COMPLAINT OF RULE
VIOLATIONS BY POUL DAVID RASMUSSEN
By: Harvey A. Kurtz
& Yvonne Larme (Owners of Unit 812)
Phone Number 414-332-1964
Email: hkurtz@ameritech.net
COMPLAINT AGAINST
POUL DAVID RASMUSSEN, PRESIDENT OF POR HOA
COUNT ONE: ABUSE OF
PROCESS; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; EXTORTION; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD; VIOLATION
OF CIVIL RIGHTS; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL HARM
COMPLAINT
|
RULE/BYLAW/STATUTE VIOLATED
|
|
Fine Assessment Letter dated January 16, 2015, from HOA Board of
Directors.
The letter said:
“We have communicated to you the allegations of the rules that were
potentially [sic] violated after reviewing all of the appropriate
documentations from the effected [sic] resident(s). We have thoroughly reviewed the complaint, the rules of the
Association, and the statements from
documented witnesses. The findings of fact are that the complaint
was valid, rule(s) were violated, and the Association does have a duty to act
on the matter.”
There was no complaint,
there was no fair and objective
investigation, there was no
determination of substantial evidence of a violation, the Rules haven’t
been enforced “without discrimination,” and the Association never took proper action under the Bylaws. The entire letter is a lie.
|
·
Fraud.
·
Extortion.
·
Rule VI.A.1 is violated.
·
Rule VI.A. C.5. a is violated.
·
Rule VI.A. C.5. b is violated.
·
Rule VI.A. C.5. c. is violated.
·
Wisconsin
Statutes Annotated Chapter 703.10 is violated.
·
Denial
of 14th Amendment Due Process Rights.
|
|
On January 19th at 4:09 pm I emailed the Board asking that
the fine letter be rescinded because of all the Rules violated in issuing the
letter. This letter was taken by the Board as a request for appeal under Rule
VI.D. Less than 90 minutes later
President Rasmussen denied my request, saying the Residential Committee
(rather than the Board) issued the fine assessment and apparently did so in
the last 90 minutes. It is all just lies.
|
·
Bylaw Section 2.10 is violated.
·
Bylaw Section2.11 is violated.
·
Wisconsin
Statutes Annotated Chapter 703.10 is violated.
·
Denial
of Due Process Rights.
|
|
During the last two weeks of January President Rasmussen “deemed”
that the earlier fine assessment letter had come from the Residential
Committee, rather than the Board. The Bylaws
do not allow the President to ignore them.
Or to lie about actions of the Board or the Residential Committee. Under
Bylaws Section 2.2 all actions of the Residential Committee must be reviewed
by the Board and approved, anyway, before they are final (including
assessment of fines).
|
·
Several sections of the Bylaws are violated
when they are ignored like this. The Bylaws do not cease to exist just because
they are ignored.
·
Wisconsin
Statutes Annotated Chapter 703.10 is violated.
·
Denial
of Due Process Rights.
·
Abuse
of Process.
|
|
On February 18th a Director and RC member resigned and was
immediately replaced (by vote of President Rasmussen and RC member Joel
Fleischer) with Jerry Biggart Jerry
Biggart was not qualified to be elected an RC member and HOA Director because
he publicly threatened an Owner (me) the previous August, proving him unfit
for any office at the POR. See full documentation of the threat in an earlier
posting.
|
·
Breach
of fiduciary duty.
|
|
By Consent of Directors signed February 23, 2015, the Board
(including Jerry Biggart) adopted new Rule IV.T. This Rule was adopted in direct retaliation
of the efforts of the Owners of Unit 812 (us) to challenge the illegal and
Rule breaking actions of Poul David Rasmussen. This change in the fundamental rights of
Owners violates our overall rights under the Condominium Declaration and
Bylaws. The only way such a major change
in the balance of power between the Owners and the Association could be
adopted is by a two-thirds vote of the Owners. That the lawyer hired for the
Association by Mr. Rasmussen missed this point in the law should be a huge
embarrassment for her and reason, certainly, to find a more competent legal
advisor for the Association. Mr. Rasmussen should pay his own legal expenses
to help cover up his misdeeds.
|
·
Rule IV.T. is invalid and unenforceable.
·
Rule IV.T. is unconstitutional retaliation for
the exercise of our Due Process Rights.
·
Adoption of Rule IV. T. by a Board so tightly
controlled by President Rasmussen is his responsibility and he violated the
Bylaws in pushing it for adoption.
|
|
On March 13, 2015, we received the rules handed down by President
Rasmussen for the Appeal Hearing scheduled for April 11th. The Appeal
Hearing Letter says that, under the applicable rules for the Appeal Hearing, “evidence will be received and
recorded as described below.”
The Rules require that the substantial evidence of a violation of the
Rules shall be determined before the Fine Assessment Letter is sent.
The Rules (of the Association) require that the substantial evidence
must be disclosed to us BEFORE the Appeal Hearing. We received no evidence of
any Rule violation before the date of the scheduled Appeal Hearing despite
repeated requests for it.
President Rasmussen’s unilaterally imposed rules for the Appeal
Hearing, the so-called “Lowdermill rules,” approved by the Supreme Court only
for use in preliminary hearings for the possible demotion or other sanctioning
of a civil service employee, require full disclosure of all evidence before
the Appeal Hearing.
|
·
Taking evidence at an Appeal Hearing violates
the Rules because the Rules require all the evidence to be gathered and found
to be substantial BEFORE the fine issuance letter is sent.
·
Our Constitutional Due Process Rights are
thoroughly violated if the evidence supporting the taking of our property
(the fine) is not obtained and made available for review well in advance of
any Appeal Hearing. We have to have a
right to carefully examine and challenge the evidence before the Appeal
Hearing.
·
The very (inappropriate) rules adopted by
President Rasmussen for this hearing, called the “Lowdermill Rules,” are absolutely
and clearly violated by scheduling the taking of evidence at the Appeal
Hearing. Ignoring that part of the Lowdermill Rules but enforcing the rest of
them is Abuse of Process and a Breach of Fiduciary Duties.
·
Manipulating the Rules in unconstitutional
ways to achieve forced payments, to which the Association has no right to
receive under its own Rules is extortion.
·
Rule VI.C.5.c is violated.
·
Wisconsin
Statutes Annotated Chapter 703.10 is violated.
|
|
The Appeal Hearing Letter also
states:
“Challenges to the validity of
the Residential Committee’s ability to issue a violation will be ruled out of
order.”
There is no authority in the Rules of the Condominium that allows
President Rasmussen to put the validity of how he “enforces” the Rules off
limits.
|
·
Breach of fiduciary duty.
·
Extortion
·
Abuse of Process.
·
Unconstitutional denial of Due Process Rights.
·
Going beyond power granted by the Bylaws.
|
|
On March 18, 2015, we ended all attempts to appeal the invalid fine
assessment. We knew we would lose the so-called appeal and then be billed thousands
of dollars in in expenses.
|
·
Retaliatory breach of fiduciary duty.
·
Intentional infliction of emotional harm.
·
Denial of Constitutional Right to Due Process.
·
Abuse of Process.
|
|
COUNT TWO:
INTENTIONAL ABUSE OF PROCESS; INTENTIONAL BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL
EXTORTION; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD WITH INTENT; INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF CIVIL
RIGHTS; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Received by email on
May 8, 2015, from the Residential Committee chaired by President Rasmussen:
On
behalf of the residential committee of First Place Condominium Association we
would like to inform you of the following: It has come to our attention
that on Monday, April 13, 2015, at approximately 8:40pm, an incident
with your dog occurred on the first-floor, South delivery hallway.
After
interviewing, reviewing tapes, etc., it has been determined that there is
shared responsibility in this incident and therefore both dog owners will be
fined $50.
So this time the Residential Committee is committing the extortion
and abuse of process because it is using lies and Rule violations to get
money out of us, again. Everything done
wrong in this second, nearly identical process to the one beginning in
January 2015, has to be understood as being intentional because nobody could be that …..
·
There was no full and objective
investigation. There is no evidence of
any interview of Rich Carbollo, who was present with his dog.
·
There is no evidence of any interview of David
Bagley, who was present with his dog.
·
David Bagley and his Pekingese were part of
the dog incident but he was not fined.
·
The fine assessment letter contained and
transmitted absolutely no evidence of a “dog incident” that violated any
Rules.
·
The fine assessment letter refers to tapes
(plural). The only audio tape in
existence was the audio tape of my interview with L. Windpassinger, which I gave
in reliance on the promise that Rich Carbollo would also be interviewed on
tape. There is no evidence that he was ever interviewed prior to his
testimony at the Appeal Hearing.
·
The “tapes” used in the fine assessment letter
apparently referred also to security camera tapes that were reviewed but
never made available to me. The security
camera in the South hallway outside of the Screaming Tuna back entrance does
not cover even one square inch of the space in which the entire alleged “incident”
took place. Not one inch.
·
We asked for evidence in writing four times
before the date of the Appeal Hearing and received nothing; not even the
courtesy of a response.
|
·
Extortion.
·
Rule VI.A.1 is violated.
·
Rule VI.A. C.5. a is violated.
·
Rule VI.A. C.5. b is violated.
·
Rule VI.A. C.5. c. is violated.
·
Wisconsin
Statutes Annotated Chapter 703.10 is violated.
·
Breach
of Fiduciary Duty.
·
Abuse
of Process.
·
Denial
of Due Process Rights.
·
Intentional
interference with constitutionally protected rights.
|
|
The Appeal Hearing was held on Sunday, July 19, 2015. By this time President Rasmussen had determined that our alleged Rule violation was no longer the dog incident mentioned in
the fine assessment letter; now it was an alleged dog bite, never previously
mentioned. There never was an
investigation of a dog bite; we were never assessed a fine related to a dog
bite; we never saw any evidence of a dog bite before the Appeal Hearing; this
was all just misuse of power by President Rasmussen to cover up the fact that
he had mistakenly issued a fine for a “dog incident” in what was supposed to
be a “dog friendly” condominium. Yes,
I was the one who pointed out this mistake to him. Instead of just canceling stupid fines that
were issued in error, he decided to pretend we had been fined for a dog
bite for which there is no evidence.
We did not attend the Appeal Hearing for the same precise reasons we
canceled our appearance at the April 11th hearing: We had not yet received any evidence of
anything whatsoever; to our knowledge the only evidence was my taped
interview which concluded that, in fact, nothing actually happened except
dogs acting like dogs.
The rules imposed by President Rasmussen for this Appeal Hearing were
identical to the rules for the April 11th hearing (the constitutionally
inappropriate “Lowdermill Rules). As before, even though it was an Appeal
Hearing the Residential Committee took new evidence from Rich Carballo and his partner. President Rasmussen declared that their
evidence had to be accepted as presented because no one was there to contest
it—completely ignoring the fact that evidence cannot be received at Appeal
Hearings as an obvious (one would have thought) Due Process requirement. My taped interview was the only valid evidence and it told a very different story than the one told by Ms. Weise and Mr. Carbollo.
Mr. Rasmussen also pointed out (on tape) that, since my dog was on a
five foot leash when in the hallway where the security camera filmed us, it
only made sense that she was on the same five foot leash during the incident
instead of being on a much tighter leash (as she was) during the incident because
we came upon a squabble between two other dogs and had no way to escape; I
was afraid I would be fined again and took every precaution. Doing the right thing is not good enough
for President Rasmussen. He also has
to like you or you are dead meat here at the POR.
Another statement by Mr. Rasmussen on the tape was a classic
Rasmussen lie. Someone asked if I had
received a copy of my own interview tape.
Mr. Rasmussen said (on tape) “He would have if he had asked for it but
he never asked.” As noted, I did ask,
four times, in writing.
This Appeal Hearing Letter also contains the same ludicrous statement
that wrongdoing by the Residential Committee (or Board) is off limits:
“Challenges to the validity of
the Residential Committee’s ability to issue a violation will be ruled out of
order.” Of course. Otherwise President
Rasmussen loses every time until he starts following the Rules.
|
·
Extortion.
·
Rule VI.A. C.5. b is violated.
·
Rule VI.A. C.5. c. is violated.
·
Wisconsin
Statutes Annotated Chapter 703.10 is violated.
·
Breach
of Fiduciary Duty.
·
Abuse
of Process.
·
Refusal
to provide the required evidence reviewed before issuing the fine assessment
letter is a violation of our Constitutional Due Process Rights.
·
So is
taking evidence at the Appeal Hearing.
·
Refusing
to allow us to challenge the validity of the fine assessment letter is also a
denial of our Due Process Rights.
|
|
Our fine assessment for the “dog incident” of which we were actually
accused by the invalid fine assessment letter, and for which no evidence was
ever put in the record properly except my taped interview, was upheld by the
vote of President Rasmussen and Jerry Biggart, who did not attend the Appeal
Hearing. That is not acceptable by anyone’s
interpretation of Due Process and it is also plain wrong and unjust.
|
·
Breach of fiduciary duty.
·
False swearing.
·
Abuse of Process.
·
Conspiracy to deny the Constitutional Right to
Due Process.
·
Intentional interference with Due Process
Rights
·
Wisconsin
Statutes Annotated Chapter 703.10 is violated.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment