Kangaroo Court 4: Where does Howie Dakoff Stand on the Rights of Unit Owners?

After receiving the "noxious and offensive" letter, we contacted Mara Hedy Feldman Fox about a) receiving the specifics of the accusations so we could prepare a defense to present at the hearing and b) questioning the accusers/alleged witnesses Diego Arce and art therapist Eddie Foss.

We note we have not yet received the requested written complaints you ( Mara Feldman-Fox ) claim prevent our questioning listed accusers Eddie Foss and Diego Arce (both of whom will be present at the kangaroo court, but, because of their status as accusers, cannot vote on the proceedings) so that aspect of your legally-incorrect claim has been rendered moot.

All we've received is a vaguely-phrased (and badly-written) synopsis, none of which is legally-acceptible.
We requested...
"Said relevant information about the charges to include (for each charge):
1) the initial complaint
2) the warning letter detailing the specific charge(s) (To be fair, you did provide the warning letters, which are, in fact quite vague, but not items 1 or 3)
3) the violation following the warning letter.
NOTE: the information for both the complaint and 2nd violation should include 1) date/time of occurrence 2) description of occurrence 3) name of complainant (Especially if the complainants are different.)
Since you, of course, have all this information on hand in anticipation of the hearing, sending electronic copies (.doc, .word, .pdf) to B at (my e-mail) should entail no additional work on your part beyond attaching said documents to an e-mail.
And you are, naturally, eager to cooperate to avoid the appearance of impropriety on your part (and the board's) and allow the accused (my husband) to prepare a defense."

Here's links to your own lawyer, Howard Dakoff's, videos (which will be presented at the hearing) about your lack of written evidence and witnesses...

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/condo-complaints-not-in-writing-27652/
(Link does not embed properly) go to site to see video)
and this on YouTube...

We've also posted your quote "Per the Assocation's attoney, Mr Howard Dakoff, note that B and you do not have the right to cross examine witnesses.
If there is a written complaint, the witness does not have to be at the hearing." along with both the late Mark D Pearlstein's and Dakoff's public writings (including the above videos) contradicting that statment at several legal advice sites.
One example by Dakoff in his Chicago Tribune column:
"The standard of review a board uses to levy a fine is merely the reasonable determination of the board members.
Video or fingerprint evidence is not required for a fine to be levied, but the lack of any eyewitness account associating a particular person with an alleged violation does raises questions about the reasonableness of levying a fine, and thus its validity."

So, Howie Dakoff backs the idea of rational discourse and interaction...but, as we will see, not where it involves his clients!