Recall when I mentioned that the Board of Directors supported the implementation of the Flock Camera, proposing a modest increase in dues of $10 per parcel.
Subsequently, when Flock terminated the contract due to owner dissent, they chose to increase dues by $18.55 per parcel and discontinued monthly Board Meetings, limiting them to just four times a year. This decision effectively minimized their engagement with the owners and members they were elected to represent.
I understand they claim it was not an act of retaliation. However, what other reason could there be for opting for an $18.55 per parcel increase after previously stating that they only required $10 per parcel to address “security” and that the budget was in excellent condition?
The video below will illustrate precisely what we were discussing. It also contains additional insights they provided. This video runs for just over 21 minutes, but I deemed it essential to include the complete statement from the Board of Directors concerning our opposition and the successful thwarting of this initiative. I even accelerated it to 2x speed, yet it still felt somewhat lengthy and replete with gaslighting.
All 2,800+/- members were not aware of the Flock system and did not give their approval for it. Only approximately 250 reside on their properties. The assertion of only 1% disapproval is disingenuous.
Please note that all but the initial 20 seconds of the clip originate from the same meeting held on September 16, 2024. The first clip is taken from the meeting on August 19, 2024.
Consider the scenario where your Board of Directors is unable to allocate a budget of $500 per year for a website. They then claim that there is insufficient budgetary space for mailing notifications to all owners. However, the President utilizes your dues to send letters to all owners for two consecutive years to promote himself and the current board members.
Subsequently, they approve a budget item amounting to $25,700 annually for Flock Security, even though security is not part of their duties and despite members present voicing their objections!
Surprisingly, this is not a figment of imagination; it is not a baseless accusation; it is entirely factual, and there exists video evidence.
Wait until you see how they retaliated when the Flock System fell through.
Welcome to the Communist State of Stagecoach Trails at Santa Fe Ranch.
CORRUPTION: A form of dishonesty or a criminal offense that is undertaken by a person or an organization that is entrusted in a position of authority to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one’s gain.
We are going to take a break for a short while. I have several Zoom meetings to edit. I prefer to provide documentation to support some of the matters that have been discussed.
I am uncertain whether they became so comfortable in their roles that they did not mind what they said, or if they simply forgot that everything was being recorded.
While I focus on that, I put this together rather quickly. It is poorly executed, but it gives you an idea of the Board and Management we are dealing with!
The annual Board Member Election was conducted in an exceptionally inadequate manner by both the property management firm and the Board of Directors, excluding the newest elected member.
Here we go, there is much to consider!
I deliberated extensively on how I wished to convey this segment. Should I dissect every detail into several parts, or should I simply provide a summary of the most outrageous elements?
Ultimately, I opted for a summary. If the Board of Directors and Property Management Team permitted the Vice President to operate fraudulently, whether due to incompetence or intent, for four years, then the smaller, albeit equally unethical actions would not be as surprising.
Those who decided to run completed a Letter of Intent (LOI) and returned it; all were accepted.
On January 21, 2025, we received an email from Property Management titled January Newsletter. This was, in fact, a letter informing owners that they had chosen not to mail candidate statements to owners. You had to request that they be sent to you! They would only be distributed via email. Thus, you could only view the mission statements of any new candidates running if you had an email registered with the Property Management company. They anticipated that owners would vote without any information regarding whom they were voting for. Now, what could be the reason for this? Perhaps they hoped that individuals would simply vote for what they were already familiar with?
The justification they provided for this decision was to ‘save money.’ However, Robert Hooper had expended $4,000 of our POA dues to distribute a ‘Holiday Letter’ praising himself and the other board members while disparaging anyone who raised concerns about the situation. It appears he also sent a letter to owners the previous year discussing the ‘disruptors’ as well!
Screenshot of the statement he made in 2023, and used POA dues to mail to owners.
“2024 Holiday Letter” that cost owners $4,000 (Very presumptuous of him to assume everyone celebrates Christmas. Judaism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, some Christian denominations like Churches of Christ, and Seventh-Day Adventists. Other groups, such as the United Pentecostal Church International and the United Church of God, also discourage or prohibit Christmas celebrations.)
They will only count your vote if your signature is on the OUTSIDE of the envelope that you MAIL through the USPS. (Are they unaware of the extent of identity theft that occurs these days?)
A considerable number of owners are located in Canada. The standard processing time for mail dispatched through USPS from the United States to Canada is 20 business days. I believe that the email sent on January 21, 2025, coincided with the mailing of the ballots. The election took place on February 15, 2025, and the cutoff for ballots to be received and counted by mail was February 13th or 14th, 2025. This allowed only 23-24 days for the ballots to reach the members, be filled out, and returned. Are you following this? They sent out the ballots with merely 23-24 days permitted for them to arrive, be completed, and sent back. The usual processing time ONE WAY between the US and Canada is 20 BUSINESS DAYS! Consequently, if an owner residing in Canada received that letter by mail containing the ballot and desired the statements of the candidates, they would not have had sufficient time to receive, review, make an informed choice, and return the ballot before the deadline.
During the annual meeting, several former Board members were present, one of whom is no longer a property owner and had no legitimate reason to attend. However, he was referred to as a “guest speaker.” The discussions primarily revolved around praising the current Board of Directors. No other candidates were afforded the chance to invite a guest speaker to highlight their own merits! Furthermore, the current Board of Directors was granted access to owner contact information for campaigning purposes, which was not made available to any other candidate.
It appears that the Property Management and the Board of Directors have intentionally established a situation where a significant number of votes go uncounted, allowing the Current Board of Directors to campaign with access to owner information and special speakers, while other candidates are denied equivalent opportunities.
This represents merely a minor segment of the various unethical actions carried out by Property Management Services and the Board of Directors to disrupt and manipulate election outcomes.
The interference and manipulation of the election were astonishing to me. What made this especially challenging to accept is that we have a member of the association who holds an elected government position. Ron Gould, the Mohave County Supervisor for District 5, only certified an election in 2022 due to external pressure. Nevertheless, he seems to be completely at ease with election interference and manipulation occurring within his own community!
You can interpret that as you wish, but for me, there are RED FLAGS ALL AROUND!
Now, what will we talk about next? I think I might do a list of You Have Got To Be Kidding Me’s!
Where were we… Ah yes, we were addressing the Facebook controversy surrounding the Flock Cameras and the emergence of a purported Community Watch.
At this point, it is November, and I have participated in my first Board Meeting, which left me less than impressed; there was a complete lack of leadership and an abundance of dictatorship.
Tensions are escalating even further due to the upcoming Annual Board Member Election. Many members are expressing their dissatisfaction and are running against the current board, including my husband.
To say the least, numerous accusations are being exchanged online. One individual alleged that the current Vice President had been serving in a fraudulent capacity as they were not a property owner.
Thus, I took it upon myself to investigate the accusation to either confirm or dismiss it.
To be eligible for a position on the Board of Directors, one must be a member of the Association, and to be a member, one must own property.
It turns out that John Shea, served as our Vice President for the years 2019-2024 fraudulently. In 2019, John signed a Disclaimer Deed, a legal document in which an individual waives their ownership interest in a property, often a marital home. This document is commonly utilized when a lender requires a spouse’s signature to ensure that they will not claim any interest in the property if the loan is solely in one spouse’s name. Essentially, it serves to formally declare that a person is not asserting any rights to the property. You can access the recorded document with Mohave County here:
The issue is that we have a committee composed of two sitting board members who are responsible for vetting anyone’s eligibility to run. I have requested the names of the board members who vetted John from our property management, as they are either incompetent or have intentionally allowed him to run fraudulently. It is my assumption that Property Management will not disclose the identity of the individuals involved. However, we can deduce that it must have been one or two of the following: Rob Hooper, Sharon Horton Kelly, Carol Wilk, or Jon Centanni. Perhaps they will choose to reveal themselves voluntarily. DO NOT HOLD YOUR BREATH! It is plausible that he conducted his own vetting, considering that the vetting process is performed by two board members instead of a committee of members; thus, one would need to vet oneself. How can checks and balances be maintained in this manner? They cannot, as there is a complete lack of accountability within this Board of Directors
An event must have transpired, as in February 2024, Donna executed a General Warranty Deed in favor of John, which is a legal instrument utilized for the transfer of ownership of real estate. This deed assured that John possesses a clear title, is the legitimate owner, and holds the legal authority to sell the property.
However, this action occurred AFTER he had campaigned for the Board, rendering that year’s service fraudulent.
The General Warranty Deed that transferred the property from Donna to John was witnessed by Robert Hooper, the President of the Board of Directors, along with his wife, Susan Gaul Hooper, and was notarized by Janice Gould, the wife of the Mohave County Supervisor for District 5. All of these individuals are also property owners within the Stagecoach Trails at Santa Fe Ranch Property Owners Association, and it seems they collectively aided a man in concealing his fraudulent service as Vice President.
In a typical scenario, the Property Management company engaged to assist PROPERTY OWNERS would support the members in holding the Board of Directors responsible for this atrocity. However, in the communist State of Stagecoach Trails at Santa Fe Ranch, the Board of Directors and Buck Reynolds Property Management Services will place their own interests above all else. They function without accountability to each other, as they are enmeshed in their self-serving agenda, which fails to benefit us!
Before we commence, I am confident that the watch group began with noble intentions. However, at some point during their journey, they appear to have deviated from their original purpose.
Amidst the ongoing drama on Facebook regarding the Flock System debate, I came to the realization that we seemingly had a Community Watch. I found this peculiar considering the nature of our community. (I use the word debate loosely, because that is something I do not see a lot of in disagreement from the majority, I see a lot of lashing out and refusal to hold wrong doers accountable).
Our community lacks municipal services; we are all accountable for supplying our own power, water, and septic systems if we wish to reside on our land. The roads, with the exception of an 11-mile stretch of Alamo Road, are dirt. Most of the lots are 40 acres, with a some being 10 acres. Of the 2,880 +/- parcels, it is believed that only 250 owners occupy their land as a full time resident. I could hardly fathom how anyone could effectively carry out community watch duties in such an environment.
I began inquiring with the individual who had self-appointed herself as the leader of the “Watch Group”, who seemed to have been endorsed by the Board of Directors, as her contact information was included in the list of the Board of Directors. As well as our community newsletter telling people to contact her in lieu of the sheriffs department.
This individual informed me that they did not conduct regular watch meetings, and she had the authority to decide who could participate in the community watch. When I asked what criteria were used to assess a person’s eligibility for participation, I was told that if she did not like someone, she was under no obligation to allow them to join. If she was unfamiliar with someone, they would not receive an invitation. This struck me as intriguing, as I wondered how she would instantly recognize new owners as they arrived on their properties and surely you are not going to like every person in the community. If this is a group being promoted by the Board of Directors we can’t have discrimination.
Upon further inquiry regarding the nature of the patrols they were conducting, I was presented with a series of activities that, to say the least, were evidently outside the purview of a community watch group and more suggestive of individuals posing as law enforcement officers. They sought to justify their actions by asserting that they had received sanctions from Sergeant Coffin of the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office. However, it is important to note that he has not held the rank of Sergeant since December 2022. Consequently, if she was indeed authorized by him and the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office, how could she remain oblivious to his advancement to the rank of Lieutenant? This served as a clear indication to me that the situation lacked authenticity, which could present a danger in this context. The majority of residents in this region are armed due to wildlife concerns and the insufficient presence of the Sheriff. Perhaps, rather than assuming the role of law enforcement, we should advocate for an increased Sheriff presence within the community?
In an October Town Hall meeting a Board Member who also appeared to be a participant in this secretive group they referred to as a “Community Watch” stated they had positioned themselves on a hill alongside this person, and conducted surveillance on citizens traveling a road while they were gathering information for the Flock Security Cameras. They discussed the various crimes occurring in the vicinity, attempting to rationalize the presence of the cameras as if they were the solution to all our issues.
All I can express is that this place feels as though I have departed from reality and entered the realm of Narnia! The Communist State of Statgecoach Trail at Santa Fe Ranch Property Owners Association, Mohave County, Yucca, Arizona!
Tomorrow, we will start the story of how we discovered that the Vice President was serving fraudulently.
We previously discussed the Flock Camera situation and how the contract was nearly finalized, despite the opposition from the owners.
Upon receiving the email from the owner regarding the proposed Flock System, many owners took to the local Facebook Group. I should clarify that there are multiple Facebook Groups involved, which is a separate issue altogether.
In one of these Facebook Groups, specifically the one managed by John Shea, the sitting Vice President of the POA at that time, posts opposing the Cameras resulted in the removal of owners. This Facebook Group seems to be utilized to manipulate the narrative.
Previously, some owners expressed their frustration with the authoritarian and hypocritical manner in which the sitting Vice President was managing a Facebook Group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/434498493420644/) that was meant for open community discussions. Consequently, another Facebook Group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/3474443259503500) was established. It is noteworthy that the original Facebook Group, overseen by John Pottymouth, also known as John Shea, the now former Vice President of the POA, permitted anyone to join and engage in discussions about POA matters; it was not restricted solely to property owners. In contrast, the newly created Facebook Group makes significant efforts to verify all members to ensure they are property owners within the Association before granting them access.
Now, why do I bring up the Facebook Groups? Because the moment I began posting or commenting about my opposition, a large number of long-time property owners attacked my character, intelligence, and appearance; these individuals were among the Board of Directors’ most ardent supporters, including the Vice President himself and his spouse. Any expression of disappointment, frustration, or anger—ANY form of sentiment that did not align with praise for the Board of Directors or Property Management—was met with intense backlash.
I have never witnessed adults behaving in such a manner simply for opposing something within a community, and to have this behavior endorsed by the Board of Directors was shocking!
Stay tuned for tomorrow, when we will begin discussing the ‘Community Watch,’ a term I use very loosely, as it seemed to function more like a vigilante group.
Yes, it is possible to sue someone for sending a cease and desist letter, particularly if it’s deemed defamatory or malicious. This is often done through a declaratory judgment lawsuit where the recipient seeks a court determination that they are not infringing the sender’s rights.
Elaboration:
Declaratory Judgment Lawsuits: A recipient of a cease and desist letter can file a declaratory judgment lawsuit to seek a court ruling confirming that their actions do not violate the sender’s intellectual property (like patents or trademarks), according to the Patent Trademark Blog.
Defamation: If the cease and desist letter contains false or misleading information that damages the recipient’s reputation, it could be grounds for a defamation lawsuit.
Misuse of Process: In some cases, if the sender of the cease and desist letter acted maliciously or without a legitimate basis, the recipient might have grounds to claim misuse of process.
Retaliation: If the recipient believes they were targeted unfairly or maliciously, they might consider filing a countersuit for damages or injunctive relief.
No Legal Power: It’s important to remember that a cease and desist letter itself is not legally binding. It’s a formal notice that often precedes legal action if the alleged violation is not resolved.
In October 2024, we received an email from a fellow owner who was attempting to inform as many owners and members of the Stagecoach Trails at Santa Fe Ranch POA in Yucca, Arizona, that the Board of Directors was trying to take actions beyond their designated responsibilities.
It was revealed that the Board of Directors, with the help of the Property Management Team, was attempting to compel owners and members to enter into a contract for Flock Cameras, despite this not being permitted by the ByLaws/CC&R’s. They proceeded with this initiative even though the majority of the few owners who were aware of the situation opposed the contract.
Fortunately, thanks to the owner who alerted us, the Board of Directors and Property Management had to retract this initiative. They found themselves under scrutiny, having claimed that Flock Systems had canceled the contract they had signed due to being contacted by owners regarding potential legal ramifications, as the Board of Directors and Property Management lacked the authority to engage this service.
When the Board of Directors advocated for the installation of the Flock Camera, they proposed a minimal increase in dues of $10 per parcel. They intended to allocate over $50,000 for just the initial two years without a budget for maintenance, no plan for who would manage the cameras, their locations, etc. The entire situation felt as if one had left the United States of America and entered a communist regime!
When Flock canceled the contract in response to owner opposition, they opted to raise dues by $18.55 per parcel and ceased monthly Board Meetings, reducing them to only four times a year, thereby avoiding interaction with the owners and members they were elected to serve.
This is merely the onset of the corruption you will face should you decide to purchase property within the Stagecoach Trails at Santa Fe Ranch in Yucca, Arizona.
I wish I had received information about the happenings in my community prior to purchasing our property in the Stagecoach Trails at Santa Fe Ranch Property Owners Association in Yucca, Arizona.
My husband and I discovered our property in 2021, and like any diligent buyer looking to purchase in a POA, I began my research. Unfortunately, there was little information available about the area or the POA. Had I known what I know now, my decision to buy would have been different. No amount of beauty could make up for the nightmare of the POA we became a part of.
We reviewed the CC&R’s filed with the Mohave County Recorder’s office and found nothing that seemed excessively problematic. They appeared somewhat outdated, having been written in 1999 and not updated since.
This wasn’t a major concern; we understood we were investing in a failed development. What was envisioned 25 years ago never materialized and likely never would in our lifetime. That was fine with us, as we were looking to escape the hustle of city life and development.
For the first three years, everything seemed perfect, mainly because we avoided attending any POA meetings or engaging with the Facebook page that served as the community forum.
However, in November 2024, we received an email from a concerned owner attempting to alert owners like us about the actions of our Board of Directors and the Property Management team.
Hold on tight, folks; what I have uncovered over the past seven months has been nothing short of shocking and appalling.
Susan Feels Really Peeved Over Abuse 