Lawsuit - seeking member input

Hello this is John Fast aka Plaintiff

When I filed suit against RCSC and requested injunctive relief the issue popped up that the Arizona statutes require 49 other members join the request for injunctive relief. Time did not permit me to get these 49 others to join and when I asked other members to join a member of the Finance and Budget Committee used social media to incorrectly render legal advice that the court typically awards attorneys’ fees. This was presumably done to scare members away from joining the lawsuit. The president of the board made essentially the same comment at the members meeting presumably with the same intent. Arizona law provides guidelines for awarding attorney’s fees that were not mentioned in either communication.

Since the board has decided to fight the issue, as opposed to discussing it, there are procedural hurdles to overcome. The case of whether the members have the right to vote on the big stuff (or vote on anything for that matter) has to get much bigger to have a chance of being heard by the court. This has created a moral and ethical dilemma for me that I tried every possible means to avoid.

Should I seek 49 other members to join the suit, tack on a new request for monetary damages, request a jury trial, hire a top-notch law firm at my initial expense just to defend the member’s right to vote on the big stuff? Or should I just admit that the board has the ability to use member’s money to prevent us from voting and drop the suit?

In all of this I appreciate that the Board, if it loses, could just amend the bylaws to take away the members right to vote.

Your thoughts PLEASE? THANK YOU

 

Hello John,

Who brought up the issue and is it fact? Do you think you can find 49 other to join? At the very least the issue of whether what members may vote on or not vote on needs to be delineated in policy documents? ( jmho)
Seems your individual right to vote on these motions and wording in a document would carry weight with the courts?

 

The lack of resident ability to vote or have a say on things in Sun City has been a huge issue with me. I have always said the board will do what they want regardless. I have been chastised for saying this is not our community anymore and from what I saw last evening it appears more people agree with me than don't. (Library, PAC, T-Bird Bldg. etc.)

As much as I am 100% on your side, believe whole heartedly in your efforts, wish you success and most of all hope you get the 49 people you need I can't be one of them. Also in order to get the 49 you will need a bigger audience than TOSC.

Much luck.

 

John,
I feel the attorney for the board is trying to use this case to try to set an example. He wants to make this case an example to members who try to fight “city hall”. Once again, no regard for the membership, just got to prove himself right. The attorney knows he can drag this out forever, making you incur additional costs, while he gets paid with members money to create more havoc. I know of know way to counter sue for morality. With the membership meeting having passed, any sense of urgency went by the wayside as well.
By adding 49 more members, would this define this as a class action suit? Would placing ones name as a member of the suit also place that person in a position to be sued individually by the RCSC as well? What kind of monetary liability is the additional people going to face? Not with just the possibility of losing the case, but in general such as service costs, deposition and witness costs and additional process fees for forms, as an example? I have no qualms about offering my services to you but I also need to be clear about the liability of doing so. Let me/us know so we, too, will be an informed advocate.
If this suit continues, would it be left with the same issues brought forward or be expanded to include other aspects of community needs?
Okay, enough questions from the peanut gallery, let me know and having the information makes it easier for those reading the comments will be able to make an informed decision. Thank you

 

Just my opinion...
I tend to believe that since the Annual Meeting is over, and you gave it the college try, perhaps it's time to cut your losses and give them the win without doing any further damage to yourself.

There's always the possibility that something new in the upcoming Bylaw review will better define and differentiate the difference between the affairs of the corporation and the bylaws.

And as Carol mentioned, I doubt you will find 49 people who will sign-on not knowing what repercussions it may have on them.

You put up a good fight and I commend you for putting yourself on the line, but I fear the RCSC and lawyer will try to run you dry. They win, you lose, but live to fight another day!

Just my opinion...its over!

 

I think this is a good BOD. Two changes from last year made a huge difference, but there is still a glaring issue.
I know it's a lot to ask but I would love to see you and Jean run again and rejoin the board.
Thank you for all your hard work, but I do agree with FYI.
Also, thank you Jean for over 1200 signatures!
And all your hard work and time as well.
I hope (I think) the BOD has heard loud and clear and I hope for the best.

 

On the other hand, the Articles of Incorporation does say:

The Bylaws of the Corporation shall prescribe the qualifications of Members and the terms of admission to membership, provided that the voting rights of all Members shall be equal and all Members shall have equal rights and privileges, and be subject to equal responsibilities.

I'm no lawyer but, if you consider the facilities agreement to be a contract, then isn't it a violation of the contact that prohibits us the ability to vote?

 

John,
May I suggest your time and talents may be better spent helping to improve the current bylaws to prevent any additional issues from lack of clarity? Also address additional concerns regarding language needing clarification? And creating additional information into the bylaws that offer structure and direction rather than ambiguity? Then, once there’s clear language written for the bylaws and amendments of same are submitted, then if another block of the vote by the board occurs, you will have a stronger argument as to why this action should proceed. As it stands right now, I am not sure at what level community support stands. Prove you tried to make a positive argument for the members by addressing the current situation with the bylaws, and you are still blocked, I feel you should have greater community support. This would also provide the time to get the word out to everyone possible to become interested and want to participate.
I don’t think getting mired with the details of this current action is going to be the best option for implementing change. Once again, it will be referred to the attorney, but there will be time to garner support for the cause and place a greater demand on the board to be more transparent. Should this become another case of denying the vote because of the needs of the business, I think you could gather much more momentum. On top of that it can be submitted with enough time for attorney review and expect no more delays due to needing board review.

 

John,

Contrary to your statement that I was providing legal advice, I was merely stating, which I should have prefaced that the court determines legal fees. Case in point involving Arizona courts, the Anne Stewart case which was decided in favor of the RCSC, case dismissed by the judge and regarding fees, and I quote “ each party to bear their own costs.” What does that tell you? Look on the bright side, I don’t try to pass myself off as a lawyer like you did the other night I believe that is a breach of ethics.

Not to rub in, but I told you this should have been a class action suit and you could have easily had more than the 50 Plaintiffs now required. I know you will secure the additional plaintiffs judging by hostile but subdued members the other evening. Would they have to be listed as pro se on the documents since you are not an attorney or would you be doing the heavy lifting as lead plaintiff?

We may have something of an adversarial relationship, I know what I know and I know it damn well. Maybe you might want to listen to what I have to say every once in awhile.

Good luck with your suit.

 

Well John, I guess you have been told!

 

Carole, I do not know if this would be a class action. A court has a great deal of power to award some or all fees to either side, particularly if it finds a suit was filed in bad faith or the defendant acted in bad faith. Anything can happen and bad things do happen if someone tries to manipulate the process. For all I know, A jury or judge could look at the totality of the circumstances and award punitive damages. While a court has a great deal of power, they also have a keen sense of equity. Members would not join the suit if they felt it was in bad faith and as they always say, you should seek legal advice before engaging in any legal action. I will seek initial consultation from a lawyer who specialize specifically in this area. I have found that a one-hour consultation with specific questions to be answered is all that is required to understand the probability of success on the merits. Of course, the attorney then tries to follow up and charges for the follow up if you allow it. Practicing law is a business after all.

I hope that answers most of your questions.

 

Dave, I was not referring to you when I said a member of the F&B committee. I believe I said I was a retired lawyer with 40 years of experience and am representing myself. With all due respects, your comment about knowing what you know damn well shows a total lack of humility. I am smart enough to know what I don't know and will always either research what I don't know if I think it is something I am capable of understanding or seek expert help if it is simply above my head. Enough with arguments that do not advance the interests of the members. Peace.

 

I have posted previously about what I know, what I don’t know would fill an encyclopedia. I am a very curious person which is why I read so much.

 

Forgot, Peace and Love John.

 

John, Your comment "shows total lack of humility" perfectly describes what readers notice about Geoffrey de Villehardouin's postings. Perhaps you can work on this, Dave. I believe that you have worthy input, but your presentation certainly dims that.

 

Janet, what you have to understand is 5hat I worked with attorneys for 40 years plus officers at large insurance brokerage houses, they have a snarky sense of what is known gallows humor. My attitude reflects this. I was restrained during the by laws committee, but suppressed many of my colorful assessments. You have to view through my sense of humor.

 

No Dave, actually she doesn't. We were trained and taught that those sharing their remarks (written or verbal) were the ones held accountable for what they said. Ultimately if you don't give a shit how you come across, the that's on you.

I know you are smart enough to know that. Take ownership of your words, don't put it on those reading it to accept it as okay.

 

I don't think the barbs are in jest Janet. Nor are all the "F" bombs and name calling, referring to DOGE as Douche, Trump as the Orange Cheeto. That's purely pre-pubescent boy speak, not humor at all. I hope you never get to that level of understanding.

 

OK, I will try to turn over a new leaf or leaves.

The president is basically incompetent idiot with fascist dictatorial leanings. His unelected co- president is by South African standards an Afrikaner, who were responsible for apartheid in South Africa. Musk has recently shown that he has Neo Nazi leanings by the salute he has given at least two times and his endorsement of the Neo Nazi right wing party AfD in Germany. He is also a racist.

We are watching the slow disintegration of our beloved democracy (Germany 1930’s) assisted by a compliant Congress (Reichstag) which does nothing to prevent this from happening, rather they enjoy it. The only thing left is the judiciary and even that is under attack by the president and jackals. Trump has already talked about a third term which currently unconstitutional but he said during this first term, “why three terms, why not four or maybe president for life?” If this does not scare you, then nothing will. The only thing we don’t have so far is a Reichstag fire but the president’s actions by fiat are metaphorically burning down our form of government and the symbol of our government the Capitol.

The usual suspects here will say I have Trump Derangement Syndrome, I hate Trump, I hate America and some other nonsense. No, these are facts and logical interpretation which so far has not been disputed. I admit sometimes I give an incorrect response but that is the result of some people having trouble writing clear expository or interrogatory sentences. Difficult to respond when you have no idea what they are saying or asking.

Yes, I have a degree in history and have studied post WWI Germany extensively, the rise of Hitler and his final grip on power and then war. Growing up in the hood, not one of my boyhood friends didn’t have a father and also some other relatives that didn’t serve in the military during WWII. For the most part they never talked about battles and the only topics Dad spoke about his service in the Marines were where he served in the South Pacific, where he was severely wounded, had Malaria and punched an Admiral in the face and got away with it. I also talked to him about the lead up to the war as I did with others. The point is, what is happening now happened in 1930’s Germany and how did that turn out. Even this Panama Canal, Canada and Greenland thing is straight out of the 1930’s the only difference, same toothpaste, different tube.

I expect a variety of responses so let’s hear them.

Is this polite enough that doesn’t offend you Janet, Josie, Bill and John.

 

It doesn't matter at all. Now I know you have no self-control, personality of your own (it was learned by all those crass gang bangin South Side Englewood lawyers you hung with for 40 years) and then there was the temper you inherited from your father. You truly didn't stand a chance. You are completely controlled by outside forces. Sad.