Another spurious claim by Thomas E. Maloney ...just another example of why the MLE gets sued for some Board member's personal acts....Thomas E. Maloney, Jr. (and others for which the membership is currently paying the legal bills) is already facing one complaint of defamation from a homeowner and member of the MLE and now his false claims might cause another:

-------------
Sept 25, 2009

Mr. Tom Maloney
Secretary
Mendham Lake Estates Homeowner Association
7 Yorkshire Dr.
Mendham, NJ 07945

In Re: Continuous Attempt to Review MLEHOA Books & Records

Dear Board,

I have received your September 2, 2009 letter which was in response to my letter from three months prior.

As the Association’s by-laws and NJ law both stipulate all books and records of the Association are available for any member’s review, I will exercise my right to review the Association’s insurance policies and past ten years loss run report as requested. I continue to think it is incredible that you have made it so difficult for me, a member of the MLE current on all my annual dues, to view the records for which I paid my allotted portion. The request for the past ten years loss run report is a new request given after six months of waiting for a reasonable explanation of the basis supporting the Tom Maloney published comment that “the Melly lawsuit” was responsible for the Association’s deductible doubling which has yet to be answered. Notable, the insurance broker’s June 17, 2009 letter-written by insurance broker T.J. Sheridan months after Tom Maloney was asked by me to provide a basis for his assertion, did not cite the Melly lawsuit as responsible for the deductible change. For the record, the insurance broker’s letter didn’t mention the Melly lawsuit at all-thus refuting the latest attempt to provide a basis for Tom Maloney’s claim. After months of patiently waiting and reading a series of changing –and eventually debunked excuses from Tom Maloney, the Board generally and Tom Maloney specifically have not yet provided a legitimate reason for this claim. My request that the Board inform T.J. Sheridan to cooperate fully and answer all and any questions that I may have in regards to the deductible was ignored and not answered by the Board’s September 2, 2009 letter. This request is still outstanding.

If these Association documents will not be made available, the board should notify me before I schedule a meeting with Vincent Papalia so more time and resources are not wasted once again reviewing just partial books and records. The missing monthly statements of October 2003, December 2008, January 2004 and July 2005 should also be made available at this time. The reason for this request is simple, though not a prerequisite for any member’s request and review – a member should be able to view all of the funds going in as well as going out of any MLE account, especially if those funds are purported to be associated with short term loans that are not reflected anywhere else in the MLE records.

Your letter does not address why you won’t answer the question asked in my June 22, 2009 letter regarding large cash deposits of unknown origin and nature. Therefore the request is being made once again verbatim to the request made on June 22, 2009:

“There were also three sizeable cash deposits discovered during the Grand Jury investigation of $1,000.00 on January 16, 2004, $1,500.00 on March 15, 2005 and $2,500.00 on March 30, 2005. Please provide all documentation related to these cash deposits, including but not limited to, who deposited the funds on behalf of the Association, on behalf of which homeowners’ accounts the deposits made, all related documentation, etc.”

Please let me know if you are once again going to refuse to answer any questions about these cash deposits or if you will cooperate in providing an explanation with supporting documentation to the nature of the cash deposits.

Your letter also “calls” upon me to “issue a written apology and retraction of” my “false accusations made against Dan Rosen and the Board”. Strangely, your letter fails to cite any specific accusation that is false much less provide a refutation of anything I have said or written. These matters started when I discovered several irregular financial transactions and have sought for years to view the records which would explain the irregularities. For the record, the Board initially and unsuccessfully tried to argue that I did not have a right to see the books & records – this fallacious reasoning was unequivocally rejected by the Court. Therefore, it is obviously impossible to even consider your request. Please state explicitly what exactly you believe was false otherwise I shall assume that everything I have said and/or written regarding Association matters shall be considered by the Board to be true and accurate. If the Board is able to refute “an accusation” that I have allegedly made then I would be more than willing to correct the record. I am sure the Board, given its fiduciary responsibility to make sure everything it reports and publishes is true and accurate at all times, would be more than willing to do the same. The fact remains, six months have passed since Tom Maloney was asked to provide the basis for his claim that I was responsible for the Association’s deductible doubling and after he has made various attempts to provide a basis –none have turned out to be true. Therefore the Board is, for one last time asked to correct the record or you will leave me no other choice but to seek a court ordered remedy. This would unnecessarily cost Association money and resources for no reason other than furthering some personal agenda which is not in the best interests of the Association.

Your characterization that some of the information requested is “for materials that are not subject to review by Member pursuant to the By-Laws and New Jersey law”. However, you neglect to provide even a rudimentary explanation why or to cite a basis for such an opinion in any statute or case law. As stated above, I am a dues-paying member of the MLE and current on my annual assessment. Do you honestly believe that if we went before a Judge or any reasonable objective person, he or she would believe that I am obligated to pay my dues, I can be sued for not paying my dues, you can put a lien on my house for failure to pay those dues, but the Board does not believe I should allowed to see what you spend my dues for? No reasonable person would believe this reasoning either logical or fair.

I look forward to your cooperation and reply.