RIGHT WHILE THE OWNERS BELIEVE YOU ARE WRONG.THIS IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS THAT VEN CAME INTO EXISTENCE.
The SC represents the homeowners. REALLY. We need to know your position.
WE HAVE BEEN CRYING OUT FOR MONTHS AND IGNORED, INSULTED, ACCUSED OF LYING AND WORSE.
There are few choices.
First choice: Do nothing and hope for the best. The SC believes that in the long run this would turn out very unfavorable. TRUE
Second choice: Continue the difficult task of obtaining the infrastructure. The homeowners bought and paid for the infrastructure, pay for the maintenance but do not own it. TRUE
Here is an example of how ridiculous this situation is. The homeowners through their SC are trying to put a booster pump in the water line that serves the upper Vista Baru homes. Even though the HOA is going to pay for the cost, does all of the work, and will absorb the cost of electricity they have to get permission from the developer to do this project. This is not right. TRUE.
Please reply to this email. The SC needs to know if the homeowners want the SC to continue on attempting to get the developer to deed to the HOA the infrastructure as required by Panamanian law. The path the SC takes will be influenced by your response. A simple yes or no would be fine, and you can include comments or suggestions.
IN CONCLUSION, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WASTING A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY ON LAWSUITS, HAVE DONE ALMOST NOTHING IN THE WAY OF MAINTENANCE, , YOU HAVE CAUSED THE DESTRUCTION OF PEACE IN OUR VALLEY, LOWERED OUT PROPERTY VALUES AND MADE VE INTO THE LAUGHING STOCK OF PANAMA AND THE E WORLD. STAND DOWN. FACE ELECTIONS AND IF YOU GET BACK IN, MORE POWER TO YOU,
CAESAR SHERRARD
