Thursday, July 28, 2005

Fight back

My last letter to Don Weddle, President of SCCA
No response ever followed after this letter.

July 28, 2005


Don Weddle

26850 Sun City Blvd.

Sun City, CA 92586

Case No. 2005-285

Dear Mr. Weddle,

The California Supreme Court, in a decision usually referred to as the Nahrstedt case, held that CC&R’s are to be enforced unless they fail to pass any one of three tests: (1) being arbitrary, (2) violating a fundamental public policy, or, (3) Imposing a burden on the association member that substantially outweighs the benefit to the association as a whole.

As already stated at the hearing, the bushes were already that height when I purchased the property in 1998. The statute of limitations is three years. You judged a violation in July 2005. I don’t have to cut them down. Considering the longest part of the dimensions on my lot parallels Murietta Rd., a very busy public street and this is a corner lot, my lot does not fit the same criteria as an inside lot. In spite of all good and factual reason, you insist on claiming our lot must conform to your false claim. What you are doing fits the Supreme Court’s definition of “arbitrary” as stated above.

Considering there is a school cross walk very near my lot line and a bus stop across from my wall which attracts abundant pedestrian traffic, it makes my property vulnerable to the public. Cutting down any bushes that would deprive us of privacy and expose us to increased public view would jeopardize the safety of my property, the lives of my family, diminish the esthetics of our yard and deny us quiet enjoyment of our home. This is a burden my family can not bear. (This fits the Supreme Courts #3 definition in the above quote.)

Which is your greater concern? Are you concerned for the protection of my family,our property, our lives, and our privacy? Or is forcing us to conform to your arbitrary judgment of a trivial CC&R your highest and best motivation in all this? Which is it, Don Weddle?

We are in violation of nothing. We do not owe you any fines. You are wasting the member’s time and money by your continual harassment of us. As you know, SCCA is a non profit corporation. You are not allowed to be wasting the member’s dues on frivolous efforts. The nearly twenty letters I have received from you this year at the behest of Carl Fuess over no violations is a waste of the membership money. To add to the waste is the cost of the vile “Special Election Ballot” you printed and mailed to over 4000 members then canceled. To add to that cost are all the other letters of harassment sent to various members for trivia. What is going to happen to membership money when they all decide to sue SCCA Board? That’s a whole lot of legal fees and waste of membership treasury. Don’t you realize, Don Weddle you are supposed to conduct membership business so as to avoid law suits, Don Weddle? This is irresponsible and incompetent management. Use of membership money to satisfy your desire to force people to conform is wrong, Don Weddle. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Are you also aware that harassing a member for retaliation purposes because a member is exercising a recall movement against you is illegal? I truly believe you are attempting to retaliate against me because of the news letter SHOUT, I wrote and that I have begun a petition to recall you and the entire board. You are not acting responsibly with the member’s money, Don Weddle. Don’t you think you should clean up your act before some one else does. So why don’t you take me off your persecution list and leave me alone. In the face of all rational information I have just given you as to why we are not in any violation of anything, if you still continue to send me letters falsely accusing me of a violation and to correct it or I owe you fines, then I can only conclude your continuing harassment upon me is an act of retaliation.


Therese Daniels

Cc: attorney

To publish on the internet

To publish in the next issue of Shout

To anyone interested in the modus operandi of the SCCA Board