Kangaroo Court 3: Enter the "Noxious and Offensive" Lawyer...

After pointing out how Mara Hedy Feldman Fox violated the Condomimium Property Act as shown HERE, we decided to be gracious, and held off on contacting the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation to report her egregious violations, because, quite frankly, it would be a hassle, and a lot of work.

Besides, she had received the fine (under protest), so we thought, like rational beings, the matter was closed.

Around September 18th or so we received a letter allegedly from Howard Dakoff of the law firm of Levenfeld Pearlstein, LLC, though, IMHO, it doesn't read like something a competent lawyer would pen...

10-DAY NOTICE OF VIOLATION

CEASE AND DESIST

This Notice of Violation suppliments, and amends when necessary, previous Notices of Violation sent on July 29, 2013, August 5, 2013 and Auguat 29, 2013. As such, any fines referenced as levied in such Notices are hereby withdrawn and shall be handled as stated below.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, pursuant to the Declaration of Condomimium for the Claremont Condominium Association ("Declaration") and Claremont Condominium Association's ("Association") rules and regulations, the below violations of the provision of said documents are now outstanding against you and your ownership interest in Unit GE.

The following violations of Article XVII, Section 9 of the Declaration, and the Association's rules and regulations regarding Nuisances, consists of the actions by B, occupant of Unit GE, as follows:

Repeatedly engaging in noxious and offensive activities in the Common Elements by turning on the '60 basement lights on (sic) daily and leaving it (sic) on; leaving the washer and dryer doors open; littering in the Common Elements by leaving magazines on the laundry room table and throwing dryer lint into storage lockers; damaging the common elements by attempting to remove (???...nothing listed) causing an annoyance and nuisance to other Unit Owners and occupants of the Common Elements of the Association.

You'll note there's no "alleged violations" listed, as would be required in such a document, just "violations", indicating the inept writer of this letter has already decreed me GUILTY without even a trial!
It's an un-American attitude belying the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" that will continue throughout the proceedings that follow.

And look at the list of "noxious and offensive" activities...

Leaving washer and dryer doors open!

Turning on lights in a basement!

Leaving magazines on a table!

Then we get weirdies like lint in storage lockers and attempting to remove...what, exactly? The document never makes it clear!

The pitiful text continues...

You must cease and desist all such conduct, and allowing B to cause such conduct, in the Common Elements.

In the event that the violations stated in this notice are not corrected, abated, and permanently ceased on or before the ten(10th) (sic) calendar day after the date of this Notice, pursuant to Article XVIII of the Declaration and Section 9.2 and 18.4 of the Condominium Property Act, the Association will take one or more of the following steps:

• a  Assess fines against Unit GE
• b  File a suit for manditory injunctive relief against M, the Unit Owner of Unit GE and B, to prohibit Mr B from continuing to violate the above-cited sections of the Declaration, and rules and regulations, and delcare a termination of the Unit Owner's rights to control, occupy, and own Unit GE, and allow the occupancy of B.
• c  File a lawsuit for manditory injunctive relief against M, the Unit Owner of Unit GE and B, to prohibit any further noxious and offensive activities in the Common Elements.
• d Assess all legal fees and costs incurred by the Association to enforce the provisions of the Declaration and rules and regulations.
• e  Exercise  any and all future remedies or rights provided by the Declaration under law.

And that's for leaving a washer and dryer door open!

Imagine if I had (allegedly) done something serious!

You'll note "d", which is in the Declaration, and meant to help the Board recover costs from Unit Owners who were delinquent in paying their assessments, not to stifle free speech, as it was used here.

It also explains why Mara Feldman-Fox was using Howie Dakoff who charges $385 an hour, rather than the Condo's lawyer of record, David Weininger, who charges far less per hour than Howie.
With us paying the bills, Mara had no problem "keeping the meter running".

The finale sets the stage for the farce to come...

You are further notified that pursuant to Section 18.4(l) of the Condominium Property Act, the Association's Declaration and rules and regulations, the Board of Directors of the Association is hereby holding a fine hearing for violations referenced in the Notices on Devember 18 2013 @6:45 pm in (the usual location over a mile from the condo itself) and intends to levy a fine in no less an amount no less than a (sic) $500 for past violations and assess legal fees and costs incurred to date to enforce the Declaration against Unit GE for the above-referenced violations.
Further, the Board will assess additional fines in an amount of no less than $250 for each additional future violation that occurs after the date of this notice.
You are granted an opportunity to be heard regsarding this Notice of Violation.
If you fail to appear at the fine hearing, a fine shall be levied against youir Unit in your absence and shall be a lien against your Unit.

Considering the established fine structure (as seen HERE) was $50, then $100 for each successive "violation", changing the existing structure without a meeting to vote upon it (there was no meeting between the two letters), the imposition of a new fine structure is another violation of the Condominium Property Act, which Howie Dakoff seems quite comfortable with implementing!
In addition, the validity of voiding an already-paid fine and imposing a higher one for the same alleged violations is double-jeopardy, which is illegal under American jurispridence.
But, again, Howie seems fine with that, as well!

Be here for our next entry, when we explore the contradictions of Howie Dakoff's interpretation of the law.