DBPR Archives - Coach Houses at Leesburg

Reasons to Avoid Buying a Condo

Do not buy a condo

There are many reasons to avoid buying a condo. As a condo owner for three years after owning homes for 35 years, I advise you to stay as far away from condo ownership as possible.

There are a number of articles online about the Pros and Cons of Condo Ownership, but they seem to be written by real estate people who want to promote the sales of condos.

Money Crashers has a good article titled Pros & Cons of Buying a Condo – Is It Worth It?

Realtor.com has Should I Buy a Condo? The Pros and Cons. Guess what they think! LOL.

PocketSense has Reasons Not to Buy a Condo. There is some good information in this article, but I believe all of these articles sugarcoat it and don’t seem to have true knowledge of condo ownership.

Reasons to Avoid Buying a Condo — Just DON’T

If you can afford to buy a home, buy a home. And buy one that doesn’t have a homeowner’s association. If you can’t afford to buy a home, I recommend that you rent a home, condo, or apartment. (Condos are usually nicer than apartments.) As a renter, your landlord has all of the problems discussed below…NOT YOU!

It’s Amateur Hour

Your neighbors run the condo. Do you really want a widowed senior citizen from Pasadena who was always a stay-at-home-mom deciding how you must spend your money?

Your condo association will be “managed” by people elected by you and your fellow owners.

From my experience, these people don’t know what they are doing and/or they have ulterior motives. As Board members, these folks are all-powerful. They have control of all the money and how anything and everything is done.

You Don’t Really Own Anything with a Condo – Reasons to Avoid Buying a Condo

Inside the walls of a condo Condo unit owners do not hold the title to the land on which the structure sits, so you only own what’s inside the walls, which is air.

With a house, you own the land and the building.

Please understand: You don’t own squat with a condo. I own 1,600-square-feet of air.

At Coach Houses at Leesburg, the owners are not allowed to rent their units, so no AirBnB income potential. That’s a bad deal.

You have No Control Over What it Will Cost YOU to Live in YOUR Condo in the Future

You have no control over the costs in a condo When I bought my condo, the monthly assessment (dues) was $300 per month. Thirteen months later, the three-member Board of Directors voted to increase my monthly assessment to $980 per month. SERIOUSLY!

I’m 72-years-old, disabled, divorced, live alone, and my sole source of income is social security retirement. $980 per month is half of my monthly social security payment. I was at break-even at $300 per month, but I am now having to use very limited savings to live in the condo that I allegedly own.

My Condo Association forecloses on people who are just a month or two late. If they foreclose on you, they own your condo, and you are homeless. I can’t risk that. I pray I can find someone who thinks they want to live in a condo to buy mine so I can move as far away from here as possible before I lose my condo.

Your State Agency that “Manages” the Condominium Businesses is Probably Incompetent and Possibly Corrupt

In Florida, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation is responsible for the condominium business. I thought I would be saved by the government of the State of Florida. You are led to believe that these paid government employees are there to help condo owners. Nope. I believe the DBPR is totally corrupt. They are buddies with the condo association attorneys and condo association management companies who are your enemies as a lowly condo owner.

If your Board violates every rule in the book and you complain to the agency and they screw you, you could lose tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The only way to be protected is to NOT buy a condo.

Click on the Tag for “Department of Business and Professional Regulation” below, and it will link you to every page in my story that discusses DBPR.

Reasons to Avoid Buying a Condo – You are Legally Screwed in a Condo

You are legally screwed in a condo Any time any of us have to go to a courthouse, we are screwed. Justice in America is rare for folks who aren’t rich or connected. If you have to hire a lawyer, you have to pay to be screwed.

If you get into litigation with the condo association, they get to use your money to pay their lawyers to screw you. In my case, the never-lawfully-elected Board has spent over $130,000 fighting me as I simply try to get them to operate legally. Why in God’s name would these people spend that kind of money? They must be hiding some bad stuff. Our condos are only valued at about $60,000. And by the way, guess who gets to pay part of that $130,000? You guessed it: ME. Screwed again.

There is no way to win legally because the corrupt deck is stacked against you. I’m doing it because I hate, loathe, and despise liars.

You can Lose Your Condo Home if the Condo Association seeks to Screwzee Vouzee Youzee.

You can be screwed by your condo association As I said before, you have no control, and your condo association can pretty much do whatever they want to you.

If the condo association raises your dues to an amount that you can’t afford, they can foreclose and take your condo, and you get nothing.

If your condo association does a special assessment for $250,000 to fix faulty foundations, and you are one of 32 owners, you owe $7,812.50. If you can’t pay it, they can foreclose and take your condo.

If the next year, they say $500,000 is needed to repair plumbing, electrical, roofs, or whatever, you owe $15,625. If you can’t pay it, they can foreclose and take your condo, and your “investment” in your home is gone.

How do you like the idea of being homeless? That is one of the risks you take if you buy a condo.

After what I have experienced, I don’t believe anyone in their right mind should buy a condo (except mine, of course, because I need to get the Hell out of Dodge aka Leesburg Florida).

Your Neighbors may be Dumber than The Little Old Lady from Pasadena – Reasons to Avoid Buying a Condo

Do not buy a condo At Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium in Leesburg, Florida, I have been amazed by how dumb many of the owners are. I don’t mean to be rude, I’m just telling it like it is. Dumb people are easily manipulated by those in power (the Board).

These folks do not seem to have any understanding of laws or legal documents, and they can’t afford attorneys. Most just want to live in peace and hope they can ignore what’s going on around them.

The Condominium Management Company may be Less than Competent at Best and Corrupt at Worst

Sentry Management was the condo association management company for Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Association.

Sentry Management is a horrible company, in my experienced opinion. You don’t want anything to do with them. Consider the laws and condo governing documents that SENTRY MANAGEMENT violated at Coach Houses at Leesburg.

A management company is supposed to know the law to ensure the amateur Board members don’t screw up. In my case, SENTRY MANAGEMENT violated the laws and rules again and again and again. From my evaluation, the only reason for them to act as they did was to try to cover up for their malpractice.

You Could Go to Jail

Tavares Florida Police issue an All Points Bulletin for a Condo Owner Believe it or not, Sentry Management and Clayton and McCulloh tried to have me arrested for attempting to speak at a condo meeting.

The Tavares Police Department actually issued an All Points Bulletin for me.

I attended a meeting held at the offices of Sentry Management. About half of the owners of Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Association were there. I tried to speak. Association members are allowed by Florida law to speak on as many of the Agenda items as they choose. Charlie Ann Aldridge refused to allow me to speak. She ordered me to leave. I immediately gathered my stuff and got up to leave to have her escort me out, and she summoned the Tavares Police Department. I later learned all of this had been set up in advance with the Tavares Police Department by Neal McCulloh of Clayton & McCulloh, the Association’s law firm. I kid you not.

The Condo Association’s Attorneys may be Incompetent at Best and Corrupt at Worst

Clayton and McCulloh of Maitland, Florida is the law firm for Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Association, Inc.

I have sued CLAYTON & MCCULLOH for malpractice. Read the linked portion of my lawsuit about the wrongdoing and malpractice of Clayton and McCulloh. If you decide to retain them after reading this, I believe you will undoubtedly make an outstandingly incompetent Board member or a potentially-screwed condo owner.

I believe CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH has committed the largest case of legal malpractice in history, at least with condominiums. I believe Clayton and McCulloh’s attorneys are either absolutely incompetent or corrupt or both. I believe both.

Click on the Tag for “Clayton and McCulloh” below, and it will link you to every page in my story that discusses CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH.

You should also read my article about all the malpractice committed by Clayton and McCulloh.

Here is a pdf file of my BIG lawsuit regarding Coach Houses at Leesburg.

I’m Going to Begin Helping Other Condo Owners with Problems

I’m William M. Windsor. I’m not an attorney… just smarter than most attorneys. I know a lot about condo laws and related problems in Florida. If you need help, email me at billwindsor1@outlook.com, or call 352-577-9988 and leave a message for a return call.

So, I’m becoming a Florida Condominium Consultant.

As I’m not an attorney, I don’t have to charge hundreds of dollars an hour. $25 bucks an hour. I can at least tell you how badly I feel you are screwed. I can definitely give you a game plan for fighting the wrongdoing. You should get $25 worth of “pleasure” out of speaking to a fellow screwee.

I didn’t write this article to start a new business, but when I got to the bottom of the page, I realize I have a valuable service to provide.

Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

COUNT EIGHT

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

WINDSOR adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 505 and statements of fact in Counts Two, Three, Five, and Nine.
CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH Defendants, the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS, and the DBPR DEFENDANTS.

The CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH Defendants, the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS, and the DBPR DEFENDANTS have been negligent. They have failed to use reasonable care. Reasonable care is the care that a reasonably careful attorney, licensed association manager, or government official would use under like circumstances.
Negligence is doing something that a reasonably careful attorney, licensed association manager, or government official would not do under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful attorney, licensed association manager, or government official would do under like circumstances.
The Statement of Facts and Counts One, Two, Three, Five, and Nine herein identify many facts that prove negligence, failure to use reasonable care, and professional wrongdoing. The DBPR DEFENDANTS showed bad faith, malicious purpose, and wanton and willful conduct. There has never been an appellate decision in Florida granting immunity to the DBPR or its employees.
This professional negligence damaged WINDSOR.

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section.

Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – CONSPIRACY

COUNT SEVEN

CONSPIRACY

Conspiracy

Conspiracy is one of the charges against the Defendants:

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 505.
WINDSOR asserts this claim against all DEFENDANTS.
They have conspired to do unlawful acts or do lawful acts by unlawful means. Many overt acts have been done in pursuance of the conspiracy. WINDSOR has suffered damage as a result of the acts performed through the conspiracy.
Upon information and belief, there has been an agreement between two or more parties to do unlawful acts or do lawful acts by unlawful means.
One of the acts of the conspiracy is to ignore the laws of the State of Florida and the corporate governing documents to put people who were not lawfully elected in control of the ASSOCIATION. The goal of the conspiracy was to enable the ASSOCIATION to operate unlawfully. All of the DEFENDANTS have committed overt acts in pursuance of the conspiracy. OMAR NUSEIBEH, VICKI HEDRICK, and KAREN BOLLINGER agreed with the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS and CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS to falsely claim the BYLAWS were amended. The CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS handled the legal work to document a BYLAW amendment that was never passed, and CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH filed it in Lake County Florida. CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH then lied about the validity of the amendment, and SENTRY MANAGEMENT covered up that there was no amendment and no minutes to substantiate a BYLAW amendment. Upon information and belief, the DBPR was brought into the conspiracy. MAHLON C. RHANEY has had ex parte discussions with RUSSELL E. KLEMM of CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH. The DBPR DEFENDANTS have issued opinions that are truly outrageous to assist the other DEFENDANTS in their wrongdoing. The CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS and SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS have been involved since Day One as were OMAR NUSEIBEH, VICKI HEDRICK, and KAREN BOLLINGER.
WINDSOR anxiously awaits discovery that may show who established the agreement and concocted the scheme. Upon information and belief, it was either OMAR NUSEIBEH, CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH, or SENTRY MANAGEMENT, and it was done in an effort to conceal wrongdoing, criminal acts, improper use of ASSOCIATION assets, and malpractice by CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH and SENTRY MANAGEMENT.
The torts include Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Contract, Breach of Corporate Governing Documents, Fraud, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Malpractice, and more. Upon information and belief, criminal acts have been committed.
The COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS have conspired with the ASSOCIATION and each other. The COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS, the ASSOCIATION, the CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS, the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS, and the DBPR DEFENDANTS have conspired with each other. All of the issues applicable to mandatory non-binding arbitration have already been addressed with the DBPR.
Each of the COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS has falsely claimed the BYLAWS were amended and that various people who were never lawfully elected were the Officers and Directors. The ASSOCIATION has participated in virtually all of the acts of the conspiracy. The CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS and the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS have facilitated all of the wrongful acts. ALL of the DEFENDANTS have ignored efforts to get state law and corporate governing documents honored.
The DBPR DEFENDANTS have violated Article 1, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution as part of the conspiracy. [See SOF 369.] There has never been an appellate decision in Florida granting immunity to the DBPR or its employees.
The DBPR, MAHLON C. RHANEY, and LEAH SIMMS acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. They violated the law, committed perjury, acted corruptly, and intentionally violated WINDSOR’s rights. There is no immunity for criminal conduct and conspiracy by a government agency or attorneys who want to pretend to be “judges.” They showed bad faith, malicious purpose, and wanton and willful conduct. [See SOF 502, 503, 504.]
A significant effort of the conspiracy has been to wrongfully declare BYLAW 2.2 was amended on August 1, 2017. The records produced by the ASSOCIATION at Inspections of Records prove that the BYLAW was not amended. The Minutes of the meeting do not even mention efforts to amend the BYLAW. [EXHIBIT 1287.]
WINDSOR has been damaged as a result of the acts done under the conspiracy. WINDSOR had to withdraw as a candidate for the Board. WINDSOR lost an $80,000 contract to sell his condo. WINDSOR has spent many thousands of dollars fighting the wrongful acts. The ASSOCIATION has spent over $130,000 with CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH battling WINDSOR’s efforts, and WINDSOR has been forced to pay 1/32 of that amount. WINDSOR has been forced to pay monthly assessments that are dramatically higher than the last lawfully-approved assessment. WINDSOR has been forced to endure emotional distress.

The DEFENDANTS developed a “peculiar power of coercion” possessed by the conspirators by virtue of their combination, which WINDSOR acting alone does not possess. Here it was the concerted nature of the actions of these DEFENDANTS that caused the resulting losses to WINDSOR.

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section.

Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – FACTS – SEPTEMBER 2019

On September 3, 2019, Ray Treadwell, General Counsel of the DBPR, emailed me to say he would not speak with me about incompetence and/or corruption on his staff. [EXHIBIT 1293.]
On September 3, 2019, WINDSOR emailed Ray Treadwell, General Counsel of the DBPR emailed, to say he lied to him in his email. [EXHIBIT 1294.]
On September 4, 2019, MAHLON issued an ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING, MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY in DBPR Case No. 2019-04-0349. [EXHIBIT 1329.]
On September 4, 2019, MAHLON issued an ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING, MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY in DBPR Case No. 2019-03-8814. [EXHIBIT 1329.]
On September 6, 2019, WINDSOR served MAHLON and RUSSELL E. KLEMM of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH with his Notice of Order in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-1020, 2019-02-6834, 2019-03-8814, and 2019-04-0349. [EXHIBIT 1327.]
On September 6, 2019, WINDSOR mailed his Notice of Order to the DBPR and Russell of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-6834. [EXHIBIT 1324.]
On September 6, 2019, WINDSOR mailed his Notice of Order to the DBPR and Russell of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH in DBPR Case No. 2019-03-8814. [EXHIBIT 1325.]
On September 6, 2019, WINDSOR mailed his Notice of Order to the DBPR and Russell of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH in DBPR Case No. 2019-04-0349. [EXHIBIT 1323.]
On September 6, 2019, WINDSOR mailed his Notice of Order to the DBPR and Russell of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-1020. [EXHIBIT 1326.]
On September 8, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to the members of the ASSOCIATION. [EXHIBIT 1434.]
On September 9, 2019, WINDSOR filed a SECOND AMENDED REQUEST FOR TRIAL DE NOVO in Case No. 2019-CA-001528 in Lake County Court. [EXHIBIT 1333.]
On September 9, 2019, WINDSOR filed a SECOND MOTION FOR CONFERENCE in Case No. 2019-CA-001528 in Lake County Court. [EXHIBIT 1334.]
On September 9, 2019, WINDSOR sent a PETITION FOR ARBITRATION REGARDING FAILURE TO ALLOW INSPECTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS to the DBPR for filing. [EXHIBIT 1332.] EXHIBIT I thereto is the FIFTH VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM M. WINDSOR IN SUPPORT OF MANDATORY NON-BINDING PETITION FOR ARBITRATION.
On September 9, 2019, WINDSOR sent a REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY [EXHIBIT 1335] for filing with the PETITION FOR ARBITRATION REGARDING FAILURE TO ALLOW INSPECTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS. [EXHIBIT 1332.]
On September 13, 2019, WINDSOR emailed a letter demanding an Inspection of Records that were not provided. [EXHIBIT 1352.]
On September 15, 2019, WINDSOR emailed the ASSOCIATION his Notice of Intent to file a Petition for Arbitration regarding Inadequate Notice of Meetings. [EXHIBIT 1362.]
On September 16, 2019, WINDSOR mailed the ASSOCIATION by certified mail his Notice of Intent to file a Petition for Arbitration regarding Inadequate Notice of Meetings. [EXHIBIT 1363.] EXHIBIT 1369 is the certified mail receipt. EXHIBIT 1441 is the signed certified mail receipt.
On September 17, 2019, WINDSOR emailed notice to the ASSOCIATION, Sentry, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH that he was still working on his massive legal action against Coach Houses. [EXHIBIT 1439.]
On September 21, 2019, WINDSOR received a Notice of Intent to File Lien. It showed WINDSOR to owe $678.68, and they charged WINDSOR $107.20 for Intent to File Lien Notice. It was dated September 13, 2019 but was not received until eight days later.
On September 23, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to the members of the ASSOCIATION, SENTRY, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH. [EXHIBIT 1435.] This was about SENTRY charging fees for filing Notice of a Lien when not permitted in the corporate documents.
On September 23, 2019, WINDSOR sent a certified letter to BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH. [EXHIBIT 1436.] This was about SENTRY charging fees for filing Notice of a Lien when not permitted in the corporate documents.
On September 21, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email regarding the Notice of Intent to File Lien. WINDSOR asked to be shown where in the corporate documents a $107.20 fee was specified. [EXHIBIT 1395.] There was no response.
On September 21, 2019, WINDSOR emailed a Notice of Intent to File a Petition for Arbitration by certified mail to the ASSOCIATION. [EXHIBIT 1393.] EXHIBIT 1442 is the signed certified mail receipt.
On September 23, 2019, WINDSOR mailed a Notice of Intent to File a Petition for Arbitration by certified mail to the ASSOCIATION. [EXHIBIT 1393.] This regards all of the disputes WINDSOR has documented. EXHIBIT 1443 is the signed certified mail receipt.
On September 23, 2019, WINDSOR emailed a Notice of Intent to File a Petition for Arbitration regarding fraud with the December 12, 2018 meetings to the ASSOCIATION, SENTRY, and C&M. [EXHIBIT 1437.]
On September 23, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to the members of the ASSOCIATION, SENTRY, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH. [EXHIBIT 1435.] This was about SENTRY charging fees for filing Notice of a Lien when not permitted in the corporate documents.
On September 29, 2019, WINDSOR emailed a message to the ASSOCIATION, SENTRY, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH. [EXHIBIT 1424.]

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section

Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – FACTS – MAY 2019

An Order Vacating Dismissal and Requiring Amended Petition was filed in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-1020 on May 1, 2019. [EXHIBIT 1003.] WINDSOR was instructed to use a form that would base his first petition for arbitration on Chapter 61-B-50, Florida Administrative Code (specifically Rule 61-B-50.105(2). [EXHIBIT 1008.] WINDSOR’s review of that form indicated it was designed for an association board’s filing, so WINDSOR questioned this in the amended petition and incorporated additional information. MAHLON was setting WINDSOR up for a dismissal.
On May 5, 2019, WINDSOR mailed a Second Notice of Intent to file a Petition for Arbitration regarding the March 22, 2019 meeting. He sent it to CLAYTON & MCCULLOH giving them until May 13, 2019 before he filed. [EXHIBIT 322.]
On May 5, 2019, WINDSOR emailed a Second Notice of Intent to file a Petition for Arbitration regarding the March 22, 2019 meeting. WINDSOR sent it to CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, SENTRY, and the ASSOCIATION giving them until May 13, 2019 before he filed. [EXHIBIT 323.]
On May 5, 2019, WINDSOR emailed an addition to his Second Notice of Intent to file a Petition for Arbitration regarding the March 22, 2019 meeting. WINDSOR sent it to CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, SENTRY, and the ASSOCIATION. He informed them of two violations of the DECLARATION. [EXHIBIT 324.]
On May 6, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to DBPR with a link to the form he found on the DBPR website asking if it was to be used for the Petition in Case No. 2019-02-1020. [EXHIBIT 1259.]
On May 7, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, SENTRY, and the ASSOCIATION advising them that he would be amending his Petition for Arbitration regarding the Election / Recall. [EXHIBIT 407.] WINDSOR asked them to advise him if they will agree that the Recall / Election passed. There was no response.
On May 7, 2019, Tia King of DBPR responded regarding WINDSOR’s Petition in Case No. 2019-02-1020 and told him to use the form he emailed on May 6, 2019. [EXHIBIT 1259.] The form is EXHIBIT 1258.
From April 26, 2019 to May 7, 2019, WINDSOR communicated with Alicia Lawrence and Tia King of DBPR regarding DBPR Case No. 2019-02-1020. [EXHIBIT 1259.]
On May 9, 2019, Tia King of DBPR emailed to admit to WINDSOR that Mahlon C. Rhaney, Jr. made a mistake in the order in DBPR Case No., 2019-02-1020 First Amended Mandatory Non-Binding Petition Form (“AMENDED PETITION”) was not due until Monday, May 13, 2019. [EXHIBIT 1297.]
The First Amended Mandatory Non-Binding Petition Form (“AMENDED PETITION”) was executed on May 9, 2019 and sent to the DBPR for filing in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-1020 with the Second Verified Affidavit of William M. Windsor in Support of Mandatory Non-Binding Petition for Arbitration (“SECOND AFFIDAVIT”) as EXHIBIT F thereto. [EXHIBIT 1009.] [EXHIBIT 1010.] The exhibits referenced therein match the exhibit numbers on the flash drive.
On May 13, 2019, WINDSOR sent the ASSOCIATION a Notice of Intent to Challenge Violations in Building B regarding the patio “enhancement” and the dog urine. [EXHIBIT 1153.]
On May 13, 2019, WINDSOR emailed the ASSOCIATION, Sentry, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH a Notice of Intent to Challenge Violations in Building B. [EXHIBIT 1154.]
On May 15, 2019, WINDSOR emailed the ASSOCIATION, Sentry, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH and stated that the Liebls should have been required to clean up violations years ago. [EXHIBIT 1155.]
On May 15, 2019, WINDSOR filed a Petition for Arbitration regarding the March 22, 2019 meeting and election of the ASSOCIATION. It was assigned DBPR Case No. 2019-02-6384. [EXHIBIT 1011.] [EXHIBIT 1012.] The exhibits referenced therein match the exhibit numbers on the flash drive. [EXHIBIT 1851 is the complete file.]
On May 15, 2019, WINDSOR sent a copy of his Petition for Arbitration regarding the March 22, 2019 Election to CLAYTON & MCCULLOH and SENTRY. [EXHIBIT 813.] He also served notice of intent to file a third petition for arbitration regarding additional issues.
On May 23, 2019, WINDSOR served the ASSOCIATION with Notice of Intent to file a Petition for Arbitration regarding failure to produce records in response to Inspection of Records Requests. [EXHIBIT 811.]
On May 28, 2019, Paula Bouie of DBPR sent WINDSOR a letter regarding his first Complaint for Failure to Produce Records in response to Inspection of Records Requests (DBPR Complaint No. 2019019600). [EXHIBIT 602.] The investigator claimed WINDSOR never responded, but that is incorrect. WINDSOR has come to realize that everyone with DBPR is corrupt.
On May 30, 2019, an ORDER REQUIRING ANSWER was served on the ASSOCIATION on WINDSOR’s Petition for Arbitration regarding the March 22, 2019 meeting and election of the ASSOCIATION — Case No. 2019-02-6384. [EXHIBIT 584.]
On May 31, 2019, the DBPR sent WINDSOR a letter regarding his second Complaint for Failure to Produce Records in response to Inspection of Records Requests (DBPR Complaint No. 2019-02-8466). [EXHIBIT 798.]

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section