Sandra Snodgrass Emails to the OAG

This blog entry contains a link to emails forwarded to the Defendants by the Indiana Office of the Attorney General (OAG) for the above complainant.  These documents were provided by the OAG to comply with the Defendants’ discovery request.

Here is the link to Sandy Snodgrass’ email file: Sandy Snodgrass Emails

Unlike the situation for the first two complainants, Ms. Snodgrass is a current and longtime owner.  She and her husband, David Finnegan, lease their unit most of the year but maintain an active interest in The Harbours.  Snodgrass was one of the more engaged complainants with the OAG during their investigation.  Her individual emails have been condensed down to the ten email threads in the file linked above.  With one exception (discussed below), she did not send much in the way of file attachments to the OAG.  Most of her emails simply passed along other emails to which she was a party.

The Character of Sandra Snodgrass

Email 005 in the link above is perhaps an enlightening and entertaining thread that starts with an incident at a Harbours Board meeting in July 2010.  The meeting was held in closed session, and Ms. Snodgrass entered the meeting without permission and was recorded on video.  A brief segment of that video is linked below, and a transcript of the dialogue follows in case the audio track is difficult to understand.  Sorry for the poor quality of the video which was recorded on a handheld digital camera.

This video file is shown in the original email in the 005 thread as “Not Once, But Twice”.  The filename is a reference to the number of times in the video that Snodgrass denied sending the OAG complaints against Harbours Board members and management.  This video was recorded in late July 2010.  Her OAG complaints were dated in July 2009 and March 2010, and they were against, respectively, six individual Directors and the “Harbours management and Board of Directors”.

In the ensuing 005 emails, she goes to great effort trying to justify the complaints while sidestepping the issue entirely of whether she lied to the Board during that meeting and in the video.  Her explanation eventually is that she didn’t lie because she didn’t individually name every Board member in her complaints, mentioning one Director–Tom Pike–as someone she excluded.  (Pike also submitted a prior complaint against the “Harbours Condominium Association” which he acknowledges in the video.)  In essence, Snodgrass’ analysis is that since she didn’t submit a complaint against every Board member, she didn’t submit a complaint against any of them.

Whether a person tells the truth should be relevant to whether his or her testimony in an investigation is valid especially if the subject matter is the same.

 

Transcript from the video file:

[Zipperle is the voice off camera, Snodgrass is standing in front of the camera with an open binder in her arms, and Pike is sitting next to her.  The video starts with background comments…]

Zipperle: This lady… Hey, for those of you who don’t pay attention, this lady has filed an AG complaint with each one of you.

Snodgrass: (Looking up and avoiding eye contact…) That is not true.

Zipperle: She’s filed an AG complaint with each one of you.

Snodgrass: That is not true. And isn’t that the…

Zipperle: (Zipperle gesturing at Tom Pike…) Now, this guy has filed an AG complaint with each one of you.

Pike: (Nods…) You’re correct.

Zipperle: If you don’t have any…

 

Deposition of Kevin Zipperle (Part I)

My deposition was taken in the presence of the other Defendants, our defense counsel, and staff members of the Indiana Office of the Attorney General (OAG).  It was conducted in two parts, the first taking place on August 26, 2013 for the entire day.  The subpoena was issued by the OAG, and the deposition occurred at the offices of Culotta & Culotta in New Albany, Indiana.  Here is the link to the transcript for Part I:

Zipperle Deposition Part I

The depositions are being edited to remove personal information and the names of parties who were not behind the litigation, mainly former employees and former Board members who were not involved in the allegations.  At this time, the information is presented without discussion.

The exhibits referenced and linked in this deposition are the same as those in the Complaint.  They were previously uploaded and presented within the early blog post “Remaining Exhibits” dated August 9, 2015.  Each exhibit link contains several alphabetized (A, B, C, … Z, AA, BB, …) exhibits, including the specific one shown at each point in the deposition.  The same link will appear for all of the exhibits it includes.

Who (or What) is WordPress?

This question has been posed to me on occasion, and it’s probably good for a minute to explain my arrangements here.  Off the top, it has nothing to do with the lawsuit.

WordPress is a generalized “platform” to start up a website such as this one.  The basic service is free, and it allows a lot of information to be uploaded and organized for readers like you.  It has been especially useful for its versatility at handling many different types of media and files; indeed, we have only scratched the surface so far.  And even the basic service will accommodate a LOT of information.  Consider that all of the postings and attachments to date have barely consumed 4% of what’s allowable.  Some of the links to this point have referenced large files like the Harbours Declarations and Bylaws which are archived elsewhere.  But file storage will be (or would have been) an issue once files specific to this project such as depositions are uploaded.

It wasn’t by accident that WordPress was chosen for this site.  One thing that was sought out was a platform that would allow interaction, a site that would allow readers to comment or ask questions.  This isn’t a discussion forum, but it shouldn’t be just one person who gets all of the microphone time.  The subject hasn’t been covered, but there are no rules at this point for posting a comment.  You can remain anonymous, and I have taken off all restrictions to making comments.  Your comments appear almost immediately and go through no approval steps.  If I see comments that are not appropriate for this site, some moderation may be necessary.  But I’m not counting on that.

And other platform alternatives to WordPress were reviewed in terms of their quality and usefulness.  Here are a couple of links that talk about WordPress and its broad level of support among website hosting services:

CNET Review

Hosting Providers

There are no risks to accessing this site.  WordPress websites are stable and widely utilized by many bloggers.  If you’ve heard otherwise, it could be that someone is simply trying to discourage you from reading the content provided here.  And that should prompt you to ask another question — “Why?”

Becky Ledogar and Vicki Hack Emails to the OAG

Below are links to emails and associated files forwarded to the Defendants by the Indiana Office of the Attorney General (OAG) for the above two complainants.  These documents were provided by the OAG to comply with the Defendants’ discovery request.

All of the emails from the OAG were in a single, large (0.2 GB) Microsoft Outlook data file, and many had redundant content, e.g., two people forwarding the same email.  To make viewing the emails as reader friendly as possible, they are being imported into Word files with most of the redundant information pared down to display once.  Except where there may be a large number of emails from one person, emails from each person are saved and uploaded in a single PDF file.  Within the file, emails are assigned individual numbers for easy indexing.  As is customary with email, they are shown in reverse chronological order.  The “Email Attachment” links below correspond to the emails numbered in the file names.  And those names appear in the respective email header information.

At this time, emails are being presented without commentary unless questions are raised.  It helps that they are presented chronologically, but the context for a given email isn’t always easy to figure out.  Please ask a question if you have a problem understanding anything and want to know more.  Both of the individuals in this posting are former Harbours residents who moved from the Property several years ago after filing complaints.  Relatively speaking, they were not prolific “emailers” to the OAG.

---

Here is the link to Becky Ledogar’s email file: Becky Ledogar Emails

Here are the links to files referenced in Ms. Ledogar’s emails:

Email 002, 003 Attachment – Seller’s Disclosure Fraud

Email 003 Attachment – Ledogar disclosure

Email 003 Attachment – Harbours Condos listing Page 1

Email 003 Attachment – Harbours condo listings page 2

---

Here is the link to Vicki Hack’s email file: Vicki Hack Emails

Here are the links to files referenced in Ms. Hack’s emails:

Email 002 Attachment – 2011 KZelection letter sent out

Email 007 Attachment – Article__HOASyndrome9_12_10V4

Email 009 Attachment – Designated voters 2008001

Email 009 Attachment – By-Laws Declara Voting Harbours