Wow, this is seriously bizarre. Mr. Marquis, on your own Facebook account you post a screenshot of the TWO audit letters addressed to the Caccaviello campaign to which Mr. Clairmont refers, which letters address FOUR issues in total. They are right there for viewing, and come directly from the OCPF. All you have to do is click the link.

For Caccaviello, the issues cited were: “Contributions from prohibited entities”; “Cash contributions in excess of $50”; “Multiple contributors reported for a single receipts”; and a question regarding “Credit card fees reported”.

Andrea Harrington has received three such letters pertaining to her current campaign, which cite three problems: “Cash contributions in excess of $50”; “Missing/Incomplete deposit reports”; and “Clarify expenditure information”.

For both Caccaviello and Harrington, the issues raised in these letters are trivial. They are the result of a byzantine campaign finance process, in which mistakes are invariably made. Both campaigns have resolved the issues at hand as they have arisen, because they are the result of bookkeeping errors and the like, not serious malfeasance. They are more a reflection of an out of control bureaucracy than bad actions on the part of either candidate.

Most of your Facebook feed consists of ad hominem’s and insults, including talk of partner swapping between Harrington, her husband and her closest supporters. Pretty vile stuff. You also took Ms. Harrington to task for not taking her husband’s name, unlike Mrs. Caccaviello and Mrs. Capeless, which is pretty entertaining stuff given that DA Capeless’s wife most certainly did not take his name.

All told, you say too many bizarre and offensive things to go through them all here. But here are a few of the funnier corrections I have for you. First, a number of my attorney friends who are “of counsel” to various law firms are going be surprised to learn that they are no longer legitimate, practicing, paid attorneys. Sir, you are very confused.

Second, I am particularly amused by your confusion over what a Municipal Lien Certificate is (and no, it is not a Mechanical Lien Certificate, lol), and your assertion that the existence of one points to something nefarious going on. An MLC is almost always requested by a homeowner who is refinancing, selling, or something along those lines. They are meant to demonstrate to the parties involved that there are no liens on the property, as Harrington’s did.

I’m sure the handful of people who “like” your Facebook screeds will be disappointed, but it would be wise of you to better inform yourself before making such posts.

Good luck to you.

If there are any sane people out there who would like definitive proof, please paste the following link into your browser. Then click on the “Correspondence” link, and then the “Audit” sub-link.

Thanks.

http://www.ocpf.us/Filers?q=caccaviello&cat=A#audit-corr

For heaven’s sake, please go to Google and type in “of counsel aba”. You will find a clear explanation of what it means to be “of counsel”, provided by the American Bar Association. Not the jumbled mess you present above. Don’t believe me, believe them. Of counsel lawyers most certainly are “employed” AND “associated” with the firms for whom they work. They just aren’t partners (i.e. owners) of the firms. Can’t dumb it down any more than that, sorry.

Also, please, please look up what a Municipal Lien Certificate is, why one is produced, and at whose request. Or try another approach. Have you ever heard of a lien search, which is a standard part of ANY real property transaction, be it a sale, refinancing, property transfer, etc.?

Anyway, I m not here to educate you, so you can take it or leave it. But in regards to the Harrington MLC that you consider to be such smoking gun, here’s what the doc actually shows.

1. In January 2012, Harrington or her bank requested the MLC to confirm there were no liens on the property, as a STANDARD STEP in a refinancing, or transfer, etc. (not really our business, now, is it?).

2. The MLC produced showed that there were ZERO outstanding Liens on the property at issue. Your conclusion otherwise is based on ignorance.

3. Regarding the tax issue, you are hopelessly lost. The fiscal year for the Town of Richmond ends June 30. So FY 2012 covered from July 1, 2011 to July 30, 2012.

The date of the MLC was January 27, 2012, or a little more than half-way through FY 2012. Looking at the taxes paid info, Harrington had paid a little more than half her tax bill for the year by that point, which makes perfect sense given that most towns allow residents to pay their taxes quarterly.

Another way of saying that is that a mid-fiscal-year MLC for ANYONE would show a similar tax liability, unless that person chose to pay their full tax bill in advance, at the beginning of the year. Which would definitely not be recommended by many financial advisors.

Hope this helps.

You did not address a single one of my substantive corrections. I assume the matter is settled, then.

As for the ethics complaint, I would be willing to wager that it was filed by a man with the initials BCM, since literally anybody can file such a complaint on the Mass.gov website. I also assume that the identity of the complainant would be discoverable if the complaint was ever taken seriously. BCM may have his day in the sun after all!