Folder K3

Retroactive 1983 bylaws recorded in conflict with the 1984 Lakeland decision (in Folder K3)

Documents recorded as retroactive 1983 bylaws in conflict with the 1984 Lakeland decision

show

those involved in this scheme are and have been aware of the 1984 Lakeland decision,
they took steps to purportedly nullify the 1984 Lakeland holding to their actions, and
they knew, by purportedly taking steps to change the relationship between the Loch Lomond easement owners and the owner of the easement property, that the LLPOA is not a mandatory-membership homeowners' association.

1984 Lakeland Decision
The 1984 Lakeland opinion shows that the court held that a voluntary-membership association in a subdivision which owns easement property cannot assess dues not otherwise required in restrictive covenants in deeds to subdivision lots owners merely because the owners have easement rights permitting them to use common areas.

1986 Contrary "Bylaw" with a Retroactive 1983 Effective Date

Adults of normal intelligence know that nongovernmental organization cannot nullify a court opinion by recording a bylaw in conflict with the opinion with a retroactive effective date to pre-date the court opinion.

Beginning in 1986, the leaders involved in this scheme demonstrated their knowledge of and disapproval of the 1984 Lakeland holding by recorded a fraudulent document with a retroactive 1983 effective date in conflict with

the 1984 Lakeland decision,
the McIntosh covenants from the 1950’s which expressly created perpetual easement rights running with the land in favor of all lot owners (822721, 903401, and 874973),
the deed conveyed to the LLPOA which the LLPOA expressly accepted the lake subject to the established covenants and easement rights running with the land, and
the LLPOA's charter.

The covenants incorporated by the deed show that the McIntosh company granted "perpetual" eastment rights to all lot owners in the three Loch Lomond subdivisions. In contrast, the participants' recorded "bylaw" provision with the retroactive 1983 effective date purportedly compels all easement owners in the three Loch Lomond subdivisions to be perpetual debtors and pay money to those who collect it in the name of the LLPOA.[1]

Thereafter, the practice of using a retroactive 1983 effective date within the bylaws to compel protection payments has been repeated many times. Examples can be found in (a) Art VII, Sec 2(d), of the 1993 bylaws, (b) Art VII, Sec 4(b) of the 2001 bylaws, (c) Art VII, Sec 4(b), of the 2010 bylaws, and (d) Art VII, Sec 3(d), of the 2011 bylaws.

The falsely recorded documents with the retroactive 1983 effective dates shows the participants' threat to continue to wrongfully interfere with easement rights and interfere with the ability of easement owners to sell their properties unless the property owners pay money to those engaging in the wrongdoing and collecting money in the name of the LLPOA.

In common parlance, demanding money to stop or suspend threatened wrongdoing is called demanding protection money. It's a criminal activity, not a bona fide corporate one.

It is noteworthy that use of a retroactive date in these documents appears to not be the only time that retroactive dates have been used. In the 1980 document, hundreds of signatures were notorized as being signed on January 1, 1980. Which is more likely, did hundreds of property owners all show up at a real estate sales office or elsewhere on January 1, 1980 to have their signatures notorized or were the signatures gathered over time so that the signatures could be falsely notorized as being made on January 1, 1980? The 1980 document was not recorded until November 6, 1980. The dates for the long-term "treasurer's" signatures on the 2002 and 2003 Annual Reports appears to be odd. The 2003 Annual Report was purportedly signed on "7/30/02," as was the 2002 Annual Report. Which is more likely? Was the 2003 Annual Report signed a year in advance? Or was there a failure to file the 2002 Annual Report until 2003, when a backdated 2002 signature was added to the 2002 Annual Report and then the same backdated 2002 year was added to the 2003 Annual Report? Although the stamp from the Secretary of State's office on the 2003 Annual Report is difficult to read, the last digit appears to be a "3" and not a "2".

Evidence of Intent to Only Extort Certain Easement Owners
The recording of a false document in 1986 to extort money from easement owners by threatening to interfere with lake access and potential sales shows that this activity began in 1986. The publication of a particular newsletter in 2008 shows that the extortion activity continued for more than 20 years. In it, after the participants admitted knowing "The Association can not put a lien on a property for not paying back dues," they wrote "Per the monthly newsletter, if you plan to sell your house, please contact a member of the Board. If you are selling and you owe back dues, that could be a factor in selling your home." Similar threats were published in their various newsletters.

A map and the language in the 1986 document shows that the threats made contrary to the Lakeland holding were not intended to affect the Loch Lomond property owners who get the greatest usage from the lake nor were they intended to affect the outside lot owners who were known to not be Loch Lomond property owners.

Although those involved in this scheme had been conducting mock elections with outsiders since the Fall of 1981, the language in the 1986 document shows that it only identifies the three Loch Lomond subdivisions created by the McIntosh company and not the the two outside adjacent subdivisions. Even then, as illustrated by a map, the threats in the "bylaw" to interfere with lake usage and contact real estate agents only applicable to Loch Lomond property owners without lake-front properties. The purported "bylaw" with the threat to interfere with lake usage and the threat to cause confusion at the time of real estate sales closings is inapplicable to the Loch Lomond property owners who have access to the lake on a daily basis. Those who have daily access comprise 20% of the Loch Lomond property owners.

The addresses found in the Annual Reports filed after the first mock election held with outsiders in 1981 show that a number of persons who participated in such elections and held themselves out as LLPOA officers or directors were lake-front property owners. Although the LLPOA's charter provides that a purpose for the incorporation of the LLPOA is to bring Loch Lomond property owners together, the actions of the imposters who participated in mock elections shows that they were acting contrary to that corporate purpose. This further illustrates that they were collecting money on their own behalf and not on behalf of the corporation.

Threats Made While Knowing the Illegal Nature of Such Threats

When persons calling themselves LLPOA officials knowingly illegally threatened to interfere with home sales and cause confusion with false creditor-debtor claims unless money was paid to them to stop or suspend their illegal activities (720 ILCS 5/47(14); 720 ILCS 5/47(5); 720 ILCS 5/12-6.5), they did not act alone. For years they regularly met and operated out of a real estate sales office owned by fully informed real estate sales agents (including one or more agents licensed as a real estate broker or real estate managing broker). The real estate agents who hosted the meetings received newsletters and other documents as Loch Lomond property owners, and they bought their Loch Lomond properties before this fraud began in 1981. The real estate agents, while knowing that mock elections were held in the name of the LLPOA with ineligible lot owners in outside adjacent subdivisions after the false 1981 documentwas signed, and after one real estate agent was purportedly elected in 1981 to act as a LLPOA officer for 1982, even distributed flyers to knowingly invite people to participate in the mock elections.

Some of the people involved in the scheme have been involved for years.

The real estate sales agents only discontinued hosting such meetings after a letter and a CD-ROM with supporting pdf files was mailed to Alan Kalman. Mr. Kalman acted as a collection agent in the manner of a former long-time "treasurer" who received money for collecting money from Loch Lomond property owners, but did not have the title of "treasurer" and did not act as a treasurer. Unlike the long-term "treasurer," he did not act as an LLPOA officer and vote on money transfers for collection activities and take money without the "officers" complying with the full disclosure requirement of Article V, Sec 2 of the bylaws. For a short period of time before he took over the collection activities from the long-time "treasurer," the collection efforts were handled by the wife of the 1981 president. While making collection efforts and mailing threatening letters by registered mail, she knew that the LLPOA is not a homeowners' association. Neither her husband who was the LLPOA president in 1981 nor anyone else claimed in the 1981 Annual Report, filed before the first mock election was held with ineligible outsiders, that the LLPOA was a homeowners' association.

One of the persons listed in the 1981 Annual Report as an LLPOA director prior to the first mock election in the Fall of 1981 later acted as the LLPOA's "treasurer" in more recent time periods. He knew and still knows that the LLPOA is not a mandatory-membership homeowners' association. In contrast, while acting as the "treasurer" for 2013 and 2014, he not only held himself out as the LLPOA's treasurer, but he also personally signed false Annual Reportsunder oath. In them, (1) he inherently represented that he was familiar with "subsection (c) of Section 9-102 of the Code of Civil Procedure" and (2) he falsely claimed under oath that the LLPOA is "a Homeowner's Association that administers a common interest community as defined in subsection (c) of Section 9-102 of the Code of Civil Procedure." He did so while knowing that he was not elected for 2013 in an annual election as required by the LLPOA's charter because the persons holding themselves out as LLPOA officers and directors did not obtain a sufficient number of qualified voters to constitute a quorum. If he or anyone else could legitimately disregard the charter and not hold an election for the entire year after failing to obtain a quorum for an election meeting (such as the November 2012 election meeting for 2013), this would operate as an incentive to avoid having a quorum for election meetings for a full year before collecting and transferring more than $150,000 annually.

Under such thinking, when charter-required bona fide elections are not held, persons collecting money in the name of the LLPOA are not required to suspend collecting and transferring money or be accountable to anyone. They have been conducting sham transactions, their actions show that they are familiar with the Lakeland decision, and they know that they are and have been engaging in sham transactions.

Other Persons Informed of the Lakeland Holding

Mr. Kalman was hired to take over the collection activities of the long-term "treasurer" (18 years, the former former "treasurer" sometimes says) plus the collection activities of the wife of the 1981 president. Mr. Kalman has been fully informed. Among other things, I sent him a two-page letter (with supporting pdf files) regarding the 1984 Lakelanddecision. I provided him with easy verifiable facts that the participants have been engaging in fraud and threatened to report him to the Postal Service for mail fraud if he continued with his planned collection activities while knowing that no debts were due. Immediately after that, the real estate agents who had been hosting LLPOA meetings at their real estate sales office discontinued doing that. Their Century 21 business began in 1981. The owner or co-owner of the Century 21 franchise was also the person who notarized the signatures of the in-state owners of those who signed the false 1981 document. In it, the signing parties purportedly transferred rights to themselves to use the lake and be members of the LLPOA without being Loch Lomond property owners. After the signing parties participated in the first mock election in the Fall of 1981, an Annual Report shows that the real estate broker's wife (also a licensed real estate agent) was purportedly elected to be an LLPOA corporate officer for 1982. The first Annual Report after the first mock election is unusual and different from other Annual Reports filed in the name of the LLPOA in that it does not include the addresses for the "officers" and "directors," which would have revealed that one of the "directors" (who thereafter was held out to be the LLPOA's vice-president) was only a lot owner in one of the outside adjacent subdivisions

The real estate agents and their Century 21 business has done more than just host meetings held in the name of the LLPOA. Among other things, they actively invited persons to attend election meetings at their real estate sales office by distributing flyers. They distributed flyers which (on page 2 of an example) represented that Loch Lomond property owners are required to belong to a homeowners' association and pay an "ANNUAL HOME OWNERS ASSESSEMT" (sic). They distributed flyers which represent, contrary to the known admissions in the false 1981 document, that houses in an outside adjacent subdivision known as "LOCH LOMOND SUBDIVISION." And they have regularly distributed false maps on an annual basis for garage sales which they mischaracterize as an "Annual Subdivision Garage Sale" when, in fact, the boundaries of the false maps encompass the three Loch Lomond subdivisions plus the two outside adjacent subdivisions described in the 1981 document as only being adjacent to the "Loch Lomond Subdivision" (sic). The latest false maps with boundaries that misrepresent that a portion of the Seminary View subdivision, the Peramores subdivision, and the three Loch Lomond subdivisions developed by the McIntosh company are purportedly all part of one subdivision which the schemers call the Loch Lomond subdivision were distributed on May 15 and 16, 2015. There has been no re-subdivision of the five separate subdivisions.

The persons holding themselves out as LLPOA officers and directors continued to knowingly act contrary to the law in this scheme even after expressly admitting that many attorneys hired in the name of the LLPOA have informed them that they cannot use a legal means to collect their money. They admitted in one of their newsletters, "In the past, our attorneys have told us we're on shaky ground regarding dues collection."

Yet, they still expressed a desire to collect money by obstructing lake access for some easement owners and interfere with home sales and offering to protect the easement owners against their wrongdoing and threatened wrongdoing in exchange for money. Like some Chicago street thugs who sometimes pretend to believe that small shop owners owe them a "street tax" for the use of streets in their neighborhoods, they've been pretending to believe that easement owners owe money to them which they have been collecting in the name of the LLPOA notwithstanding the covenants and their awareness of the Lakeland decision. In 2008, they threatened that "other" associations can "take possession" or foreclose on properties owned by nonpaying property owners, but added "We would hate to see that happen."

In the June 2010 newsletter, they admitted knowing that all previous attorneys hired in the name of the LLPOA had repeatedly informed them that they could not collect so-called dues on a mandatory basis from easement owners. But they hired Attorney Nesbit to re-write the covenants and do so purportedly without requiring the unanimous consent of all lot owners as required by the Lakeland decision. Subsequent events has also shown that they hired Attorney Nesbit, in part, to provide language that would allow them to take possession or foreclose on properties owned by nonpaying property owners. In the same June 2010 newsletter, they alleged that approximately $188,000 remained uncollected from nonpaying Loch Lomond property owners. They hired Attorney Nesbit to not only to collect the $188,000 in so-called "back dues" but to provide language allowing foreclosures.

Attorney Nesbit is aware of the Lakeland holding, and specifically was made aware of it in my two-page letter to him. Because (a) he was hired more than four years ago to collect the $188,000 in so-called "back dues" and (b) the records on file with the Recorder's office show that he has not filed even a single lien against any nonpaying easement owner, those events show that he informed the persons pretending to be LLPOA officers and directors that the Lakeland decision precludes them from adopting bylaws in conflict with the covenants to compel easement owners to pay money to them or the LLPOA. If this was not so, he would have been making an effort to file liens and collect the almost $200,000 in so-called back dues. Any attorney who is willing to draft new covenants to allow LLPOA officers and directors to take possession or foreclose on properties owned by nonpaying property owners would readily file liens if he could lawfully do so.

Attorney Nesbit has been fully informed. My two-page letter to him with the appendix informed him, with readily verifiable information, shows that the persons claiming to be LLPOA officers and directors have repeatedly engaged in fraud after holding mock elections with persons who are not Loch Lomond property owners in accordance with the 1961 deed and the 1957 charter. They have been taking money and using it for their own purposes contrary to the restrictions in the deed and the charter. The 2014 records currently on file with the Illinois Secretary of State shows that he is the registered agent for the LLPOA . As an attorney who was hired in the name of the LLPOA, he owes a duty of loyalty to the LLPOA rather than to the persons who have hijacked the name of the LLPOA with mock elections. Notwithstanding this, he has apparently continued to knowingly share in the money collected by them.

He is not the only licensed person who is still sharing in the money collected by the imposters. The two-page letter and supporting pdf files mailed to Mr. Kalman informed him of the fraud which included mock elections. The letter threatened to report him and others to governmental officials similar to the way that I first reported the criminal activities to the Mundelein Police Department in 2009. Unlike the real estate agents who decided to stop hosting the meetings in their real estate sales office building, he decided to continue to collect money and take money for himself that had been collected from Loch Lomond property owners. Apparently, one of his responsibilities, which he has never denied after receiving my second letter to him, is to withhold key-cards from nonpaying Loch Lomond property owners without lake-front properties.

Footnotes:

[1] No one claiming to represent the LLPOA or anyone else can point to any language within the covenants that requires Loch Lomond property owners to be members of the LLPOA or any association. In fact, the language in the covenants expressly excuses the lake owner and the lot owners from any obligation to maintain the lake in any size, depth, or condition.

The fact that subsequently recorded bylaws were intended as stage-props is shown, for example, by the fact that the participants regularly disregardArt V, Section 2 of the bylaws with its requirement of accounting for funds with specificity.

Those involved in the scheme have collectively treated the money as their own. The LLPOA's charter requires annual elections. For 2013, the participants even transferred $186,121.85 (Folder F) without holding an election meeting of any kind after the scheduled Nov 2012 election meeting was cancelled because of a lack of a quorum and no additional chartered-required election meeting was rescheduled or held for an entire year. At a Oct 10, 2013 meeting, one of Attorney Nesbit's lower level attorneys (who apparently shared some of the 2013 funds) provided a post-hoc excuse for the money transfers without holding a charter-required annual election. Because the Loch Lomond covenants expressly excuse the lake owner and the lot owners from maintaining the lake in any size, depth, or condition, it does not appear that 765 ILCS § 160/1-5 supports the contention from attorney hired with the funds that the community consisting of the three Loch Lomond subdivisions constitute a "Common interest community" which is excused from holding any election for a year after a scheduled election meeting which is cancelled because of a lack of a quorum.

Even if the statute somehow excuses common interest communities from holding elections for a year under certain circumstances if a quorum is not achieved with a scheduled election meeting, (1) the three Loch Lomond subdivisions (along with the two or now three outside adjacent subdivisions) do not constitute a common interest community, (2) the LLPOA's charter particularly requires annual election meetings while limiting voting and office-holding eligibility to Loch Lomond property owners, and (3) Art IX, Sec 2 of the bylaws incorporate Robert's Rules which provide that no regular business of a corporation can be continued without conducting an election meeting with a quorum at earliest available time period. The election meeting, of course, must be a bona fide one. The participants in this scheme collected and transferred $186,121.85 (Folder F) for the year in which no election of any kind was held, not even a mock election.

There are at least five subdivisions which those involved in this scheme have falsely represented constitute a single "Loch Lomond subdivision. If Attorney Nesbit and those who work under him claim to believe that the LLPOA is a master association for all five subdivisions (or now now six if the Hickory Hills subdivision is included), even if the charter requirement of holding annual elections can be somehow negated, 765 ILCS § 160/1-5 expressly provides that the term "common interest community" does not include a master association.