Threats of Violence Escalate

Threats of Violence Escalate

So the threats of violence against me for being a Unit Owner activist suggesting death have now risen to that level.

I would ask everyone to read message #257 before it is removed: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=104470019#post104470019

Actually, the original post below has been changed by the moderators/administrators at skyscrapercity.com.

Here it is before it was removed: "Has anyone heard about cracked skulls of nuisance soho central residents? Maybe someone wants to experience them. Let us know." This was written by a user name of "rough" who writes "porn star" below their name.

The moderators/administrators have now replaced it with "- edit: easy dude" after I reported the threat.

The threats and attempted assaults just never stop in "It's More Fun in the Philippines."

Sale of condo units sans permit in Makati opposed

Sale of condo units sans permit in Makati opposed

Written by Tribune Thursday, 20 June 2013 08:00

http://www.tribune.net.ph/index.php/business/item/15617-sale-of-condo-units-sans-permit-in-makati-opposed

Picar Development Inc. questioned the sale by Century Properties Inc. of condominium units in Makati even prior to getting approval from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)in clear violation of the law.
The property company said it found questionable Century’s sale of units in Gramercy Residences at a time its amended license to sell (ALTS) was still pending with the government regulatory body.
“That is a violation of HLURB rules — offering for sale or selling units without the license to sell which in this case is the amendment of the license,” Picar, the real estate arm of the Ama Group, said in a statement.
Century was quoted in a news article as saying that the HLURB granted it on May 31 an amended license to sell, which covers the units on the top five floors of its luxury condominium project along Kalayaan Ave. in Makati.
The amended license was filed on July 25, 2012.
Picar, however, questioned how Century was able to sell units in the five floors prior to May 31.
“If some of the units were sold prior to the issuance of the ALTS, are these not violations of the HLURB rules that merit fines?,” Picar said.
In a press statement last March, Century said it had sold 1,432 units in Gramercy before December 2012.
Under its original license to sell issued in April 2008, Century is allowed to offer for sale only 1,275 residential and commercial units in the building.
Picar said it is only the HLURB that can shed light on the matter of whether the 157 units sold by Century in excess of the 1,275 units covered by its original license, were sold before the issuance of an amended permit.
The company also asked the government body to address the issue of violations.
“Did HLURB issue a Notice of Violation to CPI for its Gramercy project with regard to the selling without (amended) License to Sell? Will the issuance of the ALTS moot the violations committed by Century?” it said.
The sale of additional units without approval is just one of the issues being raised against Century.
The other is its building of five additional floors on Gramercy without proper approval.
“We have all the documents to prove Century Properties Inc. added five additional floors on its Gramercy condominium project without the required building permit,” said Picar in a statement.

New Security?: Here is the Rest of the Story

UPDATE (06/30/13) :  Here is the posted memo.  The change is taking place tonight with new guards and we will see the secret of who will stay from the old guard since the board meetings are held in secret.  It seems that the replacement of concierge personnel has already taken place.

 

 

 (Click here for a .pdf of the memo.)
 

New Security?:  Here is the Rest of the Story

Borrowing from Paul Harvey of the past "here is the rest of the story" theme from his famous US broadcast, there is a truth or more facts behind the memo we have now seen in the building which will be posted here today.

The new security agency from what I have now been told has been required by the Board and one of the developers was also named by the employee of the new company to retain ten (10) of the guards.  Is this true?  Why was the kept secret?  What has taken place at the meetings of the Board to discuss and approve this?

If true, this does not allow for a clean slate given all that has taken place and not taken place since turnover.

Our MONEY spent and decisions made at private and secret Board meetings.  We have still not gotten all the Minutes and Boards Resolutions.  We have still not gotten answers to the 17 letters from last year.  So much done behind closed doors without our knowledge and consent.

What is and what will be special about the old guard within the new security force?

Not even a clean slate from behind the dirty curtain.

Is a Private Security Guard to be set up within the new security force?

Is a Private Security Guard to be set up within the new security force?

Some security personnel are being transferred to the new company per the Board?

The following was sent to me by Regina Alemania; and at her request, I am posting without the names.  The redacted names along with others may be brought up at the Annual Meeting in August.

"POST THIS WITH MY NAME. . . . .in fairness to those security who will be removed together with the change of Security Agency.

[A Board member who was recorded] - accused Regina Alemania of not performing broker business in Soho Central but instead having " BOYFRIENDS SECURITY GUARDS " during last year’s Annual Meeting with the attendance of unit owners and owner representatives and SPA.

Now the security agency will be changed for various reasons EXCEPT THAT THERE WILL BE A SELECTED FEW WHO ARE FAVORITES THAT WILL BE ABSORBED BY THE INCOMING SECURITY AGENCY. May I ask why retain and require the new agency to absorb the selected favorites???  [To the Insulting Board Member], is not one of them your " BOYFRIEND " ???  Just asking because why retain these selected few.  A lot of these security guards were asking me how come they will change the security BUT RETAIN the favorites and particularly one who has a case and scandal in Soho who got intimately involved with Concierge ladies, unit owner whom the husband caught, etc. and another favorite who carries the bags of [Two Board Members].  They told me you Board people are so UNFAIR to those security guards who have been honest and dedicated to their work wherein most of the time they are assigned in the basement parking. 

If the security agency will be changed, then REMOVE, I REPEAT, REMOVE EVERYONE WHO IS WITH EMME SECURITY AGENCY. This way you people will be fair with the rest. Aside from this, since you are saying that you are stepping down, why retain these selected favorites, NOT UNLESS THESES GUYS WILL BE YOUR OWN PERSONAL ESCORTS . . . . BUT salary will have to come from your own pocket.

I am posting this to give myself JUSTICE for what you, have accused me of during last year’s Annual Meeting. And this posting had been approved and read by the unit owners that I am managing in SOHO Central."

Freedom and now the Cleanup at Bel-Air Soho

Freedom and now the Cleanup

at Bel-Air Soho

As stated in the message from the Bel-Air Soho Condominium Corporation's President, "tens of thousands of condo owners like you are being cheated, bullied, ridiculed and suppressed by the developers of their condos, yet, all they can do is to accept the injustice until someone from their ranks will lead and work for their liberation from the oppressors."

Sadly, damage was presented to the new Board from the management and unelected Board ordered to leave by a judge who had to issue not just one but two Orders from the Court to vacate.  At our building, Soho Central, we may need additional insurance coverage for such damage.

Please read the message and discuss their situation in relation to ours.  Our next annual meeting is in August as required by the By-Laws.  The meeting last year was delayed in violation of the By-Laws.

 

(Click here for a copy of the image above.)

 

(Click here for a copy of the image above.)

Rumors: Security Company

UPDATE (06/11/13):  The last incident that seemed to be the last straw regarding security took place on the 8th floor in the Mayflower tower.  If anyone has any general knowledge as to the nature of the problem, please let us know.  Security in this building from what I have been told was a problem since turnover.  Of course, we have experienced this even before coming to live with our unit being broken into or entered with a copy of the key without our knowledge and consent.  I have written about the keys and various security matters in the past.  Yes, the Board took its sweet time to actually address the issue at least in part.

Rumors:  Security Company

Yes, since Unit Owners, members of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation (SCCC), are given little to nothing as far as information from an unelected board of directors, we must depend upon rumors.  The rumors have the security currently under contract leaving to be replaced by an unknown company.  We have never seen the past contracts and have not been allowed to see any new ones.

The 17 letters Ryan Reyes and I had sent at the end of November beginning of December 2012 have not been answered.  Among those letters was a request for copies of all contracts and policies.  From those Minutes and Resolutions given so far few of the contracts are mentioned.  So the question becomes when and where were they all approved on a yearly or periodic basis?

The board meetings that spend OUR money and make decisions for the building are held in secret and are private.  Unit Owners who are members of the SCCC are denied to witness the transactions.  Being that they are not open for Unit Owners, what is there to hide?

Rumors have the current security given the boot due to at least two incidents.  What were the natures of these incidents?  One, I believe, involved an unruly tenant causing various problems but the other is not known to us.

Oh, and before any rude responses, being given notices of work or directives is not sufficient.  Unit Owners are members of the SCCC and deserve the respect we have never gotten.  It is not enough to have ideas originating within a developer controlled board or borrowed from others implemented without Unit Owners witnessing and giving tacit consent.

Slanderous Violation

Slanderous Violation

I was just told by an Australian that a sales agent stated that I work for other developers and that is why I write what I do.  I challenge that sales agent to report their claims to the BIR and Labor.  They are committing lies against me which are slanderous.

Who is this pig that makes such remarks against my character?

Oh, and the other statements made by the sales agent were illusions even I was shocked by how absurd they were.