TIME FOR TRUTH ABOUT THE JANUARY 12 ELECTIONS

To the authors and the "previous" SC who sent out this "reply"  I must point out the clear untruths and lay out the facts of the January 12, 2015 election. I have no problem signing my name and giving background and knowledge of the issues raised in the their "Initial Reply to Paz Moreno" below.

I have lived in Valle Escondido for over five years and have invested more than $800,000 in properties in this development. I currently am the legal representative of numerous corporations that own properties in Valle Escondido with full membership and voting rights as verified by the Public Registry. My points listed in RED after each of the numbered issues raised below are based upon extensive review of the facts and consultation of no less than 4 different Panamanian attorneys in regards to the legality of the January 12^th  election. The question I need to ask is if the "authors" of this are going to truthfully address the points I bring up or will they deflect with attacks and deflections?

Your mixed messages as a group are completely hypocritical as I will point out in this email; Your own SC Chairman called you illegal ( see below). So what is it, you cannot have it both ways.  Your own SC Chairman called all of you unflattering names ( see below) Your own SC Chairman called for an "Emergency Election " because you were illegal (see below), We had one. Your call as to defining who is a homeowner via POA etc.(see below), by your own definition, validates that your "appointments" by your own words were completely illegal.  Please once and for all get your stories straight as one and tell the community by law not emotions what legal grounds you stand on.  We are proceeding as a community without your further dysfunction and disruptions.  Surely you must see how embarrassing you look collectively to our VEHOA membership.  It is now time to stop!  Support this legally elected Board of Directors working with the “elected SC” for the best interests of all property owners, the continued noise you offer has very very little support in Valle Escondido. 

If you feel that your legal challenges has merit then file a suit accordingly but stop lying to the VEHOA community that there is some kind court ruling forthcoming that will invalidate the January 12 election results.  If you objectively look at the facts I present in RED, the VEHOA membership will quickly realize that it is the “authors” of this reply that have acted “illegally” and until they are willing to address each and every point made in RED they just need to accept that the VEHOA membership has spoken.

I have the right to speak out for the truth as I have been the primary target of your lies, falsehoods and deceptions.  

Ralf Henrich

MY Replies are in RED!

Initial Reply to Paz Moreno

Lic. Paz Moreno Notification to some Home Owners of Valle Escondido/Notificacion a Residente de VE. (March 2nd, 2015)

Dear Lic. Paz Moreno,
We will send a more formal reply but let me correct some assumptions in your letter sent 02 de marzo 2015.
The alleged "election" held 12 enero 2015 failed to consider the following:

1. As Lic Julio Brown can confirm to you the Valle Escondido Asociation de Propietarios (VEHOA)  General Assembly  and election for a new VEHOA Board of Directors  was held in mayo 2014.  Many more homeowners voted in this election than in the 12 enero 2015 election and a new VEHOA Board of Directors was elected to serve our community.  Each of these new BOD members have two (2) year terms that expire in mayo of 2016.  That means their terms continue for another year. The May 10, 2014 election/vote was not valid as insufficient notice was given of the meeting (per both Deed 1937 & the 2010 CC&R's) and insufficient delivery of the supporting documents was provided. Furthermore, advance notice was provided in writing to SC of same & they proceeded with the meeting regardless. At least one attorney present at the meeting notified the SC that it was conducting an illegal meeting according to Panamanian law. also Deed 1937, the only valid governing document, as per MINGOB, clearly states that a board of directors must be elected by 51% of the entire VEHOA membership which for the May elections would have been 76 votes in the affirmative which was not met.

2.   

We have had two resignations from this VEHOA BOD.  According to the 1937 Deed, the By-laws for the VEHOA created by deceased Developer Samuel Taliaferro,  the remaining Board of Directors members would vote on the replacements for their Board, not the VEHOA.  Please read the 1937 Deed.  Your position appears to totally disregard the stipulations in this document. See above as to why your May election failed to properly elect the BOD you reference. Please also explain how Antonio  Palacios , Olga's "husband" and Richard Charbit's employee, got on the BODs as he was never elected in the May election nor was he ever on the ballot. Also, why did the SC chairman at the time write: “With no Board of Directors, as we only have 2 active members and 1 will resign soon, and no valid SC I am calling an Emergency Homeowners Election.” (a full copy of the blog post this was taken from is below). Are you calling Richard Charbit a liar? Once Javier Espinosa, the President of the VEHOA, as per the public registry, was informed that MINGOB ruled the SC concept invalid, he did the proper and legal thing based upon the VEHOA's lawyer's advice of calling for a new BOD election, which met all the legal requirements, so he could subsequently resign.

3.  Furthermore, the "election" held 12 enero 2015 failed to consider that there were two terms on the VEHOA Steering Committee that do not expire until 31 marzo 2016.The people who were "elected" were not designated as to which terms they would be serving:  i.e., one or two years. Once again, MINGOB ruled, in a notarized Government resolution,that the 2010 CC&Rs, the document that "created" the SC concept was never submitted to them which is in direct violation of Deed 1937. VEHOA can only legally operate under Deed 1937. On top of that, even if the SC concept was legally recognized you refuse to accept the fact the none of the existing members are in any way legal based upon the 2010CC&Rs you still claim, contrary to a Panamanian Government Agency ruling, as the governing document. Here are the facts of the SC you claim is legal and please address these facts once and for all. This was taken from the VEneighbors blog:

We wish the past contentiousness was over and that the community could move forward together. However, we must pose a few important legal points and questions to them and request, for once and for all, an answer to the entire community. Honest answers will provide clarity as to the illegality of the previous SC.

-Carol Bruner, self-appointed President of the previous SC, who has not stepped foot in VE for well over a year, has admitted that she was appointed to an SC position where the person she replaced (Michael Burd) never resigned, nor was any resignation for that person ever accepted. By their own rules, you can only be appointed to that position if the resigning member votes with the majority for his/her replacement. Michael Burd never knew anything about Ms. Bruner's appointment to replace him and has signed an affidavit to these facts.

-Mary Jean "Jeanie" Bell has resigned on three separate occasions, with a copy of her most recent resignation available for all to view in an earlier blog post. Once you resign, you cannot just come back as you wish. There is a process and that process did not take place. Also note, that Ms. Bell has her property for sale and had indicated in emails that she wants out of VE as quickly as possible.

-There is the appointment of Pat Mains where the previous SC admits in writing that they took the vote of an SC member's spouse because they were "trying something new." They also admitted using the vote of Michael Traynor as an alternate to elect Pat Mains. The use of an alternate, or a spouse, is not contained in any of the CC&Rs, whether it be Deed 1937 or the 2010 document.

-Then there is the appointment of Larry Thompson. This same SC determined that Larry was not an HOA member and was not eligible to vote on VE issues because his condo is not titled. If you are not a member, how can you be a representative on the SC?

4. The people who were "elected" were not designated as to which terms they would be serving:  i.e., one or two years. The Board of Directors elected are serving their terms as per Deed 1937 and the "new SC members" are serving informally with the approval of the BODs until such a time that the 2010 CC&Rs, with the amendments, as approved by MINGOB as required under Panamanian law is appeoved. All legal decisions for the VEHOA are only valid with the approval of the elected BODs. Once the SC concept is approved, the terms for SC members,as designated in the proposed new CC&Rs, will be announced to the VEHOA membership.

5.      The Steering Committee has a legitimate claim that the VE Neighbors and Lic. Julio Brown who orchestrated the 12 enero 2015 "election" selectively disenfranchised many property owners in Valle Escondido.  Many of us were not notified about all of the aspects of the purported "election."  We were not included in their mailing list.  That is fact. Julio Espinosa Brown has already provided evidence that proper notification went to all homeowners as per the VEHOA email list he had from when he was hired. On top of that he, as well as numerous individual VEHOA members, requested that the "old SC" in power and in control of the VEHOA email account anf the VEHOA.com website make proper notification and you refused. The "authors of this "reply" actually did everything they could to prevent notification. Here is a sampling of Blog Posts on our VEHOA.com community website which made notification of the elections and were "REMOVED BY YOUR STEERING COMMITTEE", now these same individuals are trying to claim now that property owners were disenfranchised by the actions of others? Really?

Notice from Election Inspectors

Posted on December 9, 2014 by Jerry Maesky

REMOVED BY YOUR STEERING COMMITTEE DUE TO FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION

Considerations for Upcoming GA

Posted on December 8, 2014 by Bill McAbee

REMOVED BY YOUR STEERING COMMITTEE DUE TO FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION

Call for General Assembly

Posted on December 8, 2014 by Caesar Sherrard

REMOVED BY YOUR STEERING COMMITTEE DUE TO FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION

6.  Note well that several of these excluded, disenfranchised  property owners are owners of multiple properties, thus disenfranchised multiple times. (por ejemplo, 10 votas para 4 propietarios). See above. Also know that the "YES" vote for the CC&R changes and the Board of Directors was 59 legal members which is higher than the "YES" vote for the BODs at the May election you reference.

7. Furthermore, this was the first time that property owners were asked to provide, on very short notice,  a notarized proof of title to their homes or a notarized Power of Attorney from their corporation or foundation enabling them to vote on behalf of their property or properties.  This has never been required in previous VEHOA elections.  This was a serious disservice to absentee property owners and effectively disenfranchised them from voting in this 12 enero 2015 "election. This should have been a requirement all along and through this process, in which VEHOA members were verified by the election inspectors through the Public Registry, is was discovered that people who had previously voted in the May election were not legally affiliated with the properties they claimed to represent. It was actually the "old SC" that previously announced that all votes, after the budget vote would require, verification of membership. Now you same people have the gall to say that this was never required when you yourselves made it mandatory? Here is the VEHOA notification with some excerpts taken from it:

Definition of Property Owner.

Posted on September 19, 2014 by Olga Caridad

What defines you as an Owner of Property in Valle Escondido, Powers of Attorney, Proxy Forms, Good Standing Letters... To Vote you will need 1) Unlimited or General Power of Attorney by the Legal Representative of the Corporation assigning the majority shareholder or an individual unlimited powers over the property and decision making. PROXY FORMS NEED TO BE ISSUED AND SIGNED BY THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CORPORATION, NOTARIZED BY A PANAMANIAN NOTARY IF THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY A PANAMA CORPORATION OTHERWISE THEY WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Please understand that this is not a matter of politics. This is a matter of knowing the rightful owners of the properties so that communication is effective between the VEHOA and the membership, voting rights are exercised, dues are correctly billed and allocated and better safety and security is applied to all just by knowing who your neighbors are.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Steering Committee and
Board of Directors
VEHOA

8.  In previous VEHOA General Assemblies held in 2013 and 2014, the Steering Committee has enabled Skype connections so that absentee property owners could attend the General Assemblies. Deed 1937 is explicit that voting must be in person or via proxy. Skype is not a requirement to having a legal meeting or vote.  

This was not provided for the 10 and 12 enero General Assembly meetings and effectively prevented many of our VEHOA members from participating in those two meetings.  We know that the Bambu Room has the capability to set up Skype connections as we have arranged that several times before. The January 10 & 12 GA meetings/election were called by the VEHOA President, Javier Espinosa, who followed the legal meeting requirements as recommended by the VEHOA attorney. Skype attendance would not have met the legal requirements of verifying a quorum and voting as one needed to provide legal proof of membership as mandated by the "Old SC".

9. Why are you, as a licensed attorney  not concerned about these facts?   Do you believe in the democratic process?  Or is democracy in Panama limited? Democratic process? The full membership was invited to attended a meeting and election in which the "old SC" was ask to participate in and run for election on numerous occasions yet all you did was obstruct and deny notification. What is more democratic than getting elected by the membership one claims to represent, especially in light of the fact that none of the members of the "old SC" were ever elected as demonstrated above. Why if you felt/feel that the VEHOA membership supports you platforms and actions did you just not run your own slate of candidates. Why are there still only 4 "old SC" members? Why was Dennis Griffin turned down for a position on the SC after Bill Day interviewed him yet one position still remained open?

10.Valle Escondido contains many citizens of the United States, Canada, and England.  We revere our right to vote.  We respect the rule of law.  And we will stand up for our rights to vote in legitimately called VEHOA General Assemblies. The January 10 & 12 GA meetings/election were legitimately called. As stated earlier no less than 4 Panamanian attorneys, including Juan David the attorney Bill Day and Paul McBride hired, that any member of the VEHOA membership can call a meeting. This meeting and election was called by Javier Espinosa, the legal President of the VEHOA BODs in light of the fact that MINGOB issued a resolution which clearly demonstrated that under Panamanian law the VEHOA's 2010 CC&Rs were never submitted and approved leaving us under deed 1937.

11.I do not find an attachment re: Parks with your email.

12.Our VEHOA Steering Committee and VEHOA Board of Directors understand that the Garanty Tadasly Trust must be nullified, dissolved, revoked, in order to achieve the transfer of the VEHOA infrastructure assets.  What steps have you taken to accomplish this goal?   We understand that you as the Promotora cannot transfer the Valle Escondido infrstructure assets that are vested into a trust instrument

13.         I am forwarding your letter under blind copy  to many homeowners who appear to not be included on your mailing list. Who is I?

Regards,

VEHOA Steering Committee
Bell
Bruner
Mains
Thompson
BELOW ARE BLOG POSTS FROM THE SC CHAIRMAN IN REGARDS TO THE “OLD SC”

Response to Steering Committee’s email.

Posted on October 28, 2014 by Richard Charbit

 (Title edited by John Good, WebMaster)

Julio Espinosa was hired by a unanimous vote of my SC. His contract calls for a retainer of $850.00 a month for 17 hours and $50.00 an hour after that plus unlimited emails and phone calls and his presence at 2 meetings.

The contract was approved at the time by al least a majority of SC members. It was in replacement of Juan David Barcenas which charged us over $10000.00 for the first quarter of 2014. The Agreement with JDB had been negotiated by Rod Parker and Carol Bruner and called for a retainer of $2000.00 a month for a few hours a month plus $175.00 an hour for the extra hours plus reimbursement of all traveling expenses every time he flew to Boquete.

Julio’s $4000.00 bill that included 2 overdue invoices for $1000.00 each for the months of August and june 2014 and the current invoice for $2000.00 for October. These invoices were approved by 3 members of the SC including me.

The so-called SC composed of only 1 legitimate member only (unable to fulfill her function) has made some very bad decisions:

-Taking the funds out of the VEHOA bank account, for some stupid reasons, and putting those funds in their personal lawyer’s account.

-Pretending to be capable to run the SC without the presence in country of any legitimate member.

-Delegating power to accept and approve payment on all bills by Bill Day (not a member or official adviser of the SC).

-Allowing Mike Traynor to run the legal side of the Association without a Panamanian law license.

The list goes on and on….

Richard Charbit

78/105/147

SC coup

Posted on October 27, 2014 by Richard Charbit

Steering Committee Coup  The Steering Committee is trying to screw the VEHOA by following Bill Day´s private agenda once again!

This Saturday I was asked to resign by Jeannie Bell and Carol Bruner stating I am unable to perform my duties due to fact I am not in the Panama. I refuse to resign as we are in the midst of negotiations and the dissidents of the SC which comprise of Carol Brunner and Jeannie Bell met at Bill Day's house illegally and voted Pat Mains in the SC, they are conspiring to fire Julio Espinosa which will cost the VEHOA money since he has a 2 years contracts and have excluded Olga from all communications, they want to hire a new lawyer that is not qualified, so that he and Bill Day can negotiate a deal privately and without the involvement of the VEHOA, It seems like in a corrupt switch they are attempting to negotiate the return of their memberships and the cancellation of their lawsuits against throwing the home owners under the bus.

With no Board of Directors, as we only have 2 active members and 1 will resign soon, and no valid SC I am calling an Emergency Homeowners Election.

I am appalled by these dishonest backstabbing maneuvers and will resign as Chairman of the SC as soon as the special meeting is legally called.

Best regards

Richard Charbit

Response to Steering Committee's email.

Posted on October 28, 2014 by Richard Charbit

Response to Request for VEHOA Members' Indication of Support or Nonsupport....

It seems like Mr. Mike Traynor, self proclaimed lawyer in Panama and unlicensed to practice law in this country, and continuosly offering advise that could hinder the VEHOA and SC and writing documentation such as this, could once again harm the VEHOA.

This is as low as they can go to protect their private personal agendas. This is a SCAM. This has been designed by a hand few who are affected by loss of memberships and personal lawsuits, who are too affraid of any personal actions and now want to use their stay in the SC to protect themselves and have now endorsed Ralf who they were highly critizing before in order to protect themselves.

This is a lie..... Marguerite Heffner did not vote on anything. There was no 3 people vote and how can there be an SC vote without a formal meeting with all members invited. Furthermore, we have written proof of the Heffner´s disagreement with the SC and their non vote.

The acts of Jeannie Bell and Carol Bruner together with Bill Day and Mike Traynor, who had a secret meeting and had Mike Traynor vote as an alternate, where he was not, he had resigned (see below), in order to meet quorum and VOTE OFF Marguerite from the SC without her knowledge or consent, and further conspire to change legal representation which will financially hurt VEHOA and stall the negotiations with the Developer in order to protect their own personal interests are despicable.

This communication is full of lies and misleading facts. I have been opposed to the fact that the dropping of personal lawsuits against Jeannie Bell and Carol Bruner and the reinstatementes of QBCC memberships are made part of the TOA negotiations and this of course, brought me enemies. I do not have a hidden agenda, they obviously do. I called for elections.

There is no SC at this time. There is no legallity to Pat Mains in this SC. The legitimate SC is comprised of Marguerite and Richard, and this phony SC created ilegally by these people for their own personal grain, throwing the VEHOA under the bus with that.

We want and demand elections whether they approve of these ilegallities or not. We want a new SC who is not fraudulent, who will move with the TOA transfer in a fair and open way, without hidden agenda, and we want a VEHOA that is legally within the laws of Panama, with a full Board of Directors as required by law. Right now you have 2 members, one of which will resign the day of the elections, therefore, please, lets see through these few, who are known in VE to put their personal interests before anything else.

I will resign as soon as the elections are properly and legally organized not like this pathetic message with anonymous Inspector.
I urge the whole community to demand the resignation of these people who will not hesitate to push all the home owners under the bus to further their own financial interest

All the best to you all,.

Richard Charbit
SC chairman

January 10 Election.

Posted on December 24, 2014 by Richard Charbit

Dear Homeowners:   There have been plenty of speculations and attacks from both the SC and the VEneighbors in regards to the upcoming call for a General Assembly to elect a new Board of Directors and Steering Committee.

Many of us want an end to the ongoing fighting, character assassination, unnecessary expenditures of Homeowners funds and of course, the long overdue transfer of the assets and infrastructure; however, I feel much of the essence and important issues are lost in a power struggle between two groups.

Let´s analyze this on a cool head and see the pros and cons of this January election and why I strongly oppose we participate.

1.       Deed 1937 has been deemed the ONLY governing set of bylaws for the VEHOA, according to the Ministry of Government of Panama. This letter puts to rest the ongoing debacles whether the Steering Committee has authority over the Board of Directors, and the powers of each entity. Simply put, the Steering Committee DOES NOT exist and DOES NOT have any authority under Deed 1937, therefore any and all decisions must be made by the Board of Directors and all Homeowners must adhere to any decision they make

This raises a HUGE RED FLAG. We have a Board of Directors now, that in essence has resigned for the most part, however, I am sure, will assist in a transition to a either a new set of legally registered and government approved bylaws or a dissolution of this HOA.

Who are these people on the suggested new Board of Directors ballot and why no explanation or background is given to the Homeowners who must vote for them? Do the Homeowners realize that if we install a new Board of Directors, whom we know nothing about, we are handing out on a silver platter all decisions and power of the VEHOA to a group of virtual strangers, whom we know nothing about or what their availability, intentions or purpose is. Why is the new or temporary Board of Directors not composed of 5 Panamanian Homeowners of property in Valle Escondido? We know for a fact, there are more than 5 homeowners who are Panamanian nationals who have vested interest in Valle Escondido.

2.       If it has been determined that the Steering Committee is not a legally recognized decision making force in Panama, and has no validity because the 2010 CC&R´s are not registered with the government, the question is, WHY ARE WE ELECTING A NEW SC? Many homeowners do not know the 6 suggested members and no explanation, background or qualifications is offered. Who are they? Are they full time residents? How long have they lived in Valle Escondido? Are they title holders of their properties or at least have a legally notarized Power of Attorney signed by the Legal Representative of the corporation that owns their property

What should be voted upon and installed is a temporary committee who will oversee that a new set of bylaws is drafted, voted upon and approved by the majority of the Homeowners, which will then be duly registered and presented to the Ministry of Government for the required approval. Then and only then, you may call for elections of a formal Steering Committee who will have some kind of authority, always keeping in mind, that in Panama, the Board of Directors is the main authority in any corporation.

Given the many disagreements over transfer of assets and bylaws, it is in the best interest of all Homeowners to dissolve the VEHOA and either incorporate to the municipality or create an entirely new entity with a complete new set of governing rules, where the Resort and all commercial lots are a part of, paying their corresponding dues and assuming responsibility and liability, just like any other Homeowner, on assessments and other matters.  Why is there a permanent exemption of dues on lots owned by family members of the Developer? Why is there a permanent discount for condo owners of their yearly dues, yet Boca Rio condos pay the same amount as everyone else? Or better yet, why even have an association? It has been proven over the years that all residents and homeowners of Valle Escondido never agree on matters that the ongoing fighting and character assassination has been a patter for nearly 10 years.

So, the solution is simple. Hire an experienced lawyer, who will draft a brand new, from scratch set of bylaws, taking in to consideration the approved 2010 bylaws, the new amendment suggestions, the approved Rules of May 2014, and the new issues we face; present it for Homeowners review and approval and get it duly registered with the Panamanian government or complete dissolve the VEHOA and become a co-op or integrate to the municipality of Boquete.

3.       Transfer of Assets and Infrastructure: the main goal and long overdue responsibility and obligation of the Developer. There are many discrepancies with the master plan and how the valley was developed, missing permits and concessions such as ANAM and MIVI, the issue with Union Fenosa where the original plans were not approved and shortcut was taken in order to not meet their requirements, which has turned in to a disaster that costs all Homeowners nearly three times what their regular electric bill should be on a monthly basis, plus many deficiencies in the overall power supply of the community. Unmetered areas that the HOA gets billed for, municipal water being used for years without paying a penny to the municipality of Boquete, no concessions for ANAM, no control over the WWTP, no sidewalks, no street lighting, deficient roads not built to standard or according to the approved Master Plan, unfinished roads…., and the list goes on. Somehow, between all the fighting and division amongst Homeowners, the main objective has been lost in translation. Why are not fighting together to get a commitment from the Developer on how these impending issues will be resolved. Although they can allege a thousand times there is wear and tear, the deficiencies, faults and non-completions are undeniable. Where are the sidewalks? Where are the missing roads and the repairs to those streets not built to standard or according to plan? Where is the required law compliant signage? Where is the street lighting? Do we have a financial commitment to bring up the electric in the valley to Union Fenosa standards, even if it’s a portion of the costs? Where are the ANAM concessions and why do we continue to illegally take water from Boquete´s municipal source?

In conclusion, let us sit back for a minute, read, think, analyze……….Do we want the main legal authority for the VEHOA in the hands of strangers? Do we want to continue electing Steering Committees that have no legal muscle? Do we want to continue to live divided into factions, getting nothing accomplish but to dislike our neighbors? Do we want to continue living with outdated bylaws that do not conform to our needs? Do we even want to be part of the VEHOA? Would we rather dissolve the VEHOA and start from 0 with an entirely new set of governing rules or better yet, be totally independent? Do we want to continue with poor infrastructure that does not meet guidelines? Do we want to continue without sidewalks or street lights that comprise our safety?

Let us put our differences aside, stop the division between the owners and concentrate on real issues, this is long overdue.

We need to use this scheduled election date to choose what we really want to do as an Association, and decide if we start from 0 and dissolve VEHOA, or if we amend the current bylaws. We need to appoint not a new Board of Directors, but we need to select a group of 3 Homeowners, who have lived in Valle Escondido long enough to know the real issues at large and who spend more than 60% of their time in Panama in order to steer us in the right direction. If the Homeowners choose to keep the VEHOA intact, then, once a new set of governing laws is approved by the government, a new Board and Committee can be elected to assure the infrastructure and asset transfer is completed, or this temporary group can lead the Board of Directors, with Homeowner´s approval into a dissolution of the Association.

Please, reflect on this, and comment on whether you support the path we are on, or if you are pro a REAL change and want to make either a new set of bylaws or dissolve the VEHOA altogether like many Homeowners have expressed. Please note, this is not an anti-developer, anti-SC, anti-VEneighbors post, but rather a reflecting note and what the real issues are and the focus shift of Homeowners.

I will boycott the upcoming vote because it has been prepared inefficiently, in a haze, with possible gave consequences for all homeowners.

Richard Charbit