1) We have your printed statement from 2008 (inaccurately) claiming a late fee, as stated on invoice 1770. (you do have it, don't you?)
We also have your acknowledgement of inaccuracy...and your apology...on record.
Both M and I are professional archivists with credits at numerous companies.
One thing we know how to do is hold on to and organize paperwork, something you seem to have extensive problems with, otherwise you wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement.
Mara responded:
There is an account ledger for Unit '60, G as far back as 1999, there is not a late fee charged to the account. We do not need to address this issue again. It was removed.
Yes, it was removed. But your earlier statement didn't contain the statement "It was removed.", which implied it was never there to begin with.
Your original letter read..."I am not certain why you continue to assert that late fees are assessed. This is not accurate"
No, we assert late fees were assessed, but you were forced to remove them when your error was pointed out.
A typical obfuscation on your part.
We also find it a bit disturbing that you can alter the Association's financial records without showing alterations have been made.
It make us wonder a little more why no external audit has ever been conducted...
There is an account ledger for Unit '60, G as far back as 1999, there is not a late fee charged to the account. We do not need to address this issue again. It was removed.
Yes, it was removed. But your earlier statement didn't contain the statement "It was removed.", which implied it was never there to begin with.
Your original letter read..."I am not certain why you continue to assert that late fees are assessed. This is not accurate"
No, we assert late fees were assessed, but you were forced to remove them when your error was pointed out.
A typical obfuscation on your part.
We also find it a bit disturbing that you can alter the Association's financial records without showing alterations have been made.
It make us wonder a little more why no external audit has ever been conducted...
2) from http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/washington/ news.aspx?id=139091 viv a vis credit card provider business practices "Some of the targeted practices include...late billing which makes it hard for consumers to pay on time."
Under the CARD law "...credit card companies bill customers near the due date, making it difficult to pay on time. Under the CARD act, companies will have to bill customers 21 days ahead of time."
So, it can be interpreted under consumer law that giving less than 10 days to pay a bill (as you usually do) creates an unreasonable time frame for payment.
Heck, I gave you 14 days to pay my bill for services rendered, which you defaulted on by failing to respond...in any form.
BTW, you're not attempting to practice law with only a BA in Accounting are you?
A key provision in the new Property Manager licensing act and rules is the power of the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation's Division of Professional Regulation to suspend or revoke a license for unprofessional conduct by a manager.
Conduct that qualifies for suspension or revocation includes: providing legal advice without being licensed to practice law.
Last I heard a BA in Accounting doesn't count towards practicing law, and you have no other accreditation.
Mara responded:
The Association is not a credit agency; this is not a credit card charge; there were no purchases made on credit, this does not apply.
Fox Management is a service provider who bills for services rendered. Your billing practices fall under Federal, state, and city Consumer Law (like any other service vendor) which require sufficient time for payment, especially when a late fee is imposed.
Or didn't you know that?
The Association is not a credit agency; this is not a credit card charge; there were no purchases made on credit, this does not apply.
Fox Management is a service provider who bills for services rendered. Your billing practices fall under Federal, state, and city Consumer Law (like any other service vendor) which require sufficient time for payment, especially when a late fee is imposed.
Or didn't you know that?
3) We are eagerly awaiting the result of the discussion.
Of course, had the meeting been on-site at the condo, instead of over a mile away at a location inaccessible to someone without a car (the only available public transportation stops running before the meeting's probable conclusion), M or I would've been there...
Mara responded:
Please refer to the meeting minutes when circulated.
As I pointed out earlier, (Board secretary / art therapist) Eddie Foss didn't have sufficent time to Orwellize the minutes, so we won't have a chance until at least October.
4) We have documentation showing previous delinquencies by two of the Board members.
In addition, considering that, judging from their schedules (more time at home. All three have been observed on-site at the condo during standard business hours.) and other clues......all three are probably underemployed/unemployed.
- Carol Krengelis listing herself on LinkedIn as being employed at the *** for a year after being laid off, and listing her old *** work number as her contact number on her Board election campaign form (the number is now *** Tech Support) months after being laid off,
- Eddie Foss attending two colleges (NE and NW) simultaneously as a student, plus his increasing use of public transportation and walking instead of his car.
- The damaged condition of Diego Arce's window blinds and screens (which look like they were punched out from inside the unit) as well as his unit being the only one without air conditioning during the recent record heat wave. Even Eddie finally acquired (note I didn't say purchased) an (apparently used) air conditioner.
Logical extrapolation of this indicates all three are probably in financial distress as well.
Odds are that they have recently missed, or were late, on assessments.
Do you (or they) deny any of this on the record?
Plus: Your progressively-less detailed annual financial statements (which we keep) showing increasing deficits (the growing numbers in "( )"s, since you don't use red ink), speak for themselves.
Finally, the fact that an independent audit of the books hasn't been done in at least five years (as recommended in "best practices" by such authorities on condo law as Mark Pearlstein) also speaks for itself.
Even if nothing is actually wrong, it gives the appearance of a cover-up.
You, of all people, should know that! http://www.mcgoverngreene.com/specialists/fox.html
Mara responded:
Your assumptions are wrong and you are misinformed.
Which assumptions?
I've presented empirical evidence and logical extrapolation based on said evidence.
All you've done, Mara, is stamp your foot and say no, no, no, without presenting anything to refute the statements, which I stand by!
Again, Do you (or they) deny of this on the record?
And Mara's final bit of foot-stamping...
A lack of response is NOT to be taken as tacit consent and acknowledgement that the information you presented in your emails is true and accurate.
Beyond the fact it's the same rule of evidence CNN, the NY Times, and other news sources hold their subjects to, the fact is you always have the chance to refute anything I say.
Thus I am maintaining the standard.
The problem for you is that you realize there's no way to respond credibly, and failing to respond makes it apparent you're hiding something.
You want to come off like Hilary Clinton, but you sound like Sarah Palin.
Your assumptions are wrong and you are misinformed.
Which assumptions?
I've presented empirical evidence and logical extrapolation based on said evidence.
All you've done, Mara, is stamp your foot and say no, no, no, without presenting anything to refute the statements, which I stand by!
Again, Do you (or they) deny of this on the record?
And Mara's final bit of foot-stamping...
A lack of response is NOT to be taken as tacit consent and acknowledgement that the information you presented in your emails is true and accurate.
Beyond the fact it's the same rule of evidence CNN, the NY Times, and other news sources hold their subjects to, the fact is you always have the chance to refute anything I say.
Thus I am maintaining the standard.
The problem for you is that you realize there's no way to respond credibly, and failing to respond makes it apparent you're hiding something.
You want to come off like Hilary Clinton, but you sound like Sarah Palin.
Thursday's total for Fox Management Group's still-unpaid bill from July, 2008 ( over three years ago!)...$172,955.06 from an original $75!
They've broken the $170,000 level! Now that the 1% per workday cumulative late fee is over $1700, it's really mounting up, at a rate of $8500+ a week!
It's over 750 (SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY) late charges, and now the amount (with late fees) is over 2100 times the original bill...
Isn't that just pitiful?
But then, what can you expect from Mara Feldman-Fox, someone with only a bachelor's degree in accounting and NO other accreditation, whatsoever?
But then, what can you expect from Mara Feldman-Fox, someone with only a bachelor's degree in accounting and NO other accreditation, whatsoever?
I hope for her sake Mara's better with her library books and DVD rentals!
But I doubt it... ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your input.