June 23, 2011 by kayfrank.

(Revised)  Mr. David Berman appears to have made a really big mistake this time.

He commented about SCA’s apparent plan to go to tax court to appeal the IRS audit report:

“… I had significant exposure to this process during my years in the Exam
Division of the IRS, and if it comes to that, you and Mr. Johnson will be proven
wrong.  An appeal of an IRS decision through the Tax Court is simply not the
commencement of litigation or a “civil action.” It is a RESPONSE mechanism, not
that of a plaintiff commencing an action.”

Did David Berman not previously confirm he was convicted of forging a judge’s signature
on tax documents and lost his law license?  And, did he not previously claim to have gone
to work for the IRS as a low-level, UNIX minicomputer system administrator and trainer-
-but, not as an attorney?

If so, how could he now be claiming to have been working in the “Exam Division of the IRS”
as if he had been employed as a tax attorney?  It makes one wonder if he ever disclosed to
the IRS that he was suspended from practicing law after admitting to being a forger?

As a former IRS Auditor, I had to go through extensive personal checks prior to employment.
I  doubt the IRS would have hired him or allowed him to continue being employed if it had
known about his forgery conviction.

It is also unlikely the IRS would have allowed him to participate in legal discussions or have
access to taxpayer records if he had disclosed his forgery record.  And, why would the IRS have
allowed a self-acknowledged/convicted forger and disgraced/suspended attorney to have
access to private tax records for a decade before being allowed to retire?

When I worked for the IRS, any personal history data that was discovered to be missing or
deceptively  submitted could have resulted in termination and prosecution.

So, we need to ask, why should anyone believe anything this disgraced individual says?  Do
we believe he participated in tax law discussions while deceiving the IRS about his being a
forger and having lost his law license?  Or, did he fabricate a false and/or carefully deceptive
story?

———comments added on June 25, 2011———-

By the way, I believe Mr. Berman is dead wrong by saying “An appeal of an IRS decision
through the Tax Court is simply not the commencement of litigation or a “civil action.” 
The final ruling by the IRS appeal process is truly “final” from the IRS perspective.  

The United States Tax Court process is run by a totally different agency.  Going to US
Tax Court is a civil litigation action that NRS116 and our governing documents appear
to require unit owners to approve–in advance.   Ask any of our SCA retired IRS agent/
auditor members or a licensed tax authority for their opinions before accepting anything
that Mr. Berman is spinning.

In the meantime, many members believe that the board is obligated by law to fully inform
every unit owner via the “Spirit Magazine”, “Relay Newsletter” or by a special letter of the
full facts, costs of appeal, projected costs of ligation and projected “savings”.  

The board must also follow Generally Accepted Accounting Rules by establishing a special
reserve account in the 2012 budget in the event the Association has to pay the full costs of
losing the appeals and litigation actions and related court costs and lawyer fees. 

It seems obvious that the total costs of appealing the IRS audit report finding could far
exceed the initial amounts.  History shows that corporations who dare to challenge the IRS
through Tax Court have a disastrous track record (while the involved attorneys get wealthy).
For example, there is a notorious Canadian company that went to Tax Court with a $50
million liability, and emerged 10 years later with a Tax Court ruling of owing $500 Million!

Our members would be truly foolish to allow the board and its self-serving auditor and
attorneys to continue to follow the current path.   It is impossible for me to imagine a
favorable financial outcome for our unit owners.

Kay Frank

Posted in Truth Squad, kay_frank, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations, Laws & Rules, News! | Print | No Comments »

June 22, 2011 by bobfrank.

The Berman Blog has said concerning the charges made by the State of Nevada against former Board President/VP/Treasurer Roz Berman (and other 2007/2008 Directors):  “These types of hearings are held on a regular basis and, while not fun to go through, they have never been labeled “indictments.” In fact, there was a time in the past when Bob Frank himself was facing the possibility of one of these hearings, and you never saw him calling it an indictment.”

Of course, we should expect him to try to cover up for his spouse’s flagrant (alleged) law violations as clearly described in the “indictment” from the Attorney General.   See Anthem VOICE article below for the facts in the actual correspondence from the Attorney General’s Office.  Some might argue the process resembles a Grand Jury process where the Attorney General and Real Estate Division collaborate on the results of an investigation that concludes in the indictments and prosecutions of the accused directors.

While it might be called an “administrative hearing,” it is nothing like the “administrative” reviews some people have witnessed.  The hearing is judged by the Governor-appointed Nevada Commission for Common Interest Communities, and prosecuted by the Deputy Attorney General.  The accused have most of the features and powers of a criminal trial including the rights to introduce evidence, issue subpoenas to compel witnesses to testify, and to cross examine witnesses.  Such hearings (trials) are not scheduled unless there is compelling evidence of law violations.

High-powered defense attorneys  are provided by the board’s Directors & Officers Insurance–with $25,000 deductible authorized for each of the accused directors to defend them against the Nevada Attorney General’s charges.  Convictions could even lead to referrals to law enforcement for prosecution on possible criminal charges.

The State conducts only a few such hearings each year.  Out of 3,000 NV homeowner associations with about 21,000 board members, it is truly a rare occasion for the State to have to go to such trouble to prosecute HOA Director violations. 

Usually the accused directors will respond to State requests to correct any alleged law violations and to promise to not do it again.   But, the SCA Directors and attorney have stonewalled the State for the past 3 years and forced this costly hearing/trial process.  The attorney received about $30,000 for this unlawful work in 2008.  He probably does not intend to admit his guilt and refund the money to SCA unit owners.

So now SCA members will have to pay up to the $25,000 insurance deductible on top of the wasted previous attorney fees. And, no matter how the suspended-attorney-forger-spouse wants to try to spin the truth, this “grand jury-like hearing/trial” is a very serious matter for Roz Berman, Mike Dixon and their associates.

Finally, Mr. Berman lied when he claimed/inferred I previously could have faced such a hearing/trial.  The process never resulted in an “indictment” against me because the Attorney General refused to prosecute.  There was a total lack of valid evidence of any wrong-doing in the 17 allegations submitted by the SCA Board.  All allegations were dismissed/dropped by the State as unfounded.  The record shows that in spite of massive efforts and expenses in 2007 and 2008 to try to force me to resign from the board, or to have the State forcibly remove me from the board, the 2007 Board led by Mike Dixon and Roz Berman failed completely.

Since nothing was valid or substantiated, the Attorney General never charged/indicted me on anything.  History shows that my only mistake was thinking that directors Mike Dixon and Roz Berman (who had also pledged during their board campaigns to fire the Del Webb/Pulte-selected attorney and auditor) would honor their commitments. 

We have all been double-crossed by the boards and attorney since 2007.  And, the windfall profits for the association attorney is believed to have exceeded one million dollars in the past few years.

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules, Operations | Print | No Comments »

June 18, 2011 by bobfrank.

(Revised)

This is to report that the Nevada Deputy Attorney General has removed my name from the list of Sun City Directors indicted for violating Nevada laws governing homeowner associations.

See my correspondence requesting to be released from being a respondent, and the State of Nevada Letter in response:

Frank Response to NV Real Estate Division

Frank Response to Deputy Attorney General

Frank Declaration of Innocence

SCA Board Meeting Minutes–27 March 2008

SCA Board Meeting Minutes–12 May 2008

Nevada Release of Frank From Indictment

The revised list of 2007 and 2008 directors under indictment by the State of Nevada are:  Rosalyn Berman, Shirley Cheri, Roger Cooper, Michael Dixon and Carl Weinstein. 

Personally involved in the statute violations, and listed as directors in the March 27, 2008 SCA Board Meeting Minutes cited as evidence in the case, but not included as respondents, are 2007 directors Bob Berman, Elaine Berg and Kay Dwyer,  attorney John Leach, and Community Managers Terry DaSilva and Caren Carrero. 

No reasons have been given for those individuals to be exempted from the charges.   But, we know they are personal friends and/or business associates of at least 3 of the 7 Common Interest Communities Commission members who will judge the  case.

The Deputy Attorney General prosecution of the accused SCA Directors will be on July 6-8, 2011 starting at 9 AM each day in the Grant-Sawyer Building. 

See the following file for more details on the allegations and potential penalties.

Law Violations Included in Indictment Against SCA Directors

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules, News! | Print | No Comments »

June 2, 2011 by admin.

(3rd Revision)

Due to some audience confusion during the board’s voting on the gaming issue, James Long’s vote was incorrectly stated in our previous report as favoring gaming.  But, he has recently advised us that his vote was actually in opposition to gaming and the comments below reflect that correction.

The new Board claimed in its May Meeting that a recent proposal by the only surviving lease partner
to take over the restaurant agreement was NOT contingent upon installing gambling/gaming machines.

But, that was a flagrant lie by the Directors and condoned by the attending association attorney and the RMI managers.  

The (previously secret) letter from Mr. Fred Slark dated April 7, 2011 (attached) makes it clear that installing
gambling/gaming is a deal-breaking condition for him to assume full responsibility for the current lease.
Anthem View Takeover & Demand For Gaming Permission  

Every Board Member since 2007 has known the majority of members of this community do NOT favor installing gambling
in the restaurant space.  In addition, the Tubin-controlled poll on gaming last year failed to satisfy the mandatory lease
terms and could not be considered binding on the association.

So, why was Mr. Slark’s high risk/low-member-value lease modification plan seriously considered?  Why did the Board
not summarily reject the offer after reminding Mr. Slark that gaming was not approved by his company’s survey/pool?
Is this not “business as usual” by the “new” board?

The Board’s vote in favor of gambling was 3 yes, 2 no, 1 abstain and 1 not present.

New Board President Jim Long voted against gaming–as he had promised during the campaign.

Celeste Bove weaseled-out by “abstaining” on the votes after claiming she “needed more information”.   But, she did not
make it clear  what “new information” would cause her to vote NO.  

Director Mike Carey had nothing new or significant to add before be voted in favor of the gaming.  He pontificated a bit
before caving in to the majority rule.

Director Jerry Gardberg woke up long enough to declare something incomprehensible about possible “litigation” before
he voted in favor of gaming.  As usual, nothing was provided to members to support the Gardberg rant.

Since Treasurer Dan Forgeron has personally managed the 3-year history of this totally failed restaurant lease, it is clear
his ego and unjustified pride in this handiwork will not let it die.  It is unfortunate that the association’s discredited
attorneys are able to get away with protecting such abject management failures.  If Mr. Forgeron had some personal
financial risk in this game, he would have abandoned this lease project in 2009.

Bella Meese was absent for her first board meeting due to going to CA with George for some medical work.

Wade Terry was the only director with the courage to vote NO for the lease modification+gaming proposal–as he
had promised during the recent campaign.

Even David Berman rose to speak in agreement with Bob Frank that the lease should NOT be approved IF it was
contingent upon approving gaming!   Imagine that unprecedented occasion!  It has not been seen since the 2007 ACE
board campaign days when the common objective was to dump Favil West, Attorney John Leach,  and their cronies!

Meanwhile, NO one has EVER produced any facts to support the opinions that gambling machines in our restaurant
MIGHT make the restaurant “profitable” from the members’ perspective.  The bogus idea that gambling would improve
the quality and/or pricing of food, service, catering capabilities, dining ambiance, or anything else of value to the vast
majority of SCA members has never been established.

Mr. Slark claims to be an honorable investor/manager in many businesses throughout the Las Vegas/Henderson area.
What else would you expect him to say?   But, exactly what has he accomplished while serving as a major investor in the
Tirzo-Tubin fiasco?  And, why should the Sun City Anthem homeowners trust him or the SCA Board in the future?  Have
we not had enough of this Tirzo-Tubin-Slark fiasco? 

And, what about the SUN’s September 4, 1998 report on the Gaming Commission’s rejection of Fred Slark’s application
for a gaming license for North Star Bar & Grill?   Was the license ever granted?  Why was this public matter about alleged
illegal gambling not disclosed before? 

Here is a quote of the relevant paragraph:

“–Rejected a request by Brian Cleland and David Saffren that their  application to be
licensed as shareholders of BFD Las Vegas Inc., which does  business as North Star Bar
& Grill, 5150 Camino El Norte, be withdrawn. The  board also rejected Frederick Slark’s
application to be licensed as shareholder of the North Star. The applications were
referred back to staff to give  the board more ime to review allegations that Saffren
and Slark had engaged  in illegal gambling. “I still can’t figure out what’s true and
what’s not true in this application,” said member Harris.  The board had indicated they
were going to deny both applications; Jeff Silver,attorney for the North  Star, equested
the staff referral to avoid a denial.”

Even if the board arbitrarily (and likely illegally) moves ahead with implementing Mr. Slark’s proposed agreement,
how will the board make Mr. Slark pay all of the hundreds of thousands of dollars required to modify the entire range
of facilities in Anthem Center?  Or, said a different way, what more facilities costs will the board secretly agree to pay
for to strike yet another bad restaurant deal?

Finally, when and what kind of escrow account will be established by the Slark lease-holder containing sufficient funds
to RESTORE the Anthem Center facilities to ORIGINAL condition–if the lessee should fail?  Not establishing such an
escrow account could be considered as evidence of a board conspiracy to commit fraud against the SCA homeowners.

Obviously, we need a FRESH start led by COMPETENT business people.  Mr. Stark does not appear to be someone worthy
of the high risks he has proposed.  

How can we get to the point of starting over without wasting another million dollars or more on the restaurant lease?

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations, News! | Print | No Comments »

June 1, 2011 by admin.

The Sun City Anthem Community Manager has distributed the following announcement:

“Looking for a way to give back to the community?

Have a background in Accounting or Finance?

We have a job for you!

The Sun City Anthem Homeowners Association Finance Committee (FC) is looking for residents with accounting and/or financial management expertise.

The FC is just beginning the 2012 budget development process. By joining now, a new member will have an opportunity to participate in the budgeting process, which provides a solid foundation for understanding and positively impacting the financial soundness of our community.

The ideal candidate should have solid experience in one or more of the following areas:

·Practicing or recently retired CPA or accounting professional

·Financial, accounting or MIS consultant for major corporation or government client

·Accounting or finance professor at a college or university

·Manager of P&L center, major department or internal audit with capital budgeting responsibilities

·Undergraduate and/or graduate degree in accounting, finance or business

If you are interested and want to make a difference in your community, please send a resume by no later than June 30th to:

“skyler.jewell” <skyler.jewell@scacai.com>   or 

“rckarrow” <rckarrow@cox.net>

AnthemVOICE would also like to encourage honest, ethical members with the strength of character to stand your ground on the truth to volunteer to serve on the SCA Finance Committee.   

If you are a CPA and you fairly follow what you know to be Generally Accepted Accounting Practices and can stand your ground in technical debates with the association auditor/tax preparer, you can make a huge difference in the future of this association.   Please help your fellow members!

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations, News! | Print | No Comments »