Understanding Reprisal in Plain Language
⚖️ WHAT REPRISAL ACTUALLY MEANS
Reprisal (retaliation) is not about why a by-law was created or who inspired it. We all know that this one should be named after me.
In legal terms, reprisal means:
Punishing someone for exercising their legal rights,
or creating a rule that discourages them from doing so.
It’s about the effect, not the backstory.
📜 THE RULE ITSELF CAN BE REPRISAL
A by-law that says:
“Anyone who takes legal action cannot run for the board.”
is reprisal because it punishes protected activity – no matter who it affects first.
You don’t need a specific target.
You don’t need a retroactive date.
You don’t need a confession of motive.
If the rule penalizes legal rights,
➡️ it is retaliation. Simple.
🔮 PUNISHMENT TOMORROW IS STILL PUNISHMENT
Her claim that it’s “not retroactive” completely misses the point.
Retaliation doesn’t require looking backwards.
If the by-law threatens punishment now or in the future for asserting your rights, it is still reprisal.
Period.
🧩 THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT GOVERNANCE – NOT ABOUT ME
I asked a structural question:
Is this by-law legal, given that it penalizes owners for exercising their rights?
She dodged it and answered something irrelevant:
“It is not retroactive.” So, she clearly answered with me in mind.
That’s not a governance answer.
That’s avoidance.
🧠 IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE ME, THAT’S FINE
You don’t have to believe what I’m saying.
You don’t have to understand it.
You don’t have to agree.
But a judge won’t be impressed by:
- word games
- deflections
- or excuses dressed up as legal advice
And the judge is the one who will decide.
🏛️ BELIEVE ME OR DON’T – YOU WILL BELIEVE THE JUDGE
Whether you get it now or later is up to you.
To me, it makes no difference.
But the judge will make it clear – very clear – what this by-law really is.
