August 10th Outrage!
NOTE: Not all links work at this time.Home
New!Mims: Don't Incorporate Due to Annexation Scare
Contributors to Amy Tidd's D4 Commission Bid
The Bare Facts 4 by B'Ann
The Bare Facts 3 by B'Ann
The Bare Facts 2 by B'Ann
The Bare Facts 1 by B'Ann
Scott's Shots 1
PSJ Community Center Updates
PSJ Library Events
Toilet Paper Swipes 2
Parks and Rec Updates
Toilet Paper Swipes
November 2004 PSJHOA Meeting Notes
Who I am.
MY PSJ HOA
Truman Scarborough Quotes
Warning! If you are easily offended you may not wish to read further. I tell you THE TRUTH here and I have the PROOF to back up what I say. So, if you think the world should be nicey-nicey and we should "all just get along," tell that to the liars who are out there slandering me. This is just the beginning of my fight. There is more that I will not yet disclose. I'll let them sweat a bit first.
Background: The PSJHOA filed its latest PSJHOA corporate papers with the Department of State on May 13, 2004. Notice what it says at the top of the page, "2004 Not-For-Profit Corporation Annual Report (AR)". Also, notice by whom it is signed, Doris Jean Olson, the Registered Agent of the Port Saint John Home Owners Association, Inc. This makes it official that the Board of Directors, of which Doris Jean Olson is a member (as well as being the Treasurer), acknowledges that they are a Not-For-Profit Corporation. And as such, they are subject to State Statutes; including and especially State Statute 617, "Corporations Not For Profit."
Background: The PSJHOA Articles of Incorporation (of which
I have a copy that I received from Helen Dezendorf in 2003 while
I was working on the ByLaws Committee) state:
"ARTICLE 3: MEMBERSHIPThese Articles of Incorporation have not been amended since their inception. Notice in (A) it says, "bona fide home owners". The Articles of Incorporation do not mention renters, business owners, etc.: it is strictly and exclusively "bona fide home owners".
Background: The OLD ByLaws of the PSJHOA state:
3.3 A member shall be defined as follows:Why do I quote the OLD ByLaws? That shall become apparent soon enough.
Background: The NEW ByLaws of the PSJHOA state:
3.3 Membership shall be defined as follows:Remember these references. I will refer to them later.
Background: The OLD ByLaws state:
3.2 In the event of a basic contradiction between these By-Laws and Articles of Incorporation, the Articles of Incorporation shall be the governing authority.That's for future reference.
Background: The NEW By-Laws state:
3.2 In the event of a basic contradiction between these by-laws and the Articles of Incorporation, the by-laws shall be the governing authority.Now, that's a change.
Background: The OLD By-Laws state:
12.4 The By-Laws of this corporation shall be made, altered, and rescinded by:
Background: The NEW By-Laws state:
9.6 For by-law changes or amendments, a quorum shall consist of no less than thirty-five (35) regular members.Remember that.
On August 10, 2004, the PSJHOA committed the final outrage against me. After trying to silence me with a stupid rule that infringes upon my free speech rights and prevents the truth from getting out, and -- I might add -- carries no mention of penalty after disobedience whatsoever, they tried to kick me out of the PSJHOA.
To this letter, Pete Costello (who received the same letter) and I responded with the following:
Apparently, some PSJHOA Board members did not like this one little bit. Because this brought about the closed door meeting during which no one who did not meet the approval of the PSJHOA leadership was not permitted to enter those hallowed doors.
It was during this meeting that Helen Dezendorf slandered me for ninety
(90) minutes. She spent practically the entire meeting slandering me. She also
slandered Pete Costello, but not as much as she focused her hatred and loathing
on me. According to my friend's notes, Helen said things like (NOT direct quotes, paraphrased),
We have a serious matter that should only be presented to the members. So far the Board has handled it, but because it has been publicized, we need to inform you of what has happened. We had to do it tonight because I'm having knee surgery and won't be at the next meeting. Normally we have a policy that anyone who is interested in our organization is welcome and membership is not required. We are a not for profit corporation with dues-paying members.That little "serious matter" was me.
Helen went on to say (paraphrased):
This matter tonight is a legal issue of speaking against someone, which carries a liability. We don't want to spread gossip.To which I say, "That's right. It does carry liability." You slandered me publicly for 90 minutes. That's a liability. According to State Statute 617.0834:
Officers and directors of certain corporations and associations not for profit; immunity from civil liability.Notice it says that the directors or officers of organizations that have IRS exemptions under 501 corporations. The PSJHOA does not have ANY IRS exemption status. That's the first thing. But, even if the PSJHOA did have IRS status, the State Statute goes on to say, and notice where that part ended, "unless",
3. Recklessness or an act or omission which was committed in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property.I have human rights; and that includes the right not to be slandered. I strongly suggest Helen Dezendorf talk to her attorney about what is covered here because that's "with malicious purpose" in anyone's handbook. Ms. Dezendorf, I have you seven ways to Sunday and you don't even recognize it; but your attorney will. Call, e-mail, mail, pound on his/her door, whatever. Contact him/her soon. Oh, and don't forget to tell the PSJHOA to get an attorney as well. They'll need one.
My friend's notes go on to say that Helen said (paraphrased):
I want to start at the beginning. I'm going to read you all the facts. In February Lindy McKinney, the V.P., discovered that Kellison and I had a meeting with "(?)" about [the] Tour de Port St John. She claims I went behind her back and wrote me this email. (She reads it aloud and proceeds to defend herself making Lindy look ridiculous.)
To which I respond: This didn't start in February with the Tour de Port St. John. It started back in 2002, that's why I have my notes from the last quarter of 2002 posted on my site. I started keeping an eye on the PSJHOA back then, publishing the truth about them then. As to the Tour de Port St. John, I have the e-mails and anyone can have the whole kit and kabbodle if you want to see them, I'll forward them to you. But in the meantime, I can state unequivocally, that this is the timeline as I was aware of it:
Well, that's the timeline I am aware of. As to what Helen read the membership of the e-mails from her to me, I don't know. IF she was going to give you all the facts, shouldn't she have read you what she said to me? But, be that as it may, I was angry about not being told about a meeting when they had almost 24 hours notice in which to do so. Someone should have checked with me, but no one did. I call that nothing short of callous, if not underhanded.
Helen then went on to talk about Pete Costello's offer of putting a PSJHOA page up on the PSJ Bulletin's website. He offered to post their newsletter monthly, and have meeting info (time, date, place, etc.) free of charge to the PSJHOA. She said the PSJHOA decided to do their own website and their decision didn't sit too well with them. Well, for her information, that's just fine with us. But if you're going to put up a website, at least make it useful, not like the one you have up now [no longer available]!
Helen went on to say that at the June  meeting, that Pete and I went to the Board meeting and started talking and disrupted the whole meeting and that was why the Sheriff's Dept. was called. Excuse me, but weren't there Board members at the August 10th PSJHOA General Membership meeting? I remember seeing Gay Keebler, Bob Lewis and DJ Olson (Helen, of course) and others at the Board meeting and at the August 10th meeting. Does Helen really think that they have no memory at all of what happened? Just to let the public know what happened, click here to read the first page of the PSJ Community Center's report about what happened that night; and here for the second page. You'll notice that Helen Dezendorf herself was listed as a witness and was one source of information. Notice also that the report never says that Pete and I took over the meeting. It says that I was taking notes. Just as my notes say. Proving I am telling the truth and Helen Dezendorf is not.
She says that the next day I posted on my website about what happened at the Board meeting. You're right, I did. First, it's an extraordinary event in America to have the Sheriff's Dept. called on you for taking notes at a meeting you are allowed to go to. Second, it's important that the people of PSJ know what their PSJHOA is doing. Third, it's important that my reputation not be further besmirched and the best way to do that is to make sure my side gets out there, too. She alleges that I took the page down a few days later. Not so. It went up and hasn't been down since.
Helen also alleges that the incident at the Community Center didn't cost the taxpayer anything. Not so. I was told that the report they had to write was going to go through so many layers of oversight and that they could be working on other things, and that this will cost them. Doesn't it cost the taxpayer to pay the employees to deal with the report instead of dealing with the other things their jobs require? Of couse it does. And the same for the Deputy. Yes, he has to be somewhere doing something, but not something that silly. And he had to be paid to deal with a ridiculous thing like someone taking notes.
Helen also said that I harassed a county employee to get a copy of the Community Center report. Not true. I called Dan Cook at the Community Center about it the following day, but he said it wouldn't be available until it was looked at up the line and Risk Management was finished with it. He told me to call them a few days later. I forgot until three weeks later and made the call to Risk Management. I told the person I spoke to about what happened and that I was wanting a copy of the report, but she said that she didn't know anything about it. She said she'd look it up and call me back. She called Dan Cook at the Community Center and talked to him about it. She then called me back and said that she's getting a copy of it faxed to her. After she checked it out, she said that it wasn't a Risk Management issue and she would send me a copy. So she did. She was very nice about it. I never harassed anyone to get that paper. It was very easy.
Helen said that I accepted Ed Warner's apology for being so angry and for calling the Sheriff's Dept. on me. I never received an apology from him, so I couldn't have accepted one. I heard excuses (bad day, other issues, etc.), but no apology. I never accepted something that wasn't given. As for forgiving him: yes, I did. However, that doesn't mean that the truth of his actions shouldn't be told. Living with the consequences of our actions is still something we have to live with, even when God forgives us. The teenage girl who goes out and has sex and gets pregnant and asks forgiveness is still pregnant. Ed Warner was proverbially still pregnant; forgiveness does not take away the act; it negates the sin for it. That's what I gave Mr. Warner.
As to the fact that I wrote an e-mail to her about the PSJ Bulletin not getting any acknowledgement: yes, I did write that e-mail. There's no denying that. But how did I write the article: the way Helen read it, with malice and venom, or as a calm statement of fact? I wasn't angry with Helen; I was asking for an explanation. The PSJ Bulletin had made an offer to buy $100 worth of prizes for the children to win in the games they played at the National Neighborhood Nite Out on the condition that the PSJ Bulletin receive the same acknowledgements and publicity as the other businesses contributing something. The PSJHOA agreed to our terms at the June Board meeting (after the Sheriff's Dept. left), and then Helen didn't publicize our contribution. Pete and I wanted to know what the PSJHOA intended to do to rectify the situation. I will forward the e-mail to you if you wish to see it. But it wasn't written in anger, malice, nor venom. Helen said it would have been two-faced of the PSJHOA to accept the prize offer from the PSJ Bulletin after revoking our membership.
Then Helen talked about the letter the PSJHOA sent to Pete Costello and I revoking our membership and breaking State Statute 617.0601(7). She said I broke the rules. No. They broke the rules. There is nothing in the "rule" they made up while they knew I would be on vacation that says that I would be kicked out if I did what they told me not to do. There is no punishment mentioned. Even if there were, they still could not revoke my membership according to State Statute 617 as quoted above in the letter to the PSJHOA from Pete Costello and I. And, do you realize that I have been taking notes and publishing them on my website for two years and that it didn't bother them until I was absent and they knew I would be away? I even published notes while I was Vice President and talked about my website while VP and no one said anything against it then. Kinda' funny, huh?
Helen made a fuss of making sure everyone knew that they had been so magnanimous as to not revoke the memberships of the spouses of Pete Costello and I; thus Pete's wife, Dana, was in the room. Guess who was taking notes for me...
Helen said (paraphrased):
Well, first of all, we are not a Home Owners Corporation that restricts its membership to home owners within a certain boundary. We don't fall under this statute. Our bylaws allow any owner, resident, tenant, or business owner to become a member. Secondly, it says right here, the member must comply with the terms and conditions of membership. They haven't done that! They have broken the rules. We run this organization by Robert's Rules, and they broke the rules, so they are no longer qualified to be members. And this is not the first time this has happened, so don't think this is a radical decision. We have had to remove other members who were disruptive.And there's the part that proves what kind of a person Helen Dezendorf really is. She read the letter that Pete Costello and I sent to the Board of the PSJHOA (and several other people as well; above). Except she didn't read the whole of State Statute 617.0601(7). She stopped where it says "shall comply with the terms and conditions of membership." She said, see they broke the rules. That's the excuse she gives. She also alleges that the PSJHOA is not subject to State Statute 617 (she also says -- and correctly so -- that they are not subject to State Statute 720). But their filing with the State proves that they are subject to 617. They are a Not For Profit Corporation. That is the statute they are covered under. Remember, Attorney William Powell said so, too, in the letter we sent them. She lied to the membership by not reading the whole of 617.0601(7) and she lied about the PSJHOA not being subject to it. Is the PSJHOA not covered under any laws? Are they a lawless organization? Are they free to do as they so desire to whomever they so desire and not have a way to be forced to face consequences? IF this be the case, shouldn't you be very afraid? Remember, they can find fault with you next!
Remember, above are the relevant passages of the By-Laws of the PSJHOA (old and new) and of the Articles of Incorporation. The State Statute says that the Articles of Incorporation have to say that they are set up to benefit the "property owners" of a certain geographical boundary and the Articles of Incorporatin say "bona fide home owners"; thus meeting the requirement. Even if the PSJHOA had set it up to allow business owners in the PSJ area to be members, it would still be under this provision because State Statute 617 covers all Not For Profit Corporations, and because the business ownwers in PSJ are "owners". Thus, falling under the same category as home owners.
As to the must comply with "the terms and conditions of membership"; I did. I posted the terms and conditions of membership of the By-Laws (old and new) above, so you can see I have met their requirements. My membership dues are due again in September and they will be paid. My membership revokation was totally illegal. And how does Roberts Rules effect my membership status when Roberts Rules are totally, explicitly and exclusively about decorum during a meeting? Who has the floor is not pertinent to my dismissal! And if they have done this before, I hope that person sues the PSJHOA also!
The notes continue with Helen saying (paraphrased):
I went on their website and one of the links says, "PSJHOA" Bad Behavior. And then they have a video with thunder and lightning. They are trying to make us look bad. We would have never said a word about it so as not to embarrass anyone. We are an organization that does good things for our community, but all they print is negative stuff. They keep mentioning incorporation tactics. Well, the HOA was impartial and had nothing to do with that battle.Helen, you are an organization that does good things? Like break the law and slander people? We aren't trying to make the PSJHOA look bad. You don't need our help with that! You do a good enough job yourselves. I didn't call the Sheriff's Dept. on myself to make you look bad. I didn't break the law and revoke my own membership. I didn't lock the doors on people and lie to the people on the inside. I don't expect people to not be able to remember for themselves. I am not helping you look bad! The fact that we are telling the truth about you is not us trying to make you look bad; it is the truth being revealed about an organization that has gone far astray from its original intent. An organization whose usefulness has died because of its reputation and dirty tricks (I'd call breaking the law and revoking people's memberships a dirty trick). And the PSJHOA was no more impartial during the incorporation battle than I was, so let's stop that nonsense right now. Yes, a vote was taken, but I have the President's writings still and I have the count. So stop that line of baloney right now.
The notes continue with Helen saying (paraphrased):
Lindy wrote an article about Neighborhood Night Out titled, "Tops or Flops?" She said nobody came. Well, we had over 400 people come, we fingerprinted dozens of children, gave out prizes, had lots of food, and people stayed until the very end. The only person she interviewed was Al Barrett, who was politicking for Jeff Rainey. Last year there were no politicians. It wasn't an election year, so why would there be politicians? This year we decided if we invited Truman Scarborough it could be called political. So we didn't invite any politicians. In the "Happenings" it said, "no politics, please". When Dan Cook saw Al Barret and Jeff Rainey there he approached Al and told him this is not a political event. Al told Dan they were invited, so Dan let it go. Lindy writes someone took me in the kitchen and gave me instructions to get rid of Rainey. Well, that's not how it was. Jeff Rainey was in conversation with someone so I went to Al and told him they would have to leave if they wanted to talk politics and he said "fine" and they left.I did write the article and it was partially based on what Al Barrett told me. However, I had another person I spoke to about the event who was there for quite a while and this person told me the facts as I had them in the article. If you have a different version, that's fine. But I stick with my source; and it wasn't just Al Barrett. And last year there were plenty of politicians there. I saw Truman Scarborough and several others there last year. Why they were there, I don't claim to know. I saw them. I was outside the front door doing the bubble table and I saw them all go in. I even saw Maureen Rupe go in with her two petitions to have people sign and was told she got to give a little speech about what she was doing. So there wasn't any politics at last year's event? Not true. And, according to Al Barrett, it wasn't Dan Cook who told him it wasn't a political event, it was Helen Dezendorf. I did not write that someone took her into the kitchen and told her to get rid of Rainey. I never said anything about what was discussed in the kitchen; how would I know? My source said that someone bent Helen's ear in the kitchen and soon after, Helen spoke to Al Barrett. That's all I said. Read the article to see if I am telling the truth.
Then Helen goes into her martyr routine that she has used successfully for the past 18 months or so:
Lindy quotes Al as saying, "Well, Helen isn't typical of the fine people of PSJ." Well, that's damn right. I do a lot more, and give a lot more than most PSJ homeowners. I haven't asked for any reimbursement for all the time I've given, all the cookies I made, and refreshments I've brought to meetings. And any time you want me to step down, please just ask me. I'll be glad to oblige.Well, Helen. It's time. Step Down. I'm asking you to. You just said you would (again and again and again!). Do it. I'm asking you to please, pretty please with sugar on top, step down. Resign. Quit. Please. And don't whimper about the cookies, that was your choice. You did that because you wanted to, I don't know of anyone asking you to. I know you're reading this and I'm asking you, as a member in good standing according to State Statute 617, to step down. Do it now, or regret it later.
The notes continue with Helen saying (paraphrased):
I keep hearing about "freedom of speech"? I don't know how many times I've been over this. The fact that you open a website does not give you the right to say what you want to say. I never say I'm the voice of Port Saint John. I say I'm the voice, or I represent the members of the HOA.That's right. The fact that I opened a website does not give me the right to "say what I want to say"; the United States Constitution's First Amendment does. I can tell people my opinions of first hand events I experienced. That's the First Amendment and that's my right. Ever heard of the First Amendment?
Then Helen tries to infringe upon our Attorney/Client privilege with (paraphrased):
I called Mr. Powell and asked him if he wrote this letter. He said, absolutely not. I then said, "Did you tell them this was true?" He wouldn't answer me, and said he couldn't tell me what he and they had discussed, it was confidential. I said, "Well it says right here to call you if I had any questions." He said, "Have you read the statute?" I said, "No", and that was the end of our conversation.Helen, read the Statute. That should be your first clue. Then realize that you and your Board of Directors have created a real mess for the PSJHOA and that you are going to regret it now and forever. You have broken the law. You have not only broken the law, but when it was pointed out to you that you did so, you refused to tell the membership that what you had done was illegal and that you were going to have to reinstate Pete Costello and Linda McKinney because a State Statute protects their rights as home owners in the PSJHOA. When our attorney gave the go ahead to put his name on the letter to the PSJHOA and agreed to accept your call, that should have told you something.
And then to add insult to injury (and one more bad move on top of all the others), Helen prints the letter that the PSJHOA sent to Pete Costello and I in the PSJHOA newsletter and mentions our names, "On July 22, the following letter, signed by Helen Dezendorf and Ed Warner, was sent to Linda McKinney and Pete Costello:". And then the letter in toto was printed, and then, "The membership was made aware of this action at the August meeting, and was informed that, according to the by-laws, Article 7.4, the general membership has the authority to override the Board of Directors by simple majority of regular members in attendance (at a meeting where there is a quorum). (New Paragraph) "Because we were discussing these sensitive issues, the meeting was closed to the public."
NOTE: State Statute 617.0725 Quorum states:
An amendment to the articles of incorporation or the bylaws that changes or deletes a greater quorum or voting requirement must meet the same quorum or voting requirement and be adopted by the same vote and voting groups required to take action under the quorum and voting requirements prescribed in the provision being amended.This is the reason I quoted the quorum requirements in the PSJHOA bylaws, above. This says, that if you have a requirement of 35 people to be able to amend the quorum requirement, you must have that 35 people to amend the quorum and no less. In amending the bylaws in April, 2004, without the required 35 people as the PSJHOA did, the PSJHOA, in effect, changed the quorum requirement and they found another way to break the law. Roberts Rules of order do not overrule nor supercede the State Statute. The bylaws they passed in April are therefore null and void and totally invalid. The bylaws that are legal are the old bylaws; not the new ones Helen Dezendorf, DJ Olson and I worked on. The PSJHOA broke the law again.
Did she really say that the membership has the right to override the Board? I have to ask and see if anyone remembers that. But I wonder, considering everything else that has transpired. But the thing that makes me go, "Hmmm..." the most is how stupid Helen must think the Board members are. They all received the same e-mails I sent Helen. Most attended some of the meetings that things happened in. And they all have memories of their own. How stupid, blind, forgetful and easily led she must believe them all to be in order to lie so much to a room of 14 adults of which 7 were Board members! I would be insulted if I were a Board member! But, maybe not if it's true.
So, that's my PSJHOA notes for this month. Rather exciting, wasn't it? Sorry it was so long, but when you have someone slandering you for 90 minutes it does take a while to rebut them. If you have questions, please feel free to e-mail me. I'll do my best to answer you. Oh, by the way, Helen and the Board members, don't bother. You'll be hearing from someone about this soon enough.
Note: I spoke to six (6) attorneys about suing the PSJHOA. None would take the case. Most had a conflict of interest because they had represented the PSJHOA or the leadership of the organization in other cases (tell you anything about the leadership?). Others said no money is in it. So much for our legal system.
Find the TRUTH!
NOTE: Not all links work at this time.Shut me up within the PSJHOA
Kick me out
Door Sign: Members Only
Page 1 Community Center Report
Page 2 Community Center Report
The PSJHOA's 2004 Filing with the State
This page last updated August 25, 2004. © 2003 - 2005 Linda McKinney. All rights reserved