BRADY SAYS IT LOOKS LIKE A COVER UP TO HIM
Residents, sometimes the situations and facts in Wedgefield get very confusing. When they do I put Brady on the case. We've reviewed some documents that we have already posted on the blog. We are more confused than ever. In our humble opinions, someone is either lying or covering up. You'll decide for yourself. Take a few minutes and review what we have presented below and see if you draw the same conclusion.
The contradicting information resides in Attorney Moody's legal bills (current WPA attorney) and the information regarding some of the items on them. It seems that the Association was billed for a meeting between Attorney Perrow (Represented Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas as plaintiffs in the canal lawsuit that was initally filed against the 2009 WPA Board and individual Board Members. By the summer of 2011 the suit against the Board had been dropped.) The meeting in question took place after the Board was dropped, but before the rest of the suit was settled.
Additionally, there is a charge and payment for Attorney Moody meeting with Carol Zieske, one of the plaintiffs, prior to final settlement.
Why would our Board use our assessment dollars to pay our attorney to meet with the lawyer representing individuals who were suing us? Why would they use our assessment dollars to pay our attorney to meet with one of the plaintiffs? Why do we have credible conflicting information with no action from our Board?
START AT THE BEGINNING:
Board Member McBride attended a meeting with Attorney Moody and other Board Members. He took notes and asked that they be attached to the December WPA Minutes, under the Legal Report. Your Board voted and denied his request. Please go to OLDER POSTS on this blog and read "McBride's December Legal Report". At one point in the report he states that he feels there is about $5,000 of legal expense for items that are questionable. Remember that figure and we'll discuss it at the end of this article.
At one point in the report McBride states, "The meetings with Mr. Moody on October 11 and October 12 with Huggins, Wilson, Thomas and Perrow were the topics of the next discussion". Perrow was the attorney for plaintiffs Wilson and Thomas. The suit wasn't settled until after those dates. The Board wasn't being sued. Residents it was all about legal and getting your assessment dollars to help the cause. Huggins was Legal Chair.
Later in the report, McBride goes on to say, "We were told by Mr. Moody that he had no knowledge of the lawsuit brought against the WPA by Zieske, Thomas and Wilson." Even later in the report, McBride states, "Later in the meeting Mr. McBride asked some similar questions and said that he had heard that at the very time Mr.Perrow was the person delaying the final draft of the order that Judge Hyman, Jr. requested per the agreed settlement, which would order dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs claims. Mr. Moody replied to this statement that according to Perrow, that he was not the hold up" If this raised the attention of Brady and I, why didn't it raise the hairs on the back of the Board's individual necks and cause them to ask questions and withhold payment? After reading this Brady and I about needed a braff bag.
Then it appears that our Board Attorney met with Carol Zieske, the third plaintiff, prior to the settlement. Earlier in the report, McBride states, "Later in the discussion John McBride asked if he had a meeting with Carol Zieske and Mr. Moody replied that he had the meeting with Carol Zieske to discuss the By Law she wanted on the ballot and that that was all that he and Carol discussed." Well, that's not what Ms. Zieske says. Presented below, is an email from Ms. Zieske to the WPA Board in which she discloses what was discussed at her meeting with Moody.
The Board obviously knows from Zieske's email that Moody met with her on matters other than her Bylaw amendment. Yet that is not what an inquiring resident was told. Please go to OLDER BLOGS at this site and read, RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS RESPONDS TO WHY WASN'T THIS THREAT BROUGHT TO THE BOARD TABLE". I've provided the following pertinent quote from her writings. "I have complained about the communication between Moody and Perrow as unethical. Today, I found in the correspondence file a letter from Carol Zieske saying that she was at a meeting with Moody in order to “explain the legal situation out here.” I doubt that her opinion of the legal situation is the same as mine. When I asked about the rumor that I heard about this meeting, I was told that Moody met with Carol solely about her proposed By-law change. Someone’s nose is growing!"
Did you read what Ms. Zieske states the reason for her meeting was? Someone is not telling the truth and it isn't Board Member McBride. Ms Zieske is quite blatant about her visit. Why is our Board afraid to bring these issues to the Board table?
At the beginning of this article I asked that you remember the figure $5,000. That is the amount that Board Member McBride suggests that we have been billed improperly. Garrison, Legal Chair and Barrier were on the Board in 2010 when the majority Concerned Citizen Board savagely attacked then Board Members, Reames and Wijthoff. They threatened them with jail terms over a $7,500 legal bill. They publicly harassed them through at least 3 meetings. In the end, their accusations were not justified and the Board sent letters of apology to Wijthoff and Reames.
Why is Garrison Legal Chair?
Why isn't the rest of our Board allowing McBride to bring this to the table, investigate, and take appropriate action? Will you write to see the Moody invoices? Will you write and ask the Board for a full explanation? This is important because a portion of the Concerned Citizen group from our community has threatened the Board with another law suit. I've been writing and providing documentation for almost two years now. I've contended that "it is all about legal" in several articles. Add this one to the pile.
DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? SEND IT TO: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. BE SURE AND NOTE WHETHER YOU WANT YOUR NAME PUBLISHED WITH YOUR COMMENT.
