Here is the quote from the newspaper article: "Moody also is accused of lying to a judge by stating that he had not received an opposing counsel's court filing when, in fact, he had received it months earlier. Moody, in that case, also FAILED TO TELL HIS CLIENTS THAT THEIR CASE HAD BEEN DISMISSED. those clients did not learn about the dismissal until after they retrieved their case file following Moody's interim suspension."
If we are the client noted, almost your entire board, in the blind following of Legal Chair Garrison, is RESPONSIBLE. Why? It could appear that Garrison is on a hidden agenda. First he may have covered the facts, and then in order to push his Concerned Citizen agenda, declared that all this ended, in a ruling. Then he nails anyone who has questions. It has been documented many times that he is dismissive and verbally abusive when questioned, or challenged.
At the point that Moody was suspended from practicing law, in his two lawyer office, his partner Maring was named by the courts to assume his files, notify banks, etc. Clients were advised in writing that they could pick up their files. There was a discussion at the board table about retaining Maring, so as not to have to pay someone to catch up. McBride asked if that was wise. He asked if the board shouldn't try and find out what the charges against Moody were, and whether we would be best served by Maring. He also suggested the board search for a new attorney. One of Garrison's flip answers, during the exchange with McBride, as the balance of the board sat in silence, let it happen, was "I DON'T KNOW MAYBE THEIR WIVES DIDN'T GET ALONG" Move forward to August, and Garrison announces that Maring has done nothing for them, in months. They can't get answers. Next, they hire a new lawyer, pay to bring him up to date, and just maybe we all are going to suffer. If we are that client, or in similar circumstances, it could appear that Garrison is trying to give the impression that a judge has ruled on Individual Assessment, when all he has is a settlement. I listed questions, in the article mentioned above, perhaps you should begin to ask those questions - NOW. I would, but to coin a phrase Garrison often uses at the board table when asked to get legal opinion, or opinions in writing, "I'm not inclined to do that." Your board, often isn't inclined to answer my questions.
Earlier this week, a resident asked if I wanted to bust the association, by asking for a return of the dredging assessment. If you saw it, you also read my answer. After reviewing the article on Moody, if circumstances are right, we wouldn't deserve our assessments returned. What are the circumstances? If we are the client mentioned in the quote above, or were left in similar circumstances, then Legal Chair Garrison needs to tell us exactly what happened, tell us that it was a huge legal mistake, rather than cover up, and pretend that they got a ruling on Individual Assessment. President Walton, needs to remove Garrison, as legal chair and his committee, resign his president role on the board, and remove DeMarchi as Compliance Chair and his Concerned Citizen Committee. If the resident doesn't have to pay because of default of the process, rather than a ruling, and that is explained from the board table, none of the rest of us should get our money back.