THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Springfield

Civil Action

#3:09-cv-30076

 

 

 

 

Michael Elbery

v.                                                                                            COMPLAINT - AMENDED

Becket Woods Road and Maintenance District

John Amato

Nancy Svirida

Peter Mansbach

Steven August

Marilyn Flaum

Rich Sturtevant

Edward Farman

Joe LaCascia

Mark Millet

Arthur Levey

Jack Siegel

Harris N. Aaronson

 

Introduction:

1. This complaint is grounded in violations of R.I.C.O. & United States Constitution surrounding election violations, taxation and other illegal activities in the Becket Woods Road and Maintenance District. This complaint exposes some of the illegalities by the defendants within the limitations available to this plaintiff. Who knows what else they have done? While the District taxes were at $500.00 per year until 2007 nobody but the "Controlling Click" would involve themselves in the affairs of the District. Outsiders were not welcome even if they were owners.

Related Litigation:

2. The first lawsuit against these defendants in a Mass. Court under M.G.L. C. 39 s.23B resulted in the required co-plaintiffs being extorted by these defendants’ attorney, Paul B. Sherr, with threats of M.G.L. C. 231 s.6f for attorneys’ fees. One plaintiff had a nervous breakdown causing the case to be dismissed without prejudice. Sherr knew all too well that the plaintiffs were excluded from his phony threats of C. 231 s.6f legal fees. Sherr got away with it!

 

 

Jurisdiction:

3. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. s. 1983 and the Fourteenth and First Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. s. 1331 and s. 1343 and the aforementioned constitutional and common law provisions. RICO claim jurisdiction is founded via 18 U.S.C. s.1963 & s.1964. The plaintiff further invokes the pendant jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide claims arising out of state law sounding in tort.

Parties:

4. Michael Elbery is a landowner/voter at the Becket Woods Road and Maintenance District; (B.W. Lot 140A) he lives at 105 Laurel St., Apt. 8B, Lee, Mass. 01238.

5. Becket Woods Road and Maintenance District (hereinafter District) is a government entity created by an Act of the Massachusetts State Legislature via C. 351 of 2000 Acts. The District is governed by Becket Woods Prudential Committee, which is a 7-person body, allegedly, elected by the landowners/voters of the District. It is a government entity and political subdivision of Mass. subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. s. 1983.

6. Becket Woods Community Association (hereinafter "Association" or "B.W.C.A.") – was the Housing Association from 1971 through 2000 that preceded the District. It is now a fraudulent corporation maintained by a small "controlling group", including the defendants, in the District in order to illegally gain extra votes in District elections by using common lots of the District for the private vote of Association "President" John Amato and Amato’s predecessor, Joe La Cascia. The Association is registered with the Mass. Secretary of State, but on fraudulent terms; according to the articles of incorporation of the Association it has certain functions, duties, and jurisdictions in the District. In reality the Association has no legal functions, duties or jurisdictions in the District or anywhere else. All those duties, functions, and jurisdictions listed with the Mass. Secretary of State have for a decade belonged to the District. The 7 defendants/Prudential Committee Members are also the self-appointed officers of the Association; no election just more appointments. The Association is used by the defendants to help control and run the District illegally and engage in racketeering activity. But see RICO count, below, for more. It has no revenues or taxing authority.

7. "Controlling Click", a.k.a. "Tennis Click"– "is a small group of owners in the District who have taken control of the District for their own benefit and at the cost of the rest of the District Owners. They have managed to avoid elections of District’s, allegedly, elected officials/Prudential Committee Members, via use of the Unconstitutional Nomination and Proxy System, and replaced elections with their appointments. They rig district budget/tax elections. They use a fraudulent Association to help implement their illegal control. Currently all the defendants, who are members of the Prudential Committee and Association officers, are the leaders of the "Tennis Click". Their agenda, in part, to make the District an exclusive "Tennis Club" has caused them to be guilty of numerous illegalities. They have embezzled the District Treasury to illegally build state of the art clay courts, automatic sprinklers, and maintenance contracts. Now they are trying to embezzle more District money to pay attendants to groom the new courts; all behind the backs of the District owners and because they can’t afford to pay for their own tennis perks. But see RICO violations below.

 

 

8. John Amato is the Chairman & Treasurer of the Prudential Committee of the District – he is an elected member of the Prudential Committee of the District. According to the Town of Becket –Clerk, his permanent/voting residence is 211 Woodmere Rd. Becket, Mass. At all times relative to the actions, herein, Amato is a "State Actor" and acted under the "Color of Law" and is subject to a suit for violations of Constitutional Rights under 42 U.S.C. s. 1983. He is being sued via this action in his personal capacity.

9. Nancy Svirida is the Clerk of the Prudential Committee of the District – she is an elected member of the Prudential Committee of the District. Her residence is 88 Beech Tree Lane, Becket, Mass. 01223. At all times relative to the actions, herein, Svirida is a "State Actor" and acted under the "Color of Law" and is subject to a suit for violations of Constitutional Rights under 42 U.S.C. s. 1983. She is being sued via this action in her personal capacity.

 

 

11. Peter Mansbach is an elected member of the Prudential Committee of the District. His residence is 91 Central Park West, New York, N.Y. 10023. At all times relative to the actions, herein, Mansbach is a "State Actor" and acted under the "Color of Law" and is subject to a suit for violations of Constitutional Rights under 42 U.S.C. s. 1983. He is being sued via this action in his personal capacity.

 

 

12. Steven August is an elected member of the Prudential Committee of the District. His residence is 596 Prospect Street Apt. 4A, New Haven, Conn. 06511. At all times relative to the actions, herein, August is a "State Actor" and acted under the "Color of Law" and is subject to a suit for violations of Constitutional Rights under U.S.C. s. 1983. He is being sued via this action in his personal capacity.

 

 

13. Marilyn Flaum is an elected member of the Prudential Committee of the District. Her residence is 17 Fox Hollow Dr., Becket, Mass. 01223-9508. At all times relative to the actions, herein, Flaum is a "State Actor" and acted under the "Color of Law" and is subject to a suit for violations of Constitutional Rights under U.S.C. s. 1983. She is being sued via this action in her personal capacity.

 

 

14. Rich Sturtevant is an elected member of the Prudential Committee of the District. His residence is 50 Spruce Lane, Bethpage, N.Y., 11714. At all times relative to the actions, herein, Sturtevant is a "State Actor" and acted under the "Color of Law" and is subject to a suit for violations of Constitutional Rights under .s 1983. He is being sued via this action in his personal capacity.

 

 

15. Edward Farman is an elected member of the Prudential Committee of the District. His residence is 178 Hewlett Neck Road, Woodmere, N.Y.11598. At all times relative to the actions, herein, Farman is a "State Actor" and acted under the "Color of Law" and is subject to a suit for violations of Constitutional Rights under U.S.C. s. 1983. He is being sued via this action in his personal capacity.

16. Joe LaCascia was the former "Chairman"/Treasurer of the District Prudential Committee and President of the Association (2001-2007). To this plaintiff’s best investigation he mysteriously fled to Florida and lives at 609 Meandering Way, Polk City, Florida 33868 after "running" the District with an iron hand. Joe was smart enough to know that you don’t double taxation in two short years and that one thing leads to another. At all times relative to the actions, herein, LaCascia is a "State Actor" and acted under the "Color of Law" and is subject to a suit for violations of Constitutional Rights under U.S.C. s. 1983. He is being sued via this action in his personal capacity.

17. Mark Millet is the independent contractor/landscaper at the District. He has been paid his price for District landscaping and road maintenance in violation of the Mass. low bid laws since the inception of the District. No owner is allowed to question Millet’s position in the District. Millet lives at 63 New Lenox Rd., Lenox, Mass. according to defendants’ attorney, Harris N. Aaronson. Millet willfully acted in conjunction and conspiracy with the other defendants, who are state actors, in this action and therefore is subject to suit for violations of this plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights under U.S.C. s. 1983 because such conduct causes him to act under the "color of law". He is being sued is his personal capacity.

17a. Arthur Levey is a former member of the Prudential Committee. His residence is 785 Crandon Blvd., Apt. 903, Key Biscayne, Florida. At all times relative to the actions, herein against Levey, Levey is a "State Actor" and acted under the "Color of Law" and is subject to a suit for violations of Constitutional Rights under U.S.C. s. 1983. He is being sued via this action in his personal capacity. Levey was a member of the District Prudential Committee and an officer of the Association until July of 2006. Levey is specifically named in Counts VIII, IX, (¶ 74, 79, 96).

17b. Jack Siegel is a landowner in the District. His residence is 53 Fox Hollow Drive, Becket, Mass. Siegel willfully acted in conjunction and conspiracy with the other defendants, who are state actors, in this action to violate this plaintiff’s rights and is therefore liable under s. 1983. As a result, Seigel is a "State Actor" and acted under the "Color of Law" and is subject to a suit for violations of Constitutional Rights under U.S.C. s. 1983. He is being sued via this action in his personal capacity. Siegel engaged in election fraud as itemized in Counts III, IX (¶ 49a, 82).

17c. Harris N. Aaronson is the attorney for the District Prudential Committee and is paid by the District owners. His residence is 57 Wendell Ave., Pittsfield, Mass. Aaronson willfully acted in conjunction and conspiracy with the other defendants, who are state actors, in this action and therefore is subject to suit for violations of this plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights under U.S.C. s. 1983 because such conduct causes him to act under the "color of law". He is being sued is his personal capacity. Aaronson and his law firm have coached the defendants, since the inception of the District, as to how to successfully violate the law and rights of the District owners. Aaronson has become so bold that he falsified real estate deeds in order to assist Millet commit income tax evasion while conspiring to defraud District owners via illegal land sales and collection of illegal legal fees. (See Count VIII ¶ 74, 74a & 79, 89, 96). Aaronson advocates the defendants’ illegalities for a fee with impunity. Aaronson has no right to assist the defendants in violating the law.

 

 

 

Background Facts:

 

18. The District consists of a geographical area of 850 acres located in the Town of Becket, Mass. According to the Town of Becket Assessor’s records, there are approximately 155 voting lots in the District. The District voting system is a one vote for each lot owned. Multiple lot owners get a vote for each lot owned. There are approximately 125 individuals that are lot owners. Of the 81 houses in the District, there are only about a dozen year round or primary home residents, the balance are second/vacation homeowners.

19. The District has a governing body comprised of 7 elected officials, the 7 member Prudential Committee. The term of office is 3 years for Prudential Committee Members.

 

20. The District holds (alleged) elections annually on the July 4 weekend in order to elect members to the 7 member Prudential Committee, and vote on proposed tax increases. The budget-warrant, as submitted to the District owners, required by District law to define new proposed taxes and capital expenditures, is always so deliberately evasive, vague and ambiguous as to make it worthless/uninformative. The terms of office of the 7 Prudential Members are staggered. All capital expenditures must be approved by vote at District elections by District owners.

21. In July of 2009 three seats of the 7 member Prudential Committee are up for election, as the terms of 3 current Prudential Committee Members expire.

22. As a result of criminal conduct by the Prudential Committee, including rigging elections that resulted in illegal District taxation and concealment of the District checkbook, there are several "new candidates" that would like to run for election of those 3 seats as above.

COUNT - I

Nomination Obstruction - Violation of 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause

The above paragraphs are included herein this Count I.

23. The election of "new candidates" for those 3 seats, (see ¶ 21) in July 2009, on the Prudential Committee is obstructed by District Nomination rules as prescribed by the District By-Laws.

24. This nomination obstruction has never been a problem experienced in the District because there has never been a free election just closed appointments via the "Controlling District Click" lead by Peter Mansbach. No "Click candidate" has ever run opposed; there has always been only one choice of "Click candidate" to vote for regarding vacancies on the District Prudential Committee.

25. Specifically, there is no nomination process available to "new candidates" that provides proper notification to the District voters to candidacy of "new candidates".

26. According to the District By-Laws, nominations for "new candidates" will taken "from the floor on the day of the election meeting".

27. District Voters are alerted to the re-election candidacy of existing Prudential Committee Members and "new Click candidates" selected by the "Controlling Click" & Prudential Committee via Proxy and accompanying Warrant, which must be, according to the District Act, mailed and received by all District owners 14 days before the election.

 

28. In past elections should an existing Prudential Member vacate/quit the Prudential Committee the "Controlling Click" simply appoints a replacement and puts their name on the Warrant without any nomination procedure. These appointments always win because they always run unopposed because it is impossible for anyone to run against them.

29. District owners have the option to vote by Proxy or in person by ballot vote at the election meeting. Most owners/voters of the District do not attend District Meetings and therefore vote by proxy.

30. District "new candidates" are disadvantaged/obstructed by the nomination/election process of the District because Proxy voters will not know the existence of their candidacy. Further, "new candidates" will not be known until a few minutes prior to the actual District vote at the District meeting which makes their candidacy, (even to voters/owners who vote at the election meeting), unknown and not given enough time for appraisal or consideration by the District Voters (see paragraph #26 cf. #27). The "new candidates" will be, at best, write-ins for owners who vote at the meeting, as it will be impossible to put them on the ballot.

31. The right to vote is a Federally protected right. As per this Count I, the defendants have violated that right to vote; the defendants have created a governmental scheme, which disadvantages the others in the District, including the plaintiff.

 

32. This Count I constitutes a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Law by the defendants and defeats the plaintiff’s First Amendment right of association for the advancement of political beliefs and the right to cast the plaintiff’s vote effectively. Further, the District nomination procedures is arbitrary and is a scheme that deliberately violates the one man one-vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. An equal protection class can be comprised of one. Number of people in an Equal Protection Class is immaterial.

This Count I also constitutes a Violation of the 14th Amendment’s Substantive Due Process Clause by the defendants as this election scheme by the District "controlling click" is discriminatory against the other landowners/voters, including the plaintiff, and shocks the conscience.

The plaintiff asks that the federal government supervise all future District elections and enforce a fair and equal nomination system to all candidates be imposed for the election of July 2009 and all future elections. The plaintiff has a 14th Amendment Due Process Property Interest Right to a fair nomination process and election in the District which was violated by the defendants as per this Count I.

COUNT - II

More Equal Protection Clause Violation – Election Proxies Rigged

The above paragraphs are included herein this Count II.

 

33. In order to make sure that "District Controlling Click" policies are maintained the defendants/Prudential Committee has rigged the election proxy system so that the proxy votes go to the Click’s control.

34. The proxies are made out or assigned to current Prudential Committee Members John Amato and Nancy Jane Svirida, who are the District treasurer and secretary respectively. This is illegal and in violation of District Laws. See Exhibit A.

35. The proxies do indicate that the owner/voter can, allegedly, vote their choice on a particular vote issue and that Svirida and Amato will oblige that vote. But Svirida and Amato do not oblige the wishes of those proxy voters that indicate a choice opposed to theirs. Regardless of this alleged "choice" provision, which is not obeyed by Amato and Svirida, the proxies should not be made out to (pre-designated/assigned) anyone but should be "blank" as required by District By-laws and custom in this country. See Exhibit B.

36. See exhibits A and B for Amato/Svirida proxy vs. mandated/legal proxy.

37. Svirida and Amato got caught trashing proxies that were voted Opposed to their most recently sponsored tax hike at the 8-31-08 "Special District Election".

38. Compounding this proxy problem, the proxies are mailed back, only, to the custody of Svirida and Amato.

39. As per the District By-Laws, the District vote proxy is supposed to be "blank" as to assignment of the Proxy vote not automatically appointed to Svirida and Amato. See Exhibit B.

40. In addition to the District proxies being trashed, if they did not vote in agreement with District Prudential Committee policies/dictates, such as tax increases the Prudential Committee does not notify all owners via proxy and warrant of elections and related election issues, so that owner never gets an opportunity to vote.

 

41. As per this Count II, the defendants have created a governmental scheme, which disadvantages the others in the District, including the plaintiff.

42. This Count II constitutes a violation of the plaintiff’s U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Law and defeats the plaintiff’s First Amendment right of association for the advancement of political beliefs and the right to cast the plaintiff’s vote effectively. Further, the District Proxy system is arbitrary and is a scheme that deliberately violates the one-man one-vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. An equal protection class can be comprised of one. Number of people in an Equal Protection Class is immaterial.

43. This Count II also constitutes a Violation of the 14th Amendment’s Substantive Due Process Clause as this election Proxy scheme by the District "controlling click"/defendants is discriminatory against the other landowners/voters, including the plaintiff, and shocks the conscience. This Count II also constitutes a 14th Amendment Violation of Due Process Rights to Property; the plaintiff has a property interest right in fair and equal election Procedures in the District.

44. The plaintiff further asks the Federal government to mandate a fair and equitable Proxy system and voting card system (for voters/owners who attend District meetings).

 

 

COUNT III

8-31-08 Election Rigged – Causing Illegal Tax;

Violation of 14th Amendment Right to Access to the Courts - Cover-up Conspiracy & Due Process Property Interest

The above paragraphs are included herein this Count III.

45. Voting is a federally guaranteed right under the U.S. Constitution.

46. All District tax increases, capital expenditures and yearly budgets must be approved by vote of the District owners. Capital expenditures must be specifically itemized.

47. The District Prudential Committee/Defendants decided to hold a "Special Election" on 8-31-08 in order to more quickly raise District Taxes for the third time in 2 years and causing District taxes to double in 2 years, although no additional benefits or services are suggested or given to the owners.

48. Defendants, Amato and Prudential Committee, changed the vote issue of the 8-31-08 "Special Election" minutes before the vote so that Proxy Voters had no idea where their vote was applied. That’s right the Proxy voters/owners had been notified of a totally different vote issue and had submitted their proxies based on that information and then the Prudential Committee changed the issue of vote. The District Act requires a 14-day notification to all owners/voters of the issue to be voted on. As a result of the vote issue being changed at the 8-31-08 "Special Meeting", no District voter was legally or reasonably notified of the vote issue. There was no Quorum at the 8-31-08 District "Special Election" because the Proxies should not have been counted towards a Quorum due to a lack of proper notification. The defendants illegally applied the proxies to the new vote issue as they saw fit in order to suit their malicious agenda.

49. As a result of the 8-31-08 District "Special Election" it was learned that some District owners were not notified via required warrant and proxy of the election or its issue of increased District Taxes. Proxies voting Opposed to the 8-31-08 Prudential Committee Tax increase were trashed by Amato and Svirida in conspiracy with existing Prudential Committee Members (defendants). After the Prudential Committee/defendants got caught trashing proxies they changed the vote count of the proxies in order to cover-up the trashing and unaccounted for Proxies voted Opposed to the 8-31-08 district "Special Tax Increase Election". Vote cards of the 8-31-08 District Election were falsified and many unaccounted for. There was improper custody and control of the vote cards at the election in violation of the District Act vote card compliance rules; the vote cards were randomly distributed at the end of the meeting by "volunteers" who handed them out to anyone at that public meeting upon demand. There was no "Check Off" regarding vote cards at the 8-31-08 election as required by District Laws in order to insure that one vote card was distributed for each lot owned by bonafide District lot owners at the meeting of 8-31-08. The defendants acted to cover-up all election violations herein this count and complaint.

49a. John Amato (chairman/treasurer of the Prudential Committee) and other click members (Jack Siegel & Rhonda Robbins) were allowed to take extra illegal votes all with knowledge and approval of District Secretary Nancy Svirida and the other Prudential members. John Amato was caught voting 7 times via proxy at the 8-31-08 election although he owns only 1 lot. Amato claims he has always done this and that it is his right as "Chairman" to vote common area lots and an absentee owner’s lot (Fred Knapp).

49b. Jack Siegel was particularly egregious in his lawlessness; Siegel voted twice at the 8-31-08 election, once by vote card at the meeting and once by Proxy 3 weeks after the election in order to help Amato falsify the election results. Siegel owns one lot and is entitled to only one vote.

 

50. There are so many illegalities and defalcations surrounding the 8-31-08 election that it is impossible to determine the "real" election count/result, or how much the District voters were cheated. As below, the only reason that the District owners were allowed to see any of the 8-31-08 election vote cards and proxies is because a Mass. Superior Court Judge released those documents over the severe but tardy objection of John Amato and his attorney Harris N. Aaronson. (Aaronson and his subordinate, Paul B. Sherr gave order to the Clerk at Berkshire Superior Court not to give secret Exhibit G of their complaint answer to the plaintiffs but they got caught sleeping in their corruption/presumptuousness.)

51. However, "Chairman" John Amato dictated that the new tax hike would be enforced. The motive for these illegalities, including rigged election and most importantly the resulting illegal taxes, is to force year round working people out of the District; and to injure, force out, and discourage land speculators, developers, investors. And to make illegal purchase of state of the art clay tennis courts which have never been approved by the District owners. And to enrich District landscaper – Mark Millet while evading Massachusetts low bid laws for contract work in the District. And to commit fraud, embezzlement, malfeasance, misappropriation of District Taxes.

52. This conduct in Count III was deliberate discrimination by the defendants against the plaintiff and District owners who Oppose the "Click" and their needless illegal tax increases and violation of a fundamental federal right, the right to vote, and requires that the "8-31-08 special election" be invalidated and future elections supervised by the federal Govt. because the entire election District process is now controlled by the defendants who have learned that they can do whatever they want with impunity. The defendants are dishonest and should be prohibited from running any election.

53. The tax increase of 8-31-08 must be reversed and the election ruled void/illegal.

54. The conduct enumerated in this Count III constitutes a Violation of the plaintiff’s Due Process Right to Property under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. constitution. The plaintiff has a property interest in fair elections that result in increased taxation on his property. This conduct in Count III is a further Violation of the 14th Amendment because the defendants have covered-up the election fraud/violations/illegalities herein in order to prevent the plaintiff’s and District owners’ access to the courts and Due Process of Law.

55. This conduct in Count III causes an Equal Protection Violation via the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment- these election violations make it impossible for the owners, including the plaintiff, Opposed to the District Prudential Committee/defendants to ever defeat the "Controlling Click" or its policies or to get a federally guaranteed fair vote/election and resultant fair taxation and representation.

 

COUNT - IV

Violation of 1st Amendment Rights and Retaliation for Exercising 1st Amendment Free Speech Rights

 

The above paragraphs are included herein this Count IV.

56. As indicated above, on 8-31-08 there was a "Special District Meeting" held at the Becket Town Hall in order to vote on a proposed, by the Prudential Committee, emergency increase in the District taxes. Why ever was there an "emergency" to jack-up the taxes, again?

57. Plaintiff, Michael Elbery, had began, about 1 week prior to the 8-31-08 meeting/special election, organizing the District Opposition via pamphlets which alerted the District owners to the Opposition of the needless increase in taxes and some of the other abuses in the District by the Prudential Committee and the policies enforced for the "controlling click".

 

58. When the plaintiff, Elbery, arrived at the District Meeting he was ordered to "get out" by District Prudential Committee Members John Amato and Peter Mansbach. These two had a bevy of supporters around them.

59. Elbery left the Open Meeting room, as a result.

60. There had never been a cop hired at a District Meeting but due to being exposed in his illegalities John Amato got scared. Amato was conscious of his guilt.

61. At the 9-13-09 District Meeting held by the Prudential Meeting at Becket Town Hall, the defendants, Flaum, Amato, Sturdevant, Austin had the Becket cop keep the plaintiff out of that public meeting while they conducted business for over an hour. They then had the cop force the plaintiff to sit in a seat that prevented him from hearing what they said during the remaining 15 minutes of the meeting that they allowed the plaintiff to observe. There were approximately 50 empty seats and they mandated the plaintiff sit in that one chair. Nobody else attended that meeting but the plaintiff.

62. The conduct in this Count constitutes a Violation by defendants of the plaintiff’s First Amendment Rights and is also Retaliation for the plaintiff exercising his First Amendment Rights under the U.S. Constitution. The defendants cannot exclude the plaintiff from a public District Meeting or retaliate against the plaintiff for exercising his 1st Amendment rights when the plaintiff was distributing pamphlets and expressing his political views to fellow District owners.

 

 

COUNT - V

Concealment of District Records – Violation 14th Amendment Due Process Clause Property Interest – Cover-up Conspiracy Denying Access to the Courts – Substantive Due Process Violation & Fraud

The above paragraphs are included herein this Count V.

63. In violation of the District Act and Mass. Public Records laws, the Prudential Committee (defendants) has always, since the inception of the District, refused to allow any of the District owners access to public records of the District, including voting records, checkbook, bank statements, District contracts, and supporting documents/invoices. Not only does Mass. law define those documents as "public record" but District laws mandate that any and all District owners have an unqualified right to review those same records.

64. John Amato, like his predecessor, Joe LaCascia, controls the District checkbook since the inception of the District. Amato refuses to allow anybody review of the District Check book or Bank Statements or Paid invoices or District contracts the District is bound via the Prudential Committee. Even past Prudential Committee Members have been prohibited from seeing the District Checkbook. The Prudential Committee have always concealed District voting records until a Mass. Superior Court Judge released the "alleged" voting records of the 8-31-08 "Special Election" as a result of Attorney Harris N. Aaronson’s miscalculations. Those "alleged" voting records as released by the defendants via a Mass. judge are a fabrication and are not authentic and document election fraud.

65. The District was run, up until June of 2007 at a tax of $500.00/year/lot, for total District Revenues of $80,000.00 per year. Due to illegal tax increases by the District Prudential Committee the District Tax is double that or $1,000.00 per lot for a total of $162,000.00 with no increase in benefits or services to the District owners. There is an issue of fraud, malfeasance, embezzlement, misappropriation of tax revenues collected from District owners regarding the taxes collected in the District. That is why Amato won’t let anyone see the District Checkbook and corroborating documents.

66. In addition to being fraud, the concealment by the defendants of District records, as in this Count V, is intentional, deliberate and arbitrary discrimination and impermissible violation of the plaintiff’s Property rights under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The plaintiff and owners/voters of the District have a property interest in seeing those records.

67. Additionally, the concealment of District records from the owners/plaintiff is a cover-up conspiracy in Violation of the 14th Amendment’s right to Access to Courts.

68. The conduct in this Count V is a 14th Amendment Substantive Due Process Violation, which "shocks the conscience", offends the community and transgresses any sense of fair play and decency. The plaintiff asks the Court to make the defendants produce all District records, including voting, financial, etc., since the inception of the District.

 

 

COUNT - VI

District (Municipal) Liability under s. 1983

The above paragraphs are included herein this Count VI.

69. The Becket Road and Maintenance District is liable for violations in Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VIII under s. 1983 because the conduct and activity complained is law of the District and those Constitutional Violations are the acts and edicts of its chief policy maker and all members of the Prudential Committee. These same violations are the policy and custom of the District due to custom and actions of its chief policy makers, former Chairman/Treasurer LaCascia, and current -Amato and the entire Prudential Committee.

70. Its chief policy makers, Joe LaCascia and John Amato and all defendants, implemented and deliberately chose this course of action and approved the Unconstitutional activity herein this complaint. The Constitutional Violations herein have been formally adopted and made official policy of the District by its chief Policy makers and the entire governing Prudential Committee.

 

 

COUNT - VII

Conspiracy to Violate Constitutional Rights – District Prudential Committee

The above paragraphs are included herein this Count VII.

71. The defendants are aware, participated in, and aided in the Unconstitutional Violations enumerated herein this complaint. They are all liable for the Constitutional Violations herein via conspiracy.

 

Count VIII

Conversion, Embezzlement, Fraud, Conspiracy & No Compliance with Mass. C. 30B – Low Bid Laws - All in Violation 14th Amendment’s Due Process Right in Property

The above paragraphs are included herein this Count VIII.

72. John Amato, Chairman and Treasure of the District Prudential Committee, has solemnly and publicly stated that no one is stealing from the District Treasury. Why would anybody believe him under the circumstances/evidence? Why won’t Amato allow anybody to see the District Checkbook (a public record), including other Prudential Committee Members? The District Checkbook and all financial and voting District records have been concealed for 9 years, (which constitutes fraud – see also Count V), first by District Treasurer/Chairman – Joe LaCascia and now Amato. LaCascia and Amato have been lifetime best friends from the same neighborhood.

73. In June of 2006 there was $60,000.00 in District Reserve Accounts (bank accounts) according to District documents. By 2008 there was $-0-. There is no accounting and no questions are answered as to the use of this $60K, or any of the District tax revenues. The $60K was stolen, embezzled, or misappropriated or all. And during the same time period 2007-2008 the Prudential Committee has claimed a need to double District Taxes.

74. The former Prudential Committee "Chairman/Treasurer", Joe LaCascia, illegally, sold District land on StageCoach Rd., in conspiracy, to Mark Millet and Levey at give way prices (more embezzlement and fraud) in 2005 without any of the required bids procedures required under Mass. law C. 30B s. 16; in fact these land sales were deliberately kept secret from the owners. Millet, one month later, sold his land for an immediate windfall profit (260%) to Leavey. Harris N. Aaronson who masterminded the fraudulent land sales and then helped falsify the land registry documents/deeds (more fraud) with these same three so Millet would not have to pay income taxes (fraud) on the short-term gain when he immediately sold his land to Levey.

.

74a. The defendants are embezzling District funds to defend this lawsuit, which is filed against them in their personal capacity. Defendant - Aaronson stated during settlement talks of this case that he has the right under Mass. C. 258 (Mass. Tort Act) to be paid to defend the Prudential Committee defendants and all the defendants, who are being sued in their personal capacity, out of the District treasury. Mass. C. 258 does not allow payment of the defendants’ legal fees in this case because they are being sued in their personal capacity for the federal issues herein and state claims are not grounded in negligence.

 

75. In summer of 2006 the defendants embezzled District tax revenues to purchase and install a state of the art clay tennis courts without any required vote of approval of the District owners, but the clay courts was paid for via the District Treasury. In fact the tennis court was completed and concealed from the District owners, except for the "Tennis Click". Any owner questioning such illegal expenditures are shouted down at District meetings and ostracized. This is just another example of embezzlement of the District Treasury by the defendants.

75a. The defendants are embezzling and misappropriating District tax revenues since the inception of the District. And the defendants are conspiring to embezzle the additional tax revenues that resulted from the illegal doubling of District taxes in two years from 2007-2008. The District Treasury/tax revenues have been sacked/embezzled by the defendants since the inception of the District, in part, in order to illegally pay District contractor-Mark Millet excessive fees in violation of Mass. low bid laws C. 30 B. Millet was a willing co-conspirator in this embezzlement and fraud.

Non –compliance with Low Bid laws Mass. C. 30B – 14th Amendment Violation

76. The defendants have never abided or complied with the Mass. low bid laws for District road work/contract and related District expenditures. Instead, they have chosen to embezzle the tax revenues of the District and defraud the District owners by paying Mark Millet excessive amounts of money. Millet and all the defendants know they are supposed to comply with the Mass. low bid laws for contract work (road maintenance & landscaping & snow plowing etc.) done in the District. The plaintiff has a 14th Amendment Due Process Property Interest Right to have the defendants comply with the Mass. low bid laws, C. 30B, and stop illegally paying/embezzling District tax revenues with needless/excessive amounts to Mark Millet. The plaintiff asks the court to force the defendants and future Prudential Committee to comply with the Mass. low bid laws, C. 30B. This violation of 30B is embezzlement, fraud, and conversion by the defendants.

76a. This Count VIII constitutes common law/state tort violations of embezzlement and conversion and fraud by the defendants because they have misappropriated and stolen District tax revenues and land/assets, all in conspiracy. The plaintiff asks the Court to make the defendants pay for and replenish the District Treasury for the cost of that clay tennis court, hi-performance sprinkler, and maintenance contract, and repay all embezzlements, misappropriations of District revenues, and illegal capital expenditures. Who knows what else they have done? While the taxes were at $500.00 per year until July 2007 nobody but the " click" would involve themselves in the affairs of the District because you were made to feel unwelcome and if you disagreed you were publicly insulted. But that doesn’t bother everyone.

 

 

76b. The illegalities enumerated in this Count VIII constitutes a violation of the plaintiff’s 14th Amendment Right to Due Process Interest in Property.

 

 

COUNT - IX

Federal R.I.C.O. Violations - Conspiracy

The above paragraphs are included herein this Count IX. B.W.R.& M. D. (District) is not a RICO defendant.

A. District Prudential Committee Racketeering

77. s. 1962c - The defendants, acting in conspiracy, via the District Prudential Committee, conduct the affairs of the District through a pattern of racketeering activity and collection of unlawful debt; s. 1962b, the defendants, in conspiracy, via the Prudential Committee, control the District through a pattern of racketeering activity and collection of unlawful debt. The racketeering activity engaged by the defendants using the District Prudential Committee is as follows:

78. Mail Fraud –the defendants, since the inception of the District on a quarterly annual period, have been using the U.S. mail to embezzle District tax revenues (defrauding District owners) to pay taxes on lots they claim are owned by the Association.

79. Wire Fraud & Mail Fraud – the defendants used the U.S. mail and telephone in order to embezzle/defraud the District via unauthorized sale of District common lands on StageCoach Rd. at give away prices (no compliance with Mass. high bid laws C. 30B s. 16) to District Landscaping Contractor, Mark Millet, and former Prudential Committee Member Levey in June 2005. (see paragraph #74 to be included herein this paragraph).

In June through August of 2005 telephone calls and mailings were made between defendants, LaCascia, Millet, and Leavey and the realtor in order to commit this land fraud. Millet, one month later, sold his land for an immediate windfall profit of 260% to Levey. Mail and telephone communications were also made by these three to attorney – Harris N. Aaronson who masterminded the fraudulent land sales and then helped falsify the land registry documents/deeds (more fraud) with these same three so Millet would not have to pay income taxes (fraud) on his profit when he immediately sold his land to Levey.

 

 

 

80. Mail Fraud & Wire Fraud – the defendants, in the summer of 2006, used the U.S. mail and telephone to embezzle from the District treasury and defraud District owners, via unauthorized (no vote of District Owners as required by District Law) capital expenditures, including a state of the art clay tennis court, automatic sprinkler and maintenance contract, for the benefit of the "Tennis Click". This while Amato and Millet and all defendants lied to the District owners by telling them that the money was going to "reconstruction" of the District roads.

The defendants communicated by phone and mail with contractors in order to solicit for bids and to complete these tennis embezzlements and then used the mail to embezzle District checks to pay for the unauthorized capital tennis improvements, as above this paragraph. This while the District owners were being told by the defendants by mail and phone in 2006 – 2008 that the money was being used and had been used for road construction. District tax revenues are collected by U.S. mail.

81. Mail Fraud & Wire Fraud – the defendants used the U.S. mail to defraud the owners/voters in all elections of the District since its inception. The defendants did this by not notifying certain District owners of the election or proxy that they thought would Oppose their policies and tax increases and by trashing proxies, which were sent by mail, opposed to their sponsored tax hikes and by rigging the District elections and election vote. Defendants refused to produce prior election results (more election fraud), which must be maintained for 7 years.

All District elections are conducted by mail; District law requires a warrant and proxy to be sent by U.S. mail to every lot owner. Proxy votes are returned by U.S. mail.

82. Mail Fraud & Wire Fraud – the defendants used the U.S. mail and telephone to commit additional Election Fraud at the 8-31-08 "Special Election". Prudential Chairman - John Amato, in addition to illegally voting 5 District common lots, voted/stole another District owner’s (Fred Knapp) vote. "Tennis Click" members Rhonda Robbins and Jack Siegel were also allowed by the defendants to vote extra illegal votes. Siegel was particularly egregious in his lawlessness; Siegel voted twice at the 8-31-09 election, once by vote card at the meeting and once by Proxy 3 weeks after the election in order to help Amato falsify the election results. Siegel was entitled to only one vote because Siegel owns only one lot. According to the Mass. Legislature those District common lots that Amato voted, See Founding Act, "are for the benefit of the District Owners", not the fictitious Association. Further, the District owners pay the taxes on those common lots.

As above in #81, all elections are conducted by mail.

 

83. Mail Fraud & Wire Fraud – the defendants used the U.S. mail to engage in more Election Fraud (M.G.L. C. 56) at the 8-31-08 District "special election". The defendants falsified vote cards; falsified the vote count. The defendants changed the vote issue at the District Meeting of 8-31-08 so that none of the voters in the District were given the 14-day notification by mail as required by District law and the Proxy voters, who were notified by mail and used the mail to vote their proxy, had no idea how their vote was applied. There was no quorem. Additionally, John Amato claimed it was the U.S. Post Office’s fault that many District owners did not get notified of 8-31-08 District "special election" issues via required warrant. Attorney Richard Lieb who owns 4 lots was amongst the owners whose vote cards disappeared at the 8-31-08 "Special Election". See Count III for all specificity of election fraud.

As above in #81, all elections are conducted by mail.

 

84. Mail Fraud & Wire Fraud – All these District election violations/illegalities ( see above & election fraud above paragraphs #81-83) caused collection of illegal taxation (illegal debt) by the defendants via the U.S mail for all years, on a quarterly annual basis, since the inception of the District.

The District Road taxes are billed, collected, and paid, on a quarterly annual basis, by U.S. mail.

 

 

85. Mail Fraud & Wire Fraud – The defendants used the U.S. mail and telephone to violate the Mass. Low Bid laws, C. 30B, in order to embezzle and defraud the District tax revenues and enrich independent contractor, Mark Millet, every year since inception of the District. The defendants solicited District business, and District contracts in violation of Mass. C. 30B via the U.S. mail and telephone. The defendants paid contractors, including LeFrenier and Millet, by mail, embezzling the District.

The District Road taxes are billed, collected, and paid, on a quarterly annual basis, by U.S. mail.

 

86. Mail Fraud – The defendants used the U.S. mail & telephone to defraud the District owners by embezzling the District Reserve Account of $60K which existed in the District bank account @ 2006. By 2008, according to Amato, it no longer existed and is unaccounted for by the Prudential Committee.

Then the defendants used the District warrants of 2007-2008, sent by mail (claimed money used for road reconstruction), to cover-up this fraud and used the mail to spend/disburse via embezzlement the $60K. The District tax revenue causing the $60K reserve was collected by the U.S. mail.

87. Further, the defendants have been defrauding the District, via use of the U.S. mail and telephone, by embezzling and misappropriating District tax revenues every year since the inception of the District, including the illegal tax increases of 200% of 2007 through 2008; the future proceeds of which the defendants are conspiring to embezzle or misappropriate.

The defendants collected the District taxes by U.S. mail and then paid out the embezzlements by U.S. mail while conspiring by phone.

 

88. Mail Fraud & Wire Fraud – The defendants have used the U.S. mail & telephone, since the inception of the District, to defraud the District by concealing all District records (more fraud) from the District owners, which are defined by both Mass. and District law as "public records", to cover-up the defendant’s illegalities of embezzlement, tax revenue misappropriations and fraud. These concealed District records include the District checkbook, bank statements, invoices, voting records contracts etc.

Numerous District owners have made demand for these District records since the inception of the District by U.S. mail, phone, and e-mail (wire) only to be denied by mail and phone. The District records are a product (sent & received) of the U.S. mail. The District election records are produced, as are the elections conducted, by U.S. mail.

89. Mail Fraud & Wire Fraud – the defendants are using the U.S. mail and telephone to embezzle District funds to defend this lawsuit, which is filed against them in their personal capacity. Defendant - Aaronson stated during settlement talks of this case that he has the right under Mass. C. 258 (Mass. Tort Act) to be paid to defend the Prudential Committee defendants and all defendants, who are being sued in their personal capacity, out of the District treasury. Mass. C. 258 does not allow payment of those defendants’ legal fees because they are being sued in their personal capacity for the federal issues herein and state claims are not grounded in negligence.

The District funds/tax revenues are collected by U.S. mail. The defendants communicate by U.S. mail and by phone with their attorneys in defense of this case.

 

 

B.

B.W.C.A. (Association) is fraudulent Scheme used to control & cheat District owners – via Racketeering

90. 1962c - The defendants, in conspiracy, conducted the affairs of the Association (enterprise) through a pattern of racketeering activity and the collection of unlawful debt; 1962b the defendants use the Association to maintain control of the District through a pattern of racketeering activity and the collection of unlawful debt. The racketeering activities engaged by the defendants using the Association are as follows:

91. Mail Fraud & Wire Fraud – the defendants used the U.S. mail to fraudulently claim via incorporation/ registration, yearly, with the Mass. Secretary of State, that the Association has powers/authority/jurisdiction within the District. Those claimed powers/authorities/jurisdictions belong to the District per the Mass. Legislature/District Founding Act (C. 351 Acts of 2000). Indeed, the 7 defendants/current Prudential Committee Members and LaCascia (thru 2008) and Levey (thru 2006) are/were the 7 officers (no election) of the Association and each has/had his/her own self-appointed fraudulent jurisdiction within the District, as an Association officer. Since the inception of the District the defendants have used these fraudulent Association powers/jurisdictions/authorities to control the District illegally via mail and wire fraud.

The defendants send mailings to the District owners, yearly, corroborating this fraud; and they have a web site to further perpetuate this Association fraud via wire. As above, the registration was by U.S. mail.

 

92. Mail Fraud & Wire Fraud – the defendants, since the inception of the District, used the U.S. mail and telephone to embezzle the district by stealing and controlling District common land from the District owners and putting that land in the Association’s name. Then the defendants use the U.S. mail and telephone to fraudulently vote those District common lots as belonging to the Association for their own illegal agenda. Currently, the Association claims 11 common lots in the District.

93. Mail Fraud – the defendants, since the inception of the District, use the U.S. mail to fraudulently collect District tax revenues (collection of illegal debt) to fraudulently, via the U.S. mail, pay taxes (embezzlement) on District common lots that the defendants claim are owned by the Association and are voted by the defendants through the Association. Every time District land is abandoned the Association claims it for free and then makes the District owners maintain it, and pay the taxes, including Town of Becket RE taxes and District taxes, on it. The defendants not only have fraudulent title to the District Common lots, via the Association, but steal the votes on those lots.

94. Mail Fraud & Wire Fraud – the defendants have used the U.S. mail to commit election fraud claiming the vote on District common lots belongs to the Association. The reigning Association President – John Amato (2008-2009) uses the District common lots for his vote (acting as Association President) in District elections, which promotes the illegal control of the "Controlling Click"/defendants. John Amato justifies this election fraud by stating, "that’s they way it’s always been done". Past Association President – Joe LaCascia engaged in this violation from 2001 through 2007 while he was Association President.

The District elections are conducted by U.S. mail.

95. Mail Fraud & Wire Fraud- Election Fraud – The defendants, via U.S. mail and telephone, used the stolen District Common lots to help rig the election of 8-31-08 by using the votes of 5 of those lots (see ¶ 92-94) to illegally stack the election total in favor of the Prudential Committee’s sponsored special and needless tax increase. Causing District taxes to double in two years without reason or additional benefits to the District owners.

The District elections are conducted by U.S. mail.

 

 

 

96. Mail Fraud & Telephone Fraud – the defendants, via the Association, used the U.S. mail and telephone to fraudulently sell District Common Lands (embezzlement) on StageCoach Rd. in June of 2005. These lots on StageCoach Rd. were some of the lots fraudulently put in the B.W.C.A./Association’s name/title, but belong to the District, as described above in this complaint. See paragraph #79 for more specificity.

97. Mail Fraud & Wire Fraud – the defendants use the U.S. mail and telephone to enforce fraudulent architectural covenants of the Association on the property of District owners. This violation has been ongoing since inception of the District in 2001 and illegally controlled approximately 25 houses that had been built since 2001 and any decisions by District vacant lot owners regarding development of their lot via. The Association architectural covenants have no valid authority or jurisdiction over property of the District owners; the covenants are just more fraud by the defendants to illegally control the District owners and their property in the District via the Association.

Upon inquiry by phone, since the inception of the District, the defendants alert inquirers, including District owners, to the mandatory enforcement of these same architectural covenants. As well, the U.S. mail and Internet (wire) via the Association Web Site are used to fraudulently enforce these illegal covenants.

 

 

 

C. Conspiracy

98. 1962d - The defendants agreed to commit these R.I.C.O. violations, as above this Count, and agreed to and did participate in the conduct of the affairs of the both the District and Association through a pattern of racketeering, as above. Further, the defendants agreed to control the District, as above this Count, through a pattern of racketeering.

Wherefore,

D. Plaintiff’s Property was injured due to these RICO violations

99. The plaintiff’s property and business (land in Becket Woods) was injured due to these R.I.C.O. violations, herein this count, and as a result has depreciated in value to zero and has become non-salable because of this ridiculous and illegal taxation and other RICO violations as named herein this Count. Nobody in their right mind would buy real estate in Becket Woods once they find out about its scandals, illegalities, and control by the defendants/ "gang of seven". The plaintiff demands damages in the amount of $300,000.00 to his land values due to the defendant’s RICO violations. In addition, the plaintiff was illegally taxed due to these RICO violations resulting in damages in the amount of $16,000.00. The plaintiff asks for treble damages in punitive damages as allowed by civil RICO.

 

COUNT X – The B.W.C.A. & its Architectural Covenants – Violation of 14th Amendment’s Due Process Interest in Property

The above paragraphs are included herein.

100. As above ¶ 97, the defendants, via the B.W.C.A./Association, are engaging in a fraud and have taken illegal rights, powers, and jurisdictions in the District, including the illegally created "Association architectural covenants" that all illegally control District owners’ property.

101. The B.W.C.A. and its illegal jurisdictions, powers and architectural covenants are a violation of the plaintiff’s U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause Interest in Property Rights.

102. The plaintiff asks the Court to ban the B.W.C.A., its powers and jurisdictions in the District, including its architectural covenants.

See all the scandals in Becket Woods @ becketwoodswatch.net

WHEREFORE,

The plaintiff was injured and seeks damages in the amount of $300,000.00 caused by the illegalities in Counts I through VIII & X for emotional distress, reduction of property value, refund of illegal taxes, and also seeks punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00 due to the defendant’s reckless indifference, and alternatively, deliberate violation of the plaintiff’s federally protected rights. And costs of this action.

In addition the plaintiff asks the Court to do the following:

Order/make the defendants comply with the Mass. Low Bid Laws – C. 30B.

Order the defendants to reimburse the District for the value of the land sold on Stagecoach Rd. to Millet and Levey, 2 lots @$65K=$130K.

Order/make the defendants produce/release all District records to the plaintiff and any other owner of the District as required by Mass. and District Law.

Order/make the defendants reimburse the District for the cost of the new clay tennis courts, hi-performance sprinkler, and maintenance contract for that court.

Order/make the defendants reimburse the District for all embezzlements, thefts, and misappropriations of District tax revenues.

Order the Jurisdictions, powers, architectural covenants and all powers of the B.W.C.A. that affect the District be banned and voided.

Invalidate the taxes that resulted from the "Special District Election" of 8-31-08 and all District taxes increases above $500.00 per lot due to the tax increases being the result of rigged elections.

Implement a fair and valid election procedures, nomination procedures, and proxy system so that elections are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

Reverse the results of the District "Special Election" of 8-31-09.

 

 

 

 

THE PLAINTIFF REQUESTS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES.

Michael Elbery, plaintiff

6-5-09