03-17-2018, 06:36 AM
I do however, believe that OCLA’s primary purpose is to maintain the roads.
That seems to be the common belief. So why isn't it listed as such in the Charter of Incorporation? I agree that this has been the "PRIMARY PURPOSE" from the beginning and the folks that applied for and received the license to do business as a non-profit corporation had this in mind. The fact that all of the secondary purposes are listed in the charter and the primary purpose is not is cause for concern...or at least question.
So you "joined" when you closed on your property, which was a voluntary act on your part.
No, I didn't. I purchased in 1981, the written agreement at that time was voluntary membership which I declined because of the recent embezzlement. And what about the people who bought between 1959 and 1979? The association didn't even exist, so how could they have possibly joined? BTW, for 30+ years the association never provided any maintenance on my road. Not once. This was because my neighbor and I teamed up and did it ourselves, and kept it to a higher level than OLCA maintained roads. So it's not like I'm shunning my responsibilities. OLCA has a very long history of shady/illegal dealings, from the early embezzlement to the '87 and '91 class actions (seriously, the court docs show beyond a doubt that the main strategy was to keep the property owners from being properly represented or even informed that it was happening, HUGE violations of process, collusion, and deception of the court. '87 case was not successful with this strategy, '91 case was), to putting foreclosure into the bylaws to get a bank loan knowing that foreclosure was not allowed (bank fraud), to implementing foreclosure actions with this same knowledge, etc. Why would I want to be a part of this?
I got my Wirick newsletter too and was disappointed that they made no mention of the dispute or various means of remedy currently in the works. They seem to be claiming legitimacy prematurely. A transparent, up-front assessment would have been more welcome and would have given me more confidence that they actually have my interests at heart. As of this writing, I remain unconvinced.
Obviously the newsletter was printed before the recent hearing so it wouldn't contain any recent info. Currently the court is allowing the Wirick group to continue doing business and is unfreezing the bank accounts, so it appears that for now they are the legitimate board. I'm still not clear on exactly what the other claims are or what the trial a year from now is about. I wish someone who knows more about this would share.
That seems to be the common belief. So why isn't it listed as such in the Charter of Incorporation? I agree that this has been the "PRIMARY PURPOSE" from the beginning and the folks that applied for and received the license to do business as a non-profit corporation had this in mind. The fact that all of the secondary purposes are listed in the charter and the primary purpose is not is cause for concern...or at least question.
So you "joined" when you closed on your property, which was a voluntary act on your part.
No, I didn't. I purchased in 1981, the written agreement at that time was voluntary membership which I declined because of the recent embezzlement. And what about the people who bought between 1959 and 1979? The association didn't even exist, so how could they have possibly joined? BTW, for 30+ years the association never provided any maintenance on my road. Not once. This was because my neighbor and I teamed up and did it ourselves, and kept it to a higher level than OLCA maintained roads. So it's not like I'm shunning my responsibilities. OLCA has a very long history of shady/illegal dealings, from the early embezzlement to the '87 and '91 class actions (seriously, the court docs show beyond a doubt that the main strategy was to keep the property owners from being properly represented or even informed that it was happening, HUGE violations of process, collusion, and deception of the court. '87 case was not successful with this strategy, '91 case was), to putting foreclosure into the bylaws to get a bank loan knowing that foreclosure was not allowed (bank fraud), to implementing foreclosure actions with this same knowledge, etc. Why would I want to be a part of this?
I got my Wirick newsletter too and was disappointed that they made no mention of the dispute or various means of remedy currently in the works. They seem to be claiming legitimacy prematurely. A transparent, up-front assessment would have been more welcome and would have given me more confidence that they actually have my interests at heart. As of this writing, I remain unconvinced.
Obviously the newsletter was printed before the recent hearing so it wouldn't contain any recent info. Currently the court is allowing the Wirick group to continue doing business and is unfreezing the bank accounts, so it appears that for now they are the legitimate board. I'm still not clear on exactly what the other claims are or what the trial a year from now is about. I wish someone who knows more about this would share.