John Amato Votes 7 Times - 6 Votes illegal!!!   What Next? 

Amato and Prudential Committee Change 8-31-08 Election Results

Amato and District Lawyers Conceal Alleged Voting Records of 8-31-08 District Election

"Nancy Jane" Bail Out Conspiracy - Now they claim 7 Opposed Proxies

Scheme is to Get  Superior Court Judge to do "Dirty Work"


As a result of the lawsuit to invalidate the 8-31-08 election and related tax increase, it was learned via an Exhibit attached to the Affidavit of John Amato in Support of Answer of  the Prudential Committee Defendants to that lawsuit that John Amato voted 7 (the first two proxies are John Amato's) times at the 8-31-08 election. John Amato owns only 1 lot according to District records and the records of the Town of Becket Assessor's Office.

How does Amato justify taking 6 extra votes? No wonder they, at one time, claimed the vote was in 64-24 in Favor of the latest tax increase of 8-31-08. No wonder this Web Site is alerting the District to election illegalities. Amato ran the election and counted the votes - Does anyone possibly believe that any of the vote tally of that election or previous elections controlled by Amato are valid?

It wasn't easy getting this information. Amato and his attorneys instructed the Berkshire Superior Court Clerk's Office not to give the information to the plaintiff's in the case, Michael Elbery et al.

Yes that's right, even though the alleged District election documentation/information supplied by Amato, the Prudential Committee and their lawyer was attached as Exhibit G to the Affidavit in Support of their Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint/lawsuit - the plaintiffs were not allowed that documentation (alleged proxies and voting cards of the 8-31-08 election), but rather the Berkshire Superior Court Clerk's Office was instructed to leave the documentation in a manila envelope not to be given to Michael Elbery or the plaintiffs of Becket Woods. 

And of course, our District lawyers, Aronson and Sherr, who are working against District owners interests and for Amato and his Prudential Committee, would not produce the contents of Exhibit G when they submitted their answer to the plaintiffs lawsuit. This is totally against the law.

But Why? That's is illegal. The plaintiffs have every right to see an Exhibit filed with the Court as part of the Answer by the defendants to Complaint/lawsuit of the plaintiffs. Is this conspiracy to conceal documentation by the Berkshire Superior Court Clerk's Office at the command of Amato and his attorneys really happening so boldly in the U.S.A.?

What is this documentation that they are trying to hide in a manila envelope under the guard of the Courthouse? According to Affidavit of John Amato the attached Exhibit G is the election proxies and voting cards of 8-31-08 of the District of Becket Woods.

And guess what - Michael Elbery got a peak at the contents of that envelope when nobody was looking and it contained alleged copies of the proxies and the voting cards of the election of 8-31-08. Elbery asked for additional copies including "those" and was mistakenly allowed copies of the secret proxies that Amato and his lawyers were supplying Superior Court Judge - Dan Ford on the case. The clerk claimed she could not give him copies of the "Long Sheets", also in the envelope, that were the alleged copies of what Amato is claiming are copies of the voting cards - the clerk claimed her copy machine did not have capability to copy the 14" "Long Sheets".

Elbery telephoned the Clerk several days later and asked for the contents of Exhibit G again, but the Clerk - Debora Capeless would not come to the phone. Did you say "Capeless" - must run in the family. Elbery also filed a motion to Judge Dan Ford to have the "SECRET" copies of the voting cards released to him as the law requires. At this point Elbery has a motion filed with Court asking the Judge - Dan Ford to obey the law and give the District plaintiff's the content of  the manila envelope they are calling Exhibit G.

Elbery also called the Becket Woods District lawyer, Sherr of the Aronson law firm, who represents the interests of the Prudential Committee contrary to the District owners and at the District Owners expense. Elbery called Attorney Sherr and asked him for the rest of the documents, or Exhibit G, as required by law. Sherr mailed Elbery a copy of his Answer for the Prudential Committee Defendants a day after the hearing of 10-21-08 so Elbery could not be prepared and would be bushwacked at the hearing, but did not include to the plaintiffs the contents of Exhibit G that was part of their Answer to the complaint. Elbery told Sherr he is withholding the contents of Exhibit G and that Elbery cannot prepare the case without it. Sherr was so angered with Elbery and his crusade for the rights of the District owners he slammed the phone in Elbery's ear. And Elbery is helping pay that lawyer his customary fee of $250.00 an hour; such a lack of respect. Aronson's firm must be fired for defrauding the interest of the District, as required by the District laws.


Well what did Elbery get for you? He doesn't conceal the information, no not at all. Elbery was mistakenly given, as above, copies of what Amato and the Prudential Committee are NOW claiming are "all" the Proxy votes of the 8-31-08 election; this is part of the contents of Exhibit G.

Here are the Proxies   that Amato alleges were cast in Favor of the latest tax hike as provided via Exhibit G to Amato's Affidavit to the lawsuit. Amato's Proxies are the first two proxies. Each of those first two "Amato Proxies" make claim to 3 votes each because Amato is voting 3 lots on each Proxy.


Why is John Amato voting by Proxy? He was at the meeting and it is presumed that he voted at the meeting via a voting card because he was running the 8-31-08 meeting. The rules are that if you are at the meeting you don't vote via Proxy.

According to District records and Becket Assessor's Office Records five out of those six lots, on the Proxies signed by Amato, don't even exist! The other lot belongs to an owner that is absentee and did not vote at all. (SEE below - "Update - we have to correct Amato's mess")


Mr. Jack Siegel votes on 9-18-08 - helps rig election with illegal extra vote

Jack Siegel signed his proxy (see the last proxy) on September 18, 2008!!! How could that be if the election was on 8-31-08? Jack Siegel is a tennis player who called Michael Elbery on Saturday 8-30-08 and cursed Elbery out for distributing the first pamphlet to Alert the owners of the District. Siegel was calling from Becket, Mass. - Siegel was in town that weekend of the 8-31-08 election. Did anybody see Jack Siegel at the meeting on 89-31-08?? Didn't Mr. Siegel stand up and address the meeting several times?? Siegel sure did. Siegel was not only seen at the District meeting of 8-31-08 but he voted by vote card at that election. 

Siegel tampered with the election; he helped himself to two votes. Siegel helped rig the election. Siegel committed a crime against the rest of the owners/voters of the District of Becket Woods. This guy Siegel is low life.

Amato and his click needed help so they had Siegel fill out a proxy on 9-18-08. Hey dum-dum, at least have the courtesy to back date the proxy if you are going to stack the election deck. Hey, stupid, don't document your illegalities just because Amato says he will conceal your illegalities. Amato is screwing everything up - Amato is getting caught. Amato's policy of "just do it in Becket" does not work if there is someone not afraid to stand up to the parasites that run Becket Woods.

Update - we have to correct Amato's mess

Well, we have dug deeper because John Amato filled in the lot descriptions that made no sense. Amato used the Wrong lot numbers that is why it appeared that 5 of the lots he voted did not exist. More of the same from Amato. 

Amato, you were asked per the Proxy to indicate the "Becket Woods" Lot #, not the town assessors lot #. Amato incorrectly on the 2 proxies used the wrong numbers to identify the lots. And he did not identify that the lots are owned by all of us or the Becket Wood Community Association Inc.(us - Owners of the District).

John Amato indicates he is the owner or "proprietor" regarding those 6 votes.

The Sixth lot, 138, belongs to Alfred Knapp according to the Becket Assessor's Office. Ok, to summarize the Amato mess that he created because he did not properly identify the 6 lots he took liberty to vote on - Amato voted via Proxy 5 lots that belong to the Becket Woods Community Association Inc. and 1 lot that belongs to Alfred Knapp. Next time Amato indicate the Becket Woods lot # as the proxy asks for, not the Assessor's lot numbers.

Who is John Amato to vote on lots that are owned by the Association? Those are lots that are owned by the District and all the District owners. See the Founding Act Section 1-D. The District owners pay real estate taxes on those lots to the Town of Becket. Amato has no right to take the votes of those 5 lots because they are not his. These are or should be NON-VOTING Lots.  Those lots were acquired by the Becket Woods Community Ass. over the years due to tax foreclosures, owners abandoning the lots, before the District existed in 2001. Those lots should be transferred to the Road District at the Registry of Deeds so there is no more foolishness.

According to one former Prudential Committee President - it makes no difference Amato votes 6 times because that is how it has always been done. That same former official claimed it further makes no difference if Amato helped himself to 6 extra votes because the election was not even close (64-24). Wake up and read this Web Site - Amato and his Prudential Committee are now claiming that was not the vote total of the 8-31-08 election, and they are not telling us what the vote total was.

This former President seems to miss the point. Just because they have always done things illegally does not mean we should sit back and accept it. It is your District at least privately vote against the current District rule if you are afraid of them. 

If you make the adjustments to the 64-24 vote as a result of Amato's new claim of total Proxies Opposed of 7 and deduct his 6 illegal votes and Siegel's illegal proxy vote. Instead of 64-24 the vote would be 57 - 35. What else did they do illegal ? - What else are they hiding about the election count? And we still have no reason to believe anything John Amato and the Prudential Committee claim to be the vote at the election. 

24-2=22 votes Opposed via vote card + 13 Opposed Proxies = 35; and the evidence would indicate the vote tally should be closer. And the total vote is 92 not 88, even after eliminating Amato's illegal 6 votes and Siegal's illegal proxy. How many more votes are not being accounted for - give 'em up Nancy Jane.


Here is the Plan of Conspiracy!! "Nancy Jane Svirida - Clerk of Becket Woods Bail Out Scheme".

Amato Changes 8-31-08 Election Tally!!!

Proxy Vote Opposed Changed from 2 to 7

No Doubt, Nancy Svirida is now claiming she never told anybody that the Proxy vote was 25-2. John Amato and the Prudential Committee are denying that the vote at the 8-31-08 election was 64 in Favor to 24 Opposed to the latest tax hike!!! See Amato's and Prudential Committee's Paragraph #40 to their answer to the lawsuit - that paragraph #40 denies that the vote at the meeting was 64 to 24 in Favor of the latest tax hike of 8-31-08!!!

Why is Amato and the Prudential Committee denying that the vote was 64 to 24? That is what John Amato publicly declared at the meeting after Michael Elbery yelled over the meeting crowd asking for the election result. Many of you owners of the District heard Amato broadcast that result.

Just 64-24 and good bye, No observation of the count by the District owners no recount allowed. We were taking this guy Amato's word for the election results. Look at the documented lies and fraud this guy has committed and the other Prudential Committee Members are just as involved - they participated - this guy Amato should not be involved in counting any votes.

What is the vote of 8-31-08 NOW?!! Evidently, Amato and the Prudential Committee feel free to change the vote tally whenever they have to make up another lie in order to get out of a previous lie. They need to bail Nancy Svirida out of her 25-2 lie about the Proxy vote of 8-31-08 because Michael Elbery disclosed via the lawsuit, see paragraph #31, that he bumped into 7 owners who voted Opposed via Proxy. (It is now 8 out of 8 Proxy voters Opposed and probably will be much higher than that).

Hey, it ain't easy untying one knot of lie after another knot lie produced by Amato and his tangled Web of Co-conspirators. 

Amato and his Prudential Committee, via Exhibit G which was attached to the complaint, contains alleged copies of the  proxies and voting cards of the District election of 8-31-08. In order to cover up for Svirida, they have produced 7 proxies that they now claim are "all" the Proxies voted Opposed at the 8-31-08 election. Problem for the Co-conspirators is that only 2 of those seven Proxies are common to the 8 owners that told Elbery they voted Opposed via Proxy.

They would have produced 8 proxies Opposed had they known that Elbery was going to continue to run into owners that claimed they voted Opposed via Proxy. What are they going to do when we re-construct the vote and find out what the real vote was? Oh, Just more stupid lies by Amato and his click that no one that has half a brain could possibly believe.

Illegally, Amato and his Prudential Committee co-conspirators have told the Judge and Berkshire County Superior Court Clerk's Office that they want Exhibit G to remain sealed and not to be given to Michael Elbery under any condition (because he will expose their Conspiracy and tell the majority of District owners). Those documents in the manila envelope at the Clerk's office are public record and as a matter of law must be given to Elbery and the owners of Becket Woods.

Since the proxies in Exhibit G are public record and are disclosed as above due to action by Amato, it will be also disclosed that only Mr. Cole and the Samuels are common proxies with Elbery's list of, so far, 8 owners who voted Opposed via Proxy at the 8-31-08 meeting. Amato knew to include those two owners' proxies because he learned from past District Opposition, (who fear Mansbach and the click),  that Elbery was using the Samuels to sign the complaint/lawsuit (that particular type of lawsuit requires 3 owners as plaintiffs) and that Elbery was talking to Mr. Cole.

Elbery refuses to disclose the names of the rest of the owners that he learned, so far, voted Opposed via Proxy because those owners are afraid of retaliation by the Click. Fortunately, they would not dare bother Mr. Cole and he is not afraid of them anyways. The Samuels own a vacant lot and are desperately trying to sell and get out of Becket Woods. So no damage done. 

However, if you think that the real proxy vote Opposed via Proxy is 13 (8+5) you are being duped again by the Co-conspirators. Of Course, Amato and his Co-conspirators are now screaming, "we say only 7 and because we say therefore it is". Enough of your lies. Nancy Jane said 2 at the meeting. Amato and his Co-conspirators thought that everyone would believe them if they produced a mere 7 proxies Opposed. Now we want the rest of them including the other 6 owners that Elbery spoke to and the Co-conspirators have not produced in the manila envelope that is in the Clerk's Office of the Berkshire Superior Court

Mansbach can't be a real King - so he wants to pretend to be Royalty. So he thinks he is the King of Becket Woods. He has the jester Amato doing his dirty work. Amato has disgraced his masters - he screwed everything up and got caught. Mansbach are you going to allow this type of reckless work to continue to represent you. Your boy Amato has caused you embarrassment forever - it is time you told Amato and Nancy Jane to step down because they have failed you. And if you don't step down from your dreams of royalty you will have deal with the People of Becket Woods and their legally entitled claims to control of the District. Democracy is stepping on you - you are poor imitation of a King.


Will Mass. Superior Court Judge - Dan Ford help the Prudential Committee lie to the voters of Becket Woods?

The reason Amato's lawyers put Exhibit G in a sealed envelope is so that Judge Ford can illegally decide that the election was not rigged. They want Judge Dan Ford to review the voting cards and proxies in that envelope and say "per my review I say the election was not rigged and was legally held and that the election results are honest". Legal Hocus Pocus happens in the Courts of Massachusetts - but it won't if you stand up to the tyrants because they are cowards and are sensitive when they get publicly fingered for their "Hocus Pocus".

"Skippy" Amato didn't think up that legal scheme!! He knows nothing of law. That scheme of legal Hocus Pocus was dreamed up by lawyers and not those two light weights that represent Amato.

Well Judge Ford read the complaint - that issue is not before you - whether the election was rigged. The issue before you is whether the District owners were properly notified in compliance with law and whether there was a Quorum at the 8-31-08 election.

A secret manila envelope with copies of phony vote cards and proxies that the Prudential Committee and Berkshire Superior Court Clerk's Office won't let Elbery or the District owners see is meaningless and just another bag job. More lies and fraud - Unbelievable that anybody would think that running Becket Woods is so dam important that they would go to this extreme in their plotting and scheming and Conspiracy to the extent as documented by this Web Site.

Judge Dan Ford does not know how to evaluate the election tally or vote. It requires much more than just looking at a bunch of copies of papers that Amato gives the judge; at a minimum that would be hearsay. Go ahead judge - subpoena every owner of Becket Woods into your court and put them under oath and make them testify as to how they voted. That's how a court of law would have to RE-CONSTRUCT a vote. And that ain't going to happen (we wish it would) so don't involve yourself in that issue Judge Ford. It is for the political not the judicial to handle. 

Oh yes, then John Amato will get his attorneys, Aronson and Sherr, to sue based on Dan Ford's illegal decision should he decide to be so foolish. Hope not to have to see you on the Internet any more Dan Ford!