Re: Sun City Directors are indemnified --- members at large are not.

Bernie, the  "Business Judgment Rule".doesn't pertain to Blackmail/Extortion. Blackmail/Extortion is better defined under the RICO Act, therefore, does not provide any protection to the Board of Directors.

 In response to Stan Bjonerud's Email dated Wednesday, October 20, 2010, 7:59am defending and justifying the Blackmail/Extortion Letter sent to SCSCAI Board I pointed out to Stan that I find his defense and justification of these actions troublesome particularly page 4 of "THE LETTER" is a blatant case of extortion and blackmail by  the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force by the signers - Richard Post --Ed Walterscheid ------Frank Beers, Jim Flynn, Bernard  Bronstein, Gary Conrath

 "THE LETTER" has all the qualifications to be covered under The RICO Act. I am amazed that Stan and the signers would let themselves be involved in such an activity. Another troublesome matter is Stan's justification of their actions, by saying "in accordance with NRS 226 guidelines and regulations". (What is Stan talking about?) Maybe Stan should carefully reread "THE LETTER" particularly page 4.

The fact that four members of the Board (LaVaseur, Culen, Bachman, Cook) by not revealing  "THE LETTER" then removing President Stienman and appointing two of the signers of  "THE LETTER" (Flynn & Beers) has the appearance of a conspiracy, this is also covered under the The RICO Act.

This group of conspirators has never been held accountable for their actions. Now is the time to form a group of home-owners to expose their actions to the proper authorities and CH 13 HOA Hall of Shame program, I am available. Stan's Clan has to be held accountable if there is any hope of SCSCAI having an honest and fair 2011 Election.

Dwain A. Kramzar

2624 High Range Dr.

702.838.5049

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Bernard Silver <silverinvegas@yahoo.com> wrote:

During the past few days I have been reminded by several Association members, that members of  the Sun City Summerlin Board of Directors are indemnified if they unwittingly break the law.   Also, I have been reminded that this protection, via an Insurance Policy, which we association  members pay for, is augmented in general, by the Board of Directors, Covering their Rears   by using the commercial standard known as the "Business Judgment Rule". (check it on Google)  If we didn't have these protective provisions in our governing documents, it is unlikely that any person would serve the community. Within the conversations that I have had with some fellow association members, the situation of  Sheila McCanna, a licensed real estate agent, who, in my opinion, should have higher ethical standards, and Stan Bjonerud, the owner publisher of The Village Voice made a written  "Blackmail Attempt" dated August 19, 2010 whereby they sent a Memorandum to all Board members and others, threatening, with details, to disclose some personal details of some association individuals, staff and directors, unless the Board declined to follow the lead of President\Director Steinman in removing the Exec Dir from office.  The Board ignored this attempt of blackmail.  Now the critical issues that I am being questioned on are: 1. Why didn't the Board report the attempt of Blackmail to the appropriate law enforcement     authority?  2. Because all members of the Board are elected by the Association members, this Blackmail     attempt was in reality an offense against the orderly conduct of business for the benefit of     SC Association members.  As such, the key question that surfaces is whether it is reasonable    and practical for a lay Sun City Summerlin Association member to do what the Board failed to    do and have some impact in preventing this type of breaching of our civil laws? 3.  It appears clear that in this particular incident, Sheila McCanna and Stan Bjonerud, in their      attempts to run this Common Interest Community as they see fit, without serving on the Board,       have exceeded their rights and intruded on those of others.  As such, they are in the same      position as Board Directors.  They will not be indemnified from any legal expenses if      litigation becomes a fact and as I understand from counsel at this date I\we do not have any      problems relating to 'Statute of Limitations'. I am available for any discussions, private or on this SC-Buzz chatline that are targeted to be for the benefit of this community and the elimination of any similar incidents.     Bernard Silver   ===========================================================================