HOA Justice Now

The Omega Villas Case Study — Overarching Theory of Systemic Failure, Manipulation, and Control (2005–2025)

Prepared by Shawn Martin — Whistleblower, Evidence Archivist & Board Insider

Last Updated

I. Introduction — What This Case Study Reveals

This exhibit presents the overarching theory, based on 2+ years of investigation, of how the Omega Villas Condominium Association, its vendors, service providers, and legal/financial partners created and sustained a twenty-year pattern of governance failures, manipulated decision-making, systematic vote evasion, selective enforcement, and strategic non-disclosure of critical information.

This theory is supported by direct evidence across:

  • Board minutes (2005–2025)
  • Video recordings (2008-2009, 2023–2025 taken when the whistleblower was actively participating on the Board or from the audience)
  • Owner testimonies
  • Engineering reports (contradictory statements documented)
  • City communications and citation records
  • Loan documentation
  • DBPR filings and arbitration records
  • Florida Bar complaints
  • Official records requests (certified mail documented)
  • Attorney correspondence (demand letters, apparent NOA misrepresentations)
  • Contract specifications vs. actual work performed
  • Financial analysis spanning 18+ years
  • Federal agency correspondence
  • Internal to external research materials
  • First-hand experience as both homeowner (2007-2025) and Board Member (2008-2009, 2024–2025)

Documentation spans discrete but corroborated periods of direct evidence, including video recordings from 2008–2009 and 2023–2025, supported by continuous Board minutes, financial records, engineering reports, city correspondence, and owner testimony covering the full 2005–2025 period. While not all years contain audiovisual documentation, the written and documentary record demonstrates continuity of governance practices, decision-making patterns, and vendor relationships across the entire timeframe.

Each section of this theory is backed by existing Exhibits (CC, CC2, AA-series, U, L/L2, X, W, G-2, O, O2, Q, Q2, R, T, T2, BB), already published or in final preparation.

All referenced Exhibits correspond to a separately published Master Exhibit Index, which catalogs each exhibit by title, date range, evidentiary type, and relevance. Exhibit references throughout this case study are intended to direct reviewers to primary-source documentation rather than serve as standalone assertions.

II. Core Conclusion — This Was Not a Series of Accidents. It Was a System.

Factual statements in this case study are derived directly from documentary, audiovisual, or testimonial evidence. Analytical conclusions are identified through contextual language indicating inference, pattern recognition, or systemic assessment based on the totality of the record.

When viewed as a whole, the pattern suggests deliberate design rather than incompetence.

The Omega Villas Board and its associated service providers appear to have engaged in long-term, systematic behavior that created predictable conditions for:

  • Financial extraction maximization
  • Owner voting rights circumvention
  • Narrative control through selective documentation
  • Cost inflation through hidden alternatives
  • Retaliation against questioners
  • Shielding from accountability through coordinated responses

This system evolved across documented eras (see Exhibit CC):

2006–2008: Foundation Era

  • First City code citations that will become City fines appear
  • Vendor failures and unlicensed contractor issues (Gould Roofing case)
  • Early signs of non-compliance with building codes in 2006
  • Police involvement patterns begin
  • Financial irregularities emerge

2010–2014: Warning Era

  • City warnings escalate
  • Architect involvement begins
  • Structural concerns identified but not addressed
  • Management transitions (All Florida → Sunrise)
  • Reserve fund questions arise

2018–2023: Setup Era

  • Pre-40-year-recertification planning
  • Repeated acknowledgment in official Board Meeting minutes that material alterations require 75% vote
  • Engineer (S&D Engineering) states windows need “caulking” (2018-2020)
  • Board directs window replacement pricing research anyway (Nov 2018)
  • Stucco identified as cheaper option ($7-8/sq ft less than alternatives) but no information packet was ever mailed to all the owners
  • November 7, 2023: Critical meeting – windows and siding removed from “material alterations” list despite 12+ years of acknowledging votes required by the Board’s decision
  • No proxies sent to owners for material alteration votes on windows/sliding doors or siding materials (stucco, t1-11, or Hardie Board)

2024–2025: Implementation & Exposure Era

  • Construction commences February 2024
  • Furring strips discovered during 2nd floor work (not in contract scope that anchored a $4.85 Million Banco Popular Loan)
  • January 14, 2025: False “code changes” claim in Board minutes
  • Wall thickness increases blamed on “code” when furring strips allegedly caused it
  • June 25, 2025: Attorney Hollander’s NOA alleged misrepresentation letter
  • Multiple engineering “inspection” letters suddenly appear pushed by Hollander even mentioning foreclosure if non-compliance (2025)
  • Unauthorized special assessment issued November 30, 2025
  • Retroactive meeting scheduled December 11, 2025 (after assessment already issued)
  • System fully exposed through whistleblower documentation

By 2024-2025, the system was operating openly – suggesting confidence they would not be held accountable.

Florida Statute §718.113(2)(a) defines material alterations and improvements and requires prior approval of at least 75% of the total voting interests unless otherwise specified in the governing documents. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Sterling Village Condominium, Inc. v. Breitenbach, 251 So.2d 685 (Fla. 1971), establishes that alterations which substantially change the appearance or function of common elements constitute material alterations requiring owner approval. The Board’s own minutes from 2011–2023 repeatedly acknowledge this requirement, demonstrating contemporaneous knowledge of the applicable legal standard.

III. The Six-Part System That Emerged (Documented Through Real-Time Investigation)

1. Control the Narrative Through Selective Minutes

What the official minutes consistently omit (documented through video comparison):

  • Major confrontations and owner pushback
  • Substantive whistleblower questions and evidence presented
  • Legal threats and attorney coaching of responses
  • Police calls and removal incidents of owners that expressed dissent against the Board
  • Engineering warnings and contradictory statements
  • Contract deviations and scope changes
  • Material alteration discussions allegedly made without 75% owner vote as required by Condo Docs and Law (especially post-Nov 7, 2023)
  • Windows/sliding doors replacement discrepancies – 100% failed yet Phase 4 had no mandatory replacements issued when this subdivision has same age/type of windows/sliding doors
  • Loan concerns and financial irregularities
  • Vote evasion discussions
  • Cheaper alternative options for construction material options apparently ignored (i.e. stucco)

What the videos show (Exhibit X):

  • Confrontations with Board Members and Owners in the audience in Board Meetings that never appear in minutes
  • Attorneys guiding Board narrative in real-time which should be voted on as Board Matters but are handled without minutes or quantifiable discussions in meetings
  • Misstatements about City requirements which appear to be to sway or push owners into accepting Board-selected construction materials that resulted in expensive special assessments to additional fees
  • False claims about “code changes” to justify wall-thickness increases due to 2023-2025 Board controlled $4.85 M construction decisions
  • Board Meeting votes taken without proper process or notice to the owners
  • Proxy manipulation across phases (4 subdivisions – 128 units)
  • Strategic committee usage to avoid transparency and no minutes taken to provide accountability
  • Attempted suppression of video recording in certain Board meetings
  • Selective protection of certain owners from consequences
  • Engineering construction decision contradictions caught on camera
  • Windows/sliding doors requirement story changes over and over

Key Example: January 14, 2025 minutes claim “code changes require additional materials” causing wall thickness. Contractor Dorin stated in June 2025: “Code hasn’t changed.” The furring strips caused the thickness – not code. This false claim appears in official minutes as fact.

This is why Exhibits U, X, CC, and CC2 are essential — they reveal the systematic gaps between written records and documented reality.

2. Systematic Vote Evasion for Material Alterations

The 12-Year Acknowledgment (2011-2023):

Board minutes from 2011-2023 repeatedly document that:

  • Siding material changes require 75% owner vote
  • Windows/sliding doors changes require 75% owner vote
  • Material alterations require 75% owner approval BEFORE work begins
  • Multiple attorneys confirmed this requirement
  • Multiple architects confirmed this requirement

The November 7, 2023 Pivot:

Despite 12+ years of documented acknowledgment, this meeting appears to be where systematic vote evasion was implemented:

  • Windows/sliding doors removed from “material alterations” list
  • Siding removed from “material alterations” list
  • New list created only including most expensive items
  • No explanation for removal of material alternations items after years of acknowledgment
  • No proxies sent to owners for the material alterations for windows/sliding doors and siding materials
  • No 75% owner votes held as required by the Condominium Documents contract and by Florida Law.

What Followed (2024-2025):

  • Hardie Board siding chosen (most expensive option)
  • Stucco option ($7-8/sq ft cheaper) never disclosed to owners
  • Window replacements mandated for owner-responsibility items
  • Furring strips installed without disclosure (not in contract)
  • Sliding glass doors included in mandates
  • Some regular doors included in mandates
  • All without required 75% owner votes

Legal Violation: Florida Statute §718.113 and Sterling Village v. Breitenbach (1971) clearly define material alterations and voting requirements. Board’s own minutes allegedly prove they knew and ignored these requirements.

3. Create Permanent State of Manufactured Emergency

The Board and vendors maintained constant urgency through:

  • “Immediate deadlines” (with shifting timelines)
  • “City requirements” (often misrepresented)
  • “Engineering mandates” and accompanying demand letters from HOA Legal Counsel (that contradicted earlier statements)
  • “Unavoidable assessments” (without proper 75% owner authorization)
  • “Emergency structural conditions” (some created by their own decisions)

But the 2018-2025 record shows these “emergencies” were:

  • Often anticipated years earlier but not addressed (most due to alleged mismanagement of HOA resources such as hiring unlicensed or not properly licensed contractors)
  • Discussed Board agenda items behind closed doors without owner knowledge
  • Never properly disclosed until crisis point
  • Sometimes created by undocumented material decisions

The Window “Crisis” – A Case Study in Manufactured Emergency:

Timeline of Manufactured Crisis:

  1. 2018-2020: Engineer Farrukh states windows need “caulking” – not replacement
  2. Nov 29, 2018: Board directs management to get window replacement pricing ANYWAYS (before the engineer changes recommendation)
  3. 2024: Hidden furring strips installed (not in contract scope)
  4. 2024: Furring strips add 3/4″ – 1″ wall thickness
  5. 2024: Window flanges no longer align with thicker walls
  6. 2024-2025: Suddenly “all windows must be replaced” and multiple reasons were given on video
  7. 2025: Multiple engineer “inspection” letters appear pushed by HOA Counsel demand letters
  8. Critical: No similar letters for Phase 4 which has SAME windows

The “emergency” was manufactured:

  • Furring strips weren’t in contract
  • They created wall thickness problem
  • Problem used to justify window mandate
  • Windows are owner responsibility per Condominium documents’ Declaration
  • Board apparently had no authority to mandate replacements
  • Florida Statute §718.113(5) requires owner vote for hurricane protection on owner-responsibility items

Florida Statute §718.113(5)(a) provides that, where hurricane protection is the responsibility of unit owners under the declaration, the association may not require unit owners to install such protection absent approval by a majority of the voting interests. The governing documents at Omega Villas assign window responsibility to unit owners. Accordingly, any mandate requiring replacement of owner-responsibility windows without the requisite owner approval apparently exceeds the Board’s statutory authority.

4. Misrepresent Legal Requirements Through Attorney Coordination

Attorney involvement in the Omega Villas project did not merely reflect legal review after Board decisions were made, but appears, based on contemporaneous correspondence and meeting recordings, to have actively shaped the factual and legal narratives presented to owners, regulators, and lenders. The following documented statements and representations warrant scrutiny for accuracy and consistency with the underlying record.

Attorney Rhonda Hollander’s Role (Documented in Exhibit L2):

June 25, 2025 Letter – NOA Misrepresentation:

Claim #1: NOA “requires” furring strips

  • Reality: NOA states furring strips are required in one Hardie Board NOA approved configuration (permissive, not mandatory)
  • Reality: NOA explicitly allows “NO” furring strips in another Hardie Board NOA approved construction configuration
  • Reality: NOA explicitly allows “alternative fastening schedule or furring material shall be designed by architect or engineer”
  • Misrepresentation: Presented optional system as mandatory requirement

Claim #2: “No material alteration vote required”

  • Reality: Board’s own minutes 2011-2023 repeatedly acknowledge 75% owner votes ARE required
  • Reality: Multiple attorneys told Board votes were required
  • Contradiction: Directly contradicts 12+ years of Board’s documented knowledge

Claim #3: Stucco precedent (THE SMOKING GUN)

  • Hollander’s Admission: “Previous arbitration decisions have determined that removal of wood siding… with stucco, fell under the above exception and did not require owner approval.”
  • The Problem: If stucco doesn’t require vote, WHY DIDN’T THEY USE STUCCO?
  • The Facts: Stucco $7-8/sq ft CHEAPER than Hardie Board chosen
  • The Proof: This admission allegedly proves they KNEW cheaper option existed and deliberately concealed it

Of particular significance is counsel’s acknowledgment that prior arbitration decisions have treated stucco replacement as falling within statutory exceptions not requiring owner approval. This admission establishes that a materially cheaper alternative was known, legally viable, and previously validated, yet was not disclosed to owners during the decision-making process. The nondisclosure of this option materially impacted owner consent, financial exposure, and assessment outcomes.

Claim #4: “No change orders”

  • Reality: Furring strips NOT in original contract scope
  • Reality: Adding materials not specified IS a change
  • Alleged Misrepresentation: Undocumented changes claimed as “original agreement”
  • Evidence: Patty stated on video in 1st quarter of 2025 that no change orders have occurred

January 14, 2025 Board Minutes – False “Code Changes” Narrative:

Board’s Claim: “Code changes require additional materials… T1-11 buildings have new code requirement which require plywood and other materials that would bring the structure out about an inch and a half.”

Reality Check:

  • Building code did NOT change 2018-2025 for wall thickness
  • Contractor Dorin (June 2025): “Code hasn’t changed” when he advised whistleblower that studs in wall didn’t change per building code when the official minutes reflect 2×6 is now required vs 2×4 which is in the original construction
  • Furring strips caused thickness increase – NOT code
  • This false claim is in OFFICIAL MINUTES

Pattern Suggests: Coordinated false narrative between Board and attorney to justify unauthorized work and manufacture window replacement crisis.

The contemporaneous record does not support the assertion that building code changes between 2018 and 2025 required increased wall thickness. No applicable Florida Building Code amendments mandate such changes during this period. In June 2025, contractor Dorin expressly stated on record that “code hasn’t changed.” The additional wall thickness resulted from the installation of furring strips, a scope element not specified in the original contract documents.

5. Use Service Providers as Extensions of Board Authority

The Steering Committee Structure (Documented Across Exhibits CC, CC2, X, AA, R, O2, BB):

Financial & Legal Power Network (2005-2025):

Core Board Members (Continuity 2005-2025)
↕
Juda Eskew & Associates / Carol Eskew
(Accounting/Legal Liaison 2005-2025)
↕
Management Companies (Sequential Control)
- All Florida Management (2006-2013)
- Sunrise Management / Jay Pietrafetta (2013-2024)
- Your Management Services / Diana Morgan (2024-2025)
↕
Legal Counsel (Rotating but Coordinated)
- Lloyd Procton (Pre-2005-2022)
- Frank, Weinberg & Black (2008-2019)
- Hollander, Goode & Lopez / Rhonda Hollander (2022-2025)

Construction & Engineering Network (2018-2025):

Board (Patty, Blaire, Elizabeth, Eric)
↔
S&D Engineering / Farrukh Saveed
(Engineer of Record 2018-2025)
↔
Austro Construction / Levy Horvath
(Primary Contractor 2024-2025)
↔
Supporting Vendors
(Cavaliere Electric, etc.)

This structure created:

  • Information control (same narrative from multiple “independent” sources)
  • Reinforcement loop (Board → Attorney → Engineer → Contractor → Board)
  • Authority amplification (Board decisions validated by “experts”)
  • Accountability diffusion (blame shifting between parties)
  • Cost justification (“experts require it”)
  • Alternative suppression (cheaper options never reach owners)
  • Dissent elimination (coordinated response to questioners)
  • Legal cover (attorney misrepresentations provide justification)

The power structure allegedly enabled:

✓ Bypass owner votes through “expert requirements” ✓ Manufacture technical justifications for expensive options ✓ Coordinate responses to whistleblower challenges ✓ Shield specific owners from enforcement while targeting others ✓ Use attorney threats as community control mechanism ✓ Redirect blame for delays, fines, scope changes ✓ Present coordinated narrative as independent verification

This amplified Board power far beyond typical HOA governance into what appears to be an organized operation spanning 17+ years.

6. Shift Financial Burdens While Hiding Root Causes

What Owners Were Repeatedly Told:

  • “The City requires this”
  • “The engineer requires this”
  • “The loan requires this”
  • “Insurance market caused this”
  • “Your windows caused the delay”
  • “Termites created the damage”
  • “Code changes mandate this”
  • “Hurricane protection is mandatory”

What the Full Record Shows:

Structural Issues:

  • Rot was documented years earlier (2018 engineer report)
  • Termite issues were long-known but ignored
  • Roof problems existed since 2007-2008
  • Delays from Board inaction, not owner windows

Financial Misrepresentation:

  • City fines hidden from owners ($1.3M+ starting in 2023 because code citations remained uncured since 2008)
  • Reserves misrepresented in budgets
  • Cheaper options concealed (stucco $7-8/sq ft less)
  • True costs obscured through selective disclosure

Legal Violations:

  • Material alterations proceeded without required votes
  • Window removal became mandatory only AFTER undocumented wall changes
  • Board mandated work on owner-responsibility items without authority
  • Special assessments issued without proper procedures

Vendor Accountability:

  • Contractor mistakes shifted to owners (Austro damage, furring strips)
  • Engineering opinion changes without new findings
  • Management failures blamed on “owner non-compliance”

The Predictable Result:

Owners ended up paying for:

  • A chain of failures that started 18+ years ago
  • Decisions they never authorized
  • Options they were never offered
  • “Requirements” that were misrepresented
  • Problems created by undocumented construction changes
  • The most expensive alternatives when cheaper options existed

Financial Impact on 128 Families:

All financial figures cited herein are derived from a combination of Association financial statements, contracts, invoices, city records, and comparative cost analyses. Where figures represent estimates, they are identified as such based on documented unit counts, published pricing, or contemporaneous cost comparisons.

  • $10M+ construction project with questioned authorization
  • $1M+ in potential savings lost (hidden stucco option)
  • $1M+ in city fines (many phases unaware)
  • $125,000+ legal fees in 2025 alone (not budgeted)
  • $175,000+ additional construction assessments
  • Unauthorized special assessments (Nov 2025)
  • Property value destruction through governance chaos

7. Retaliate Systematically Against Challengers

Pattern Documented 2023-2025 (Exhibit L, L2, AA, AA3, U, X, W):

Against Whistleblower Specifically:

Legal Warfare:

  • Two DBPR arbitrations filed, HOA legal counsel engaged WITHOUT proper Board authorization (no votes in minutes)
    • These arbitrations may also be in contradiction to Florida’s SLAPP suit laws
  • July 17, 2024 arbitration (records access) – Cost: $2,844.06 + filing costs passed to whistleblower
  • August 20, 2025 arbitration (window inspection) – Additional costs still under Arbitration
  • Multiple certified HOA Counsel threat letters (June-August 2025)
  • False allegations in official correspondence
  • Attorney alleged harassment of emergency contractors

Financial Pressure:

  • $7,000+ in imposed costs during cancer treatment in December 2025 Special Assessment
  • Attempted to block whistleblower from emergency roof repairs in 1st quarter of 2024, yet Board would not make repairs
  • Forced to pay out-of-pocket $4k for emergency roof repairs for Association’s failure
  • Threatened with additional assessments for questioning the Board’s actions

Public Attacks:

  • Confrontations at Board meetings (documented on video)
  • False narratives spread by Board supporters (on video and copies of letters from owners)
  • Attempts to discredit whistleblower evidence by the Board and their supporters
  • Police presence escalations (150+ videos documented)
  • Public shaming during Board election meetings

Selective Enforcement:

  • Abusive enforcement of Rules & Regulations
  • Targeting whistleblower while protecting Board supporters
  • Selective interpretation of governing documents
  • Committee meeting exclusions (legal committee)

Coordinated Campaign:

  • Behind-the-scenes narrative building
  • Attorney-coordinated responses
  • Vendor participation (Austro, S&D)
  • Management company involvement
  • Efforts to isolate whistleblower in meetings

Against Other Owners:

  • Foreclosure threats for questioning assessments
  • Records access delays and obstruction
  • Intimidation through police presence
  • Legal threats for speaking at meetings
  • Selective enforcement based on Board alignment

Pattern Indicators:

  • Retaliation intensified after July 2023 lawsuit victory
  • Escalated after filing DBPR complaints
  • Increased after publishing evidence publicly
  • Coordinated between Board, attorney, vendors
  • Continued despite medical circumstances disclosure

IV. What This Overarching Theory Establishes

When all pieces are reviewed together, a complete system emerges.

The Omega Villas governance model appears to have operated through a repeating six-phase cycle:

THE CYCLE:

Phase 1: Limit Information

  • Selective minutes omitting key discussions
  • Records access obstruction
  • Committee meetings without documentation
  • Behind-closed-doors decisions

Phase 2: Control Documentation

  • Official minutes sanitized
  • Video recording discouraged/blocked
  • Contradictory statements not recorded
  • False claims entered as fact (code changes)

Phase 3: Manufacture Justification

  • Use vendors to validate Board decisions
  • Attorney alleged misrepresentation provides legal cover
  • Engineer opinion changes without new findings
  • “Expert requirements” bypass owner votes

Phase 4: Shift Costs and Blame

  • Most expensive $4.85 M construction options chosen
  • Cheaper construction alternatives concealed
  • Owner non-compliance with expensive construction replacements blamed for delays
  • Contractor errors passed to owners
  • Root causes (years of neglect) hidden or explained away as no reserves were ever voted on

Phase 5: Target Challengers

  • Retaliation through legal system
  • Financial pressure campaigns
  • Public attacks and character assassination
  • Selective enforcement
  • Coordinated vendor/attorney response

Phase 6: Sanitize Official Record

  • Minutes omit retaliation and key minutes may be deleted entirely
  • Police incidents not documented
  • Engineering contradictions ignored
  • Vote evasion not recorded
  • Repeat cycle for next phase/crisis

V. Why This Pattern Suggests Organized Operation Rather Than Incompetence

Key Indicators:

1. Precision of Repetition

  • Same playbook across different construction phases
  • Same tactics across different Board compositions
  • Same vendor relationships despite transitions
  • Same attorney coordination patterns

2. Coordination Across Parties

  • Board + Attorney + Engineer + Contractor alignment
  • Synchronized narrative changes
  • Coordinated response to challenges
  • Multi-party retaliation campaigns

3. Systematic Vote Evasion

  • 12+ years acknowledging requirements
  • Sudden removal from material alterations list (Nov 7, 2023)
  • No explanation for reversal
  • Proceeded without votes despite documented knowledge

4. Strategic Concealment

  • Cheaper options hidden systematically
  • Cost comparisons never provided
  • Alternative materials never disclosed
  • Financial impacts obscured

5. Sophisticated Cover Operations

  • Attorney misrepresentation provides legal cover
  • False “code changes” narrative manufactured
  • Engineering opinion manipulation
  • Retroactive legitimization attempts

6. Long-Term Continuity

  • Core Board members (Patty 2005-2025, Blaire 2007-2025)
  • Financial network continuity (Juda Eskew 2005-2025)
  • Pattern consistency across 20 years
  • Vendor relationships spanning decades

This level of coordination, consistency, and sophistication across 20 years spanning multiple parties suggests intentional design rather than repeated accidents.

VI. The RICO Pattern Elements

The following section maps the documented conduct against statutory elements commonly evaluated in civil and criminal RICO analyses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968. This mapping is presented for pattern recognition and investigative review and does not constitute a legal determination of liability.

18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968 – Organized Criminal Enterprise Indicators:

Enterprise Structure:

  • Defined group of individuals and entities
  • Coordinated activity apparently spanning 17+ years
  • Common purpose (financial extraction, vote evasion)
  • Continuity of relationships despite personnel changes

Alleged Pattern of Racketeering Activity:

Alleged Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341):

  • Allegedly posting false minutes to website or mailed via certified owner requests concealing vote requirements
  • Allegedly mailing unauthorized assessment notices (Nov 30, 2025)
  • Allegedly demand letters with false to misleading statements (June 25, 2025 NOA letter)
  • Allegedly mailing construction notices for unauthorized work

Alleged Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343):

  • Electronic transmission of alleged false meeting notices
  • Email coordination of alleged unauthorized construction
  • Electronic billing for work without alleged proper authority
  • Any wire transfers for any illegitimate assessments
  • Loan applications potentially based on false representations
  • Special assessments affecting FHA-insured mortgages
  • Financial reporting allegedly concealing unauthorized expenditures

Interstate Commerce Impact:

  • FHA loans (federally insured mortgages)
  • Hardie Board or other construction materials shipped across state lines
  • Interstate banking operations (Chase, LoanDepot)
  • Management/contractor companies operating multi-state

Continuity and Relationship:

  • 17-20 year timeline of coordinated activity
  • Related alleged schemes serving same goal (bypass votes, maximize costs)
  • Same core participants throughout
  • Regular pattern repeating across phases

All evidence has been sent to federal authorities for RICO pattern review.

VII. Current Status & Next Steps

Evidence Compilation:

Complete and Published:

  • 18+ years of Board minutes with analysis
  • 150+ video documentation archive
  • Engineering report contradictions timeline
  • Attorney correspondence with alleged misrepresentations
  • Contract specifications vs. actual work
  • Financial analysis and cost comparisons
  • City citation and fine documentation
  • DBPR arbitration records
  • Over a Dozen Extensive DBPR Complaint Case Files Filed between 2008 to 2025
  • Florida Bar complaint documentation
  • Federal agency correspondence tracking

In Final Preparation:

  • Additional financial irregularity analysis
  • Comparative fraud case study analysis
  • Complete video timestamp index
  • Engineering expert analysis
  • Federal response timeline compilation

Authorities Notified:

State Level:

  • Florida DBPR (multiple complaints, 2 arbitrations)
  • Florida Bar (attorney misconduct)
  • State Attorney’s Office
  • Attorney General’s Office
  • Governor’s Office / OIG
  • State Legislators (multiple districts)
  • City of Plantation (code enforcement, police oversight)

Federal Level:

  • U.S. Department of Justice (fraud, RICO)
  • HUD Office of Inspector General
  • FBI (financial crimes)
  • Federal banking regulators (OCC, FDIC)
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  • Congressional offices

Other:

  • Media outlets (local and national)
  • HOA advocacy organizations
  • Legal reform groups
  • Lenders (Chase, LoanDepot, Popular Bank)

Public Accountability:

All evidence published at: www.HOAJusticeNow.com

Including:

  • Complete case file exhibits (A through CC)
  • Video documentation archive
  • Board minutes compilations
  • Timeline analyses
  • Financial breakdowns
  • Attorney correspondence
  • Engineering contradictions
  • Retaliation documentation

VIII. Conclusion

This case study documents what appears to be a twenty-year organized operation to:

  1. Systematically evade owner voting rights
  2. Maximize financial extraction from 128 families
  3. Conceal cheaper alternatives to inflate costs
  4. Manufacture crises to justify unauthorized mandates
  5. Use coordinated attorney/vendor network for cover
  6. Retaliate against challengers through legal system
  7. Maintain appearance of legitimacy through selective documentation

The precision with which this pattern repeats—across different construction phases, different manufactured emergencies, different “requirements”—suggests this was not incompetence, confusion, or accident.

It appears to have been a calculated, coordinated, multi-party operation spanning two decades.

The evidence is comprehensive. The pattern is clear. The documentation is extensive, corroborated, and internally consistent.

Now we wait for accountability.

Police involvement at Association meetings and properties is documented through over 150+ video recordings archived in Exhibit X, as well as contemporaneous meeting footage and incident timestamps. These recordings reflect repeated law enforcement presence during Board meetings and owner confrontations, which were not consistently disclosed or memorialized in official Association records.

Compiled by: Shawn Martin, MBA
Cancer Survivor | Homeowner Since 2007 | Elected Board Member (2008-2009, 2024-2025) | Whistleblower

Investigation Timeline: 2+ years of active documentation (2023-2025)
Evidence Base: 18+ years of records, 150+ videos, comprehensive financial analysis

Website: www.HOAJusticeNow.com

IX. Cross-Reference Map

Master Case File Exhibit Index:

This exhibit is supported by:
RICO Type Exhibits:
  • Exhibit CC — Governance Patterns (2005–2023)
  • Exhibit CC2 — Governance Patterns (2024–2025) – COMING SOON!
  • Exhibit G — Timeline of Access Requests and Retaliatory Context
  • Exhibit G-2 — SLAPP Suit, Statutory Violations, and RICO Considerations
  • Exhibit L — Government Correspondence Timeline & Systemic Oversight Breakdown Overview
  • Exhibit L2 — Attorney Rhonda Hollander Retaliatory Pattern Observations (2023–2025)
  • Exhibit O — DBPR Financial Oversight Failures & Accounting Irregularities
  • Exhibit Q — Contract Review: Austro Contract vs. Reality
  • Exhibit Q2 — Austro Construction: Destruction & Harassment Events
  • Exhibit R — Possible Collusion & Influence Patterns Among Omega Villas Board, Legal Counsel, and Contractors
  • Exhibit S — Historic Neglect & Oversight Failures (2007–2025)
  • Exhibit S-3 — Electrical Scope Deviation & Permit Misrepresentation (2008 Case CE08-03180)
  • Exhibit S-4 — Gould Roofing Company, Inc. Complaint Evidence (2008)
  • Exhibit T — Unauthorized Furring Strips & Missing Insulation at Omega Villas
  • Exhibit U — Pattern of Off-Duty Police Involvement & Misuse of Law Enforcement at Omega Villas
  • Exhibit V — Citation and Enforcement History (2007–2025)
  • Exhibit X — Video Evidence Master Index
  • Exhibit AA — Documented Allegations of Legal Violations by Omega Villas Condominium Association and Associated Vendors
  • Exhibit AA3 — Legal Action & Foreclosure Pattern Summary (2018–2025)
    • (NOTE: Exhibit AA3 is a downloadable file link that will download upon clicking it.)
  • Exhibit BB — Legal Spend & Recall Suppression (2007-2011)
  • 🔹 Cross-References: Exhibit L2 (Retaliation Timeline), Exhibit U (Police Involvement), Exhibit X (Video Archive).
    🔹 Related Legal Framework: F.S. §760.37; 42 U.S.C. §3617 (Fair Housing & Disability Retaliation Protections).

Disclaimer: This case study represents this whistleblower’s analysis and opinion based on documented evidence. Determinations of legal violations rest with appropriate authorities. All evidence is preserved and available for official review.