Law Firm of Harris N. Aaronson Intimidates District Plaintiffs
Attorney Paul B. Sherr of the law firm Harris N. Aaronson intimidated District plaintiffs with threats of attorney's fees. Sherr, per his letter, see last sentence of letter, is threatening the District plaintiffs, that have sued the Prudential Committee for invalidation of the 8-31-08 District election and corresponding tax. See the letter sent to the plaintiffs - Attorney Paul B. Sherr is threatening the plaintiffs with assessment of the cost of legal fees and expenses and interest. Yes, Attorney Paul Sherr is threatening that the District plaintiffs will have to pay the legal costs, including fees to the Law Firm of Harris N. Aaronson, incurred by the Prudential Committee to defend the lawsuit to invalidate the illegal tax increase of 8-31-08. All the plaintiffs are citizen plaintiffs/litigants and are not represented by an Attorney of the Mass. Bar.
Instead of admitting the truth, John Amato and the Prudential Committee of the District of Beck Woods chose to lie and deny that the vote issue was changed at the 8-31-08 meeting of the District. There were about 100 people at that 8-31-08 District meeting that witnessed the vote issue changed by motion from the floor.
The change in vote issue is the grounds for the plaintiffs' lawsuit. The change in vote issue caused no notification to the Proxy voters of the District in advance of the election. District laws require a 14 day notice to all District Voters. This also caused the Proxies to be worthless because those voters/owners of the District had no idea what the vote issue was. Also there resulted no Quorum to hold business at the 8-31-08 meeting/election because the Proxy votes should not have been applied towards that election.
John Amato and the District Prudential Committee, instead of admitting the vote issue was changed and that as a result there was no required notification to the voters and that the election and tax increase was illegal, had their Law Firm of Harrris N. Aaronson fight it out with endless litigation tactics and filings. The most effective tactic by Attorney Paul B. Sherr of the Aaronson law firm was the threat of legal fees with interest assessed to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs are not suing for any monetary damages.
It doesn't pay to be a concerned citizen in Becket Woods when the Prudential Committee has the luxury (the District taxes pay for Aarson's legal fees) of the Harris N. Aaronson law firm to bully anyone who dare legally oppose the atrocities of John Amato and his Prudential Committee.
Sherr and Aaronson may have scared two of the Becket Woods plaintiffs but he does not seem to understand even the most simple and well-seasoned law. Sherr does not understand that law prohibits him from getting legal costs from the plaintiffs for his lousy Prudential Committee defendants. Yes, C. 231 s. 6F allows the Judge to assess attorney fees and court costs if the judge finds the plaintiff's case is FRIVOLOUS. How could any judge find that the case of an invalid election and election fraud could be frivolous.
But the biggest problem Attorney of the bar - Paul B. Sherr has is that M.G.L. C. 231 s. 6f strictly forbids assessment when the plaintiffs are not represented by counsel (an attorney of the Mass. Bar). None of the 3 District plaintiffs are in the Mass. Bar. But see the notice on this law sent to the Court so they could not claim they did not know the law.
But if you don't want to believe it then read the statute yourself. Take note of the 3rd sentence of the first paragraph - "who was represented by counsel....".