Dakota Hits Back at a Resident Who Claimed Bias

See, there's always another side to things.

How could his mortgage payments be $1.5M a year? Does he have $20M worth of mortgages for apartments he bought over 15 years ago?

well then! i knew he was full of it after reading he had made a large, very publicized pledge and had not honored it, almost 7 years later. well, that's not really true. i knew he was full of it when he sued the board of which he was president for racism.

the dakota board seems to be a bit full of it themselves. how could his mortgage be $1.5 million a year. his apartment is expensive but not nearly that expensive.

Interest-only, 125% LTV, four apartments?

Sorry, Harlem loanshark interest-only.

So we are quickly getting to the bottom of the issue: the Dakota board cannot count.
See, it's all a misunderstanding. They're not racists, they're just dumb with big numbers!
I want trust-funders and self-made men to kiss and make up now.

Did you notice that they didn't disclose why they won't let Roberta Flack bathe?

i noticed that roberta flack was breaking the rules herself with her pack of dogs.

maybe you were right and the tub is illegal, and they don't want to embarass her any more than she has been, being dragged into this nonesense.

"what, who needs a new bath again?
Oh look! shiny object! Math is hard, let's go shopping."

hmm, yes, illegal, as in "bathing while black", a well-known felony.

wtf are you talking about?

"It also said the money Mr. Fletcher claimed to manage was “greatly inflated” because his firm, Fletcher Asset Management, double-counted its assets, which Mr. Fletcher said was $429 million, according to the court filing. And because the firm reported a cumulative net loss from 2007 to 2009, the Dakota’s finance committee called the value that Mr. Fletcher put on his business “not credible.”

"Mr. Fletcher’s annual mortgage payments — he also owns two smaller units at the Dakota, at 1 West 72nd Streetand bought his mother an apartment there in 2001 — are about $1.5 million, yet his tax returns show his annual income is far less, the papers said. In 2008, Mr. Fletcher reported an adjusted gross income of $674,000. "

The board also was concerned that Mr. Fletcher supplied information through an accounting firm that appeared to be independent but was actually run by one of his employees. The response questioned whether Mr. Fletcher could afford another apartment when his total annual maintenance cost would rise to $228,873 and renovations would cost $1 million to $2 million. '

perhaps it's not the board memebers who have a "counting" problem?

I can read, thanks. My mocking points:
- how does have $20+ worth of mortgages on 2 apartments he bought eons ago and a small apartment he bought in 2001?
- even if he doubled his assets, that would still put his financial assets at over $200M
- he was going to buy the new place cash.

maly, those are the assets of fletcher asset management, right? MR. fletcher, the person buying the apartment made 674k in 2008. as far as the large mortgage debt, let's see, were the subject anyone else, you would probably come to the same conclusion i did. that he must have taken out home equity mortgages against all his properties. in addition to everything, all this strange info was supplied through an accountant who was a his employee. so....what are you mocking exactly?

and type slowly, i am definitely easily distractd by both shiny objects and shopping.

Fletcher's apartments do not have $20 million in equity to mortgage against. even at the peak of the market they didn't. they are nice apartments, but they aren't worth that kind of money. As for the issue of Fletcher's income, that is far from the smoking gun the Dakota board wants to claim it is. Anyone who owns a wall street investment firm--or, for that matter, any business owner--can dramatically reduce his taxable income in all sorts of ways. It is certainly possible that Fletcher lacks the wealth and income to afford these apartments. But it is far from obvious from the board's filing.

lucille, the fletcher foundation was started with a $50 million ENDOWMENT. after he gave the money to harvard. so far it has only dispersed about $600,000 per year, but it is intended to provide grants over many, many years and if the money is invested wisely may fund far more than $50 million worth of projects. somebody doesn't understand how foundations work.

The Fletcher Foundation is a nonprofit foundation that supports civil rights and environmental education. It was created with a $50 million endowment in 2004 by New York financier and philanthropist Alphonse Fletcher, Jr.[1]

"anyone who owns a wall street investment firm.... can dramatically reduce his taxable income in all sorts of ways." True, but just not legally. As someone in Mr. Fletcher's shoes, I can tell you that is not the case. And having many friends in similar shoes, I can tell you the general consensus is realize how lucky you are, report the income, suck it up and pay the taxes. Fighting the IRS over tax avoidance schemes and excessive deductions would take time away from managing assets, damage your reputation, cause new prospects to avoid you and could jeopardize your whole business.

The likely reality is that $400 million in assets under management isn't much, particularly when "the firm's largest funds seek to provide absolute return with low volatility." Translation = LOW FEES. To me, it's not surprising the firm was posting losses and it wasn't through trying to reduce earnings.

In my opinion, the Dakota board's response is logical and credible.

ar, please stop, you can't possibly be serious. i know you understand the issue, so the only conclusion is that you are being willfully , grossly disingenuous. there are countless COUNTLESS articles all over the internet about fletcher's 50 MILLION DOLLAR (pledge) TO FIGHT RACISM. yes, i have no doubt you understand the financial workings of things more than i do. but you are totally full of sh*t right now, and i think you know that.

"As for the issue of Fletcher's income, that is far from the smoking gun the Dakota board wants to claim it is."

was roberta flack's bath tub struggle the appropriate smoking gun indicative of these evil's racist's evil racist hatered?

"Anyone who owns a wall street investment firm--or, for that matter, any business owner--can dramatically reduce his taxable income in all sorts of ways."

so, you're defending this evil capitalist wall street banker type who surely sleeps on piles of dollar bills forcibly taken out of the hands of individual middle class people, on their way to the poorhouse. by saying, hey, he probably just cheats on his taxes, no biggie. yes or no: do you actually beleive a single thing you claim to believe?

"The Fletcher Foundation is a nonprofit foundation that supports civil rights and environmental education. It was created with a $50 million endowment in 2004 by New York financier and philanthropist Alphonse Fletcher, Jr.[1]"

http://www.fletcherphilanthropy.org/

why cite wiki, when you can read it from the horse's mouth. don't sue me, it's just an expression! is it racist? against horses?

this guy fletcher is completely full of shlt--i withheld judgement, but everything he produces about himself is such total garbage--the website for his finanial firm reeks of ego-sewage, as do those that connect with his "philantropies"--this guy is an embarrassment to honest african-americans--my friends, who are african-american, cant stand when guys like this, who have all the opportunity in the world, cheese around with smoke and mirrors, and then play the race card when there game wont fly--provides fodder for the racism the honest face--not even worth the time to discuss the details--interesting also that his "wife", a partner at kleiner perkins hasnt involved her finances with his

WTushy!

Careful Lucille, wouldn't want to lose your composure

As I said on the original thread (maybe not, who remembers), this is really a squabble between rich people all up in arms when the world has the audacity to say "no" to them. There are real civil rights battles to take on in this world. This one seems worthy of a reality TV show, but otherwise will likely result in no more than fist fulls of money being hurled by rich people at their lawyers who will laugh all the way to the eventual settlement.

you can have the last word, but only because lucille respects her elders. ma'am.

" this is really a squabble between rich people all up in arms when the world has the audacity to say "no" to them."

kyle, i agree with you that this all it should have been, but this man has turned it into something truly sinister and really just....wrong.

I haven't been able to find the answer to the complaint and I wonder why the Dakota hasn't released it (assuming they haven't).

I'm surprised that a co-op board is able to divulge information which was presented in a co-op package; I assumed that that information was privileged. I know that legally this is now considered WAR but I'm surprised that it's not illegal to divulge someone's most private financial information publicly like this.

LucilleHasSpottedASinisterConspiracy

Other than releasing SSNs (which is not permitted), it would not be illegal to release the financials in a public filing, unless the parties had entered into some kind of confidentiality agreement. It may be that there is one in place protecting the financial documents themselves, but of course the board seems to have aired plenty of details from them in the filing. Also, while I am generally sympathetic (or open-minded) about Fletcher's claims, he can't really complain about them trying to defend themselves with the financials since he put his wealth in issue in the case.

I can remember a poster wondering how they can be sure that all of their board packages were shredded after the board decision. Shredded? Pray they're not posted in the lobby!

"he can't really complain about them trying to defend themselves with the financials since he put his wealth in issue in the case."

do you think he thought they wouldn't call his bluff? that's what i think. i hope each of them sues him for defamation as well as legal costs. you can't just call respectable people racists, that's really f ed up, that stays with you like allegations of sexual misconduct whether true or false. that's on the record and will be linked to their names forever, until obama turns off the internet.

How are you so certain he's wrong? His case is at least facially plausible, as is the board's. It is just as bad for you to assume that he is making false allegations. Also, like it or not, statements in court filings generally can't be the basis for a claim of defamation because they fall within a litigation "privilege" and the bar for getting one's legal costs in the US is incredibly high. And I do find it ironic that you mentioned sexual misconduct given your bodice-ripping passages of late. I am not saying that was sexual misconduct -- because it seems like you were trying to be funny (not successfully) -- but it is rich of you to tut-tut about such things.

pearls before swine.

you think my posts here were analogous to accusing a real person of sexual misconduct? huh

"pearls before swine"

exactly, ar. he put his pearls before the dignity of his neighbors. we agree!

but YOU liked my pearls, right? you can come live in my basement with cc, we'll be very happy together.

"you think my posts here were analogous to accusing a real person of sexual misconduct? huh"

Actually, I was careful to say the opposite. Time for the yacht to leave!

i would never live with an ageist.

no i get it, but i am not a real person, i am words on a computer screen. so it cc. i'm not even easily readable words, i am small grey words that can do no one any harm. so, you're just being a big silly.

i RESPECT the old!!!

why, what did they do other than live longer than you (although i guess that's something of an accomplishment in and of itself)?

i respect those worthy of respect, regardless of race, age, gender, etc.

older people understand and value money and stability. because they haven't always had it, they had to earn it, and they know that it means to sustain it. my generation grew up incredibly priviliged and we only know sacrifice and struggle from history books. we don't really understand violence, poverty or chaos. we will be the ones who destroy the world, because we only know destruction in theory. we also grew up on tv and video games and don't have a very firm grasp on humanity, either.

generalize a little, looshy?

generalize a little, looshy?

well....yeah

He refinanced in 2008. Since it's a co-op, there're just the UCC1s, so can't tell for how much.

The suit isn't e-filed, so the NYT had to go to the court and get a copy of the complaint. They haven't posted PDF of the board's response papers yet.

It's going a fun case to follow; plenty of money on both sides, a fancy building and no-one getting hurt. It was nice opening salvo, and an interesting "let's do wrestle in the mud" answer. I'm looking forward to more on that and the Two Trees/lawyer suit over square footage.

" a fancy building and no-one getting hurt. "

maly, people ARE getting hurt. their names will be tarnished for as long as we keep legal records. is that really so hard to understand? rich people are people too, damn it. he is not really getting hurt. he is hurting other people. yes?

and i just want to add, not that it's an excuse, but this is what some people mean by "one of us". it's not necessarily about ethnic differences, but unbreakable codes of behavior and uncrossable lines. these are usually perceived to split along ethnic and background lines, because those are the most easily identifiable, but that is not the point, per se. NOT EXCUSING ANYTHING. just saying.

lucille you assumed from the very beginning that this person had no basis for a lawsuit. why? and that seems to me to be as equally vile as assuming the plaintiff should win.

and really, how are the people here being damaged? do the names of the other board members trip off the tip of your tongue? and even if they do, are you and others not intelligent enough to understand our legal system?

oops, defendants.

Lucille, sometimes it's hard to take you seriously. You are so completely unreasonable and illogical, I can only assume you're joking.

lucille does not realize that she is not the only representative of her generation.

there are unprecedented numbers of young people who are no stranger to poverty and struggle. i believe the child poverty rate is at or near its all-time high.

people getting hurt? board members? give me an f'ng break lucy. "oh, i carried around a head of dust, borne from being accused of racism back in the day, for at least two years people gave me the fish eye at the local clubs. well, not really, but it would be a good novel."

"you assumed from the very beginning that this person had no basis for a lawsuit. why?" because i read his complaint and the allegations of repeated racism by the board are absolutely retarded, based on the points presented. you can certainly continue to deny this, as you are now a somewhat public person, but i don't believe you. you are not this dumb. no, their names do not roll off the tip of my tongue, because i don't know them and will never have any dealings with them. people who do now or may do so in the future will care significantly about this and it is something they will have to explain for the rest of their lives. it's on the record. "assuming the plaintiff should win" i don't care who wins this petty fight about a 5mil apartment. but as a card carrying member of the peanut gallery, i care that one party thought nothing of ruining people's personal reputations so thoroughly to win. "are you and others not intelligent enough to understand our legal system? " this how i know you're full of it.

To paraphrase CC: LucilleHasDecidedSoJustDealWithIt

maly,
first of all, take me or anyone else you meet on an anonymous message board seriously at your own risk. second, i am 100% serious and i find nothing illogical or unreasonable about what i said. in the last 2 posts or so. he will walk away from this, well, i don't know what exactly he hopes to gain. but they will walk away forever branded as possible racists who are so defined by those inclinations that they base on that personal and professional decisions. and believe it or not, some people care about things like that.

LucilleHasDecidedSoJustDealWithIt

what does this mean?

lucille's lack of ability to understand means that

LucilleJustDoesn'tGetIt

and lucy, baby, you can continue to insult me all you want, but you have zero understanding of how litigation works.
no, i'm not that dumb, but you're seeming rather stupid right now.

"lucille does not realize that she is not the only representative of her generation."
saywhatnow?

"there are unprecedented numbers of young people who are no stranger to poverty and struggle. i believe the child poverty rate is at or near its all-time high."

i may sound like a child at times, but i am actually a grown woman. and you need things spelled out, the "we" in that other post was middle class and up americans born after 1975ish.

lucille's lack of ability to understand means that

LucilleJustDoesn'tGetIt

and lucy, baby, you can continue to insult me all you want, but you have zero understanding of how litigation works.
no, i'm not that dumb, but you're seeming rather stupid right now.

so...the paranoid dominant of your split personalities comes out at night? who is insulting you?

is this because i said you have to live in the basement? look, alright, you can come out for a few hours during the day. sorry!

"my generation grew up incredibly priviliged and we only know sacrifice and struggle from history books. we don't really understand violence, poverty or chaos. we will be the ones who destroy the world, because we only know destruction in theory. we also grew up on tv and video games and don't have a very firm grasp on humanity, either."

that was lucille's justification for elder appreciation. well, lucille, guess what. children are doing far worse than you did while growing up. and you were privileged. although i still wonder, birch or hewitt?

i'm sure you'll like the comment. bitchiness is nothing to you.

ok, don't even go there. bitchiness is EVERYTHING to me. are we still talking about the dakota? or we're just puting that aside for now to concentrate on my nonchalant, completely unrelated little comment from earlier today. just so we're on the same page.

what comment? who cares?

glad you're succeeding in your BITCHINESS IS EVERYTHING goals. good on you.

Is "Good ON you" a regional dialect?

the paragraph you just referenced 3 times and reposted almost in whole, silly. the thing about old people. remember?

>but you have zero understanding of how litigation works.

But didn't you threaten me with litigation for the sole purpose of discovery?

> are you and others not intelligent enough to understand our legal system?
> oops, defendants.

i'm starting to think ar has......issues

actually, lucille, you're wrong. the repost is one thing, but the others, not so much.

take care of your pooping puppy and a kid that needs training. you have no empathy for anyone else.

>To paraphrase CC: LucilleHasDecidedSoJustDealWithIt

MidtownVirgin, don't all of a sudden assume you are part of columbiacounty's in crowd.

that's hilarious. because i'm 100% certain that lucille has "issues"

>but they will walk away forever branded as possible racists who are so defined by those inclinations that they base on that personal and professional decisions. and believe it or not, some people care about things like that.

I wouldn't really worry about it. They may be defendants, but I seriously doubt that many are going to take this suit seriously, even if the plaintiff (aboutready, that's the guy suing) wins. On aboutready's point, "do the names of the other board members trip off the tip of your tongue?" I'm going to have to agree with her.

>"lucille does not realize that she is not the only representative of her generation."
saywhatnow?

I'm with Lucille on this now. WHAT did the quotation mean?

"actually, lucille, you're wrong. the repost is one thing, but the others, not so much."

what?

"take care of your pooping puppy and a kid that needs training."
thank you for asking! he is now totally house trained, and he has just really completed our family in a wonderful way. he's one of us. i have 2 children, by the way, that's one(1) and two(2). 2. of course since getting this awesome dog, i relly have 3, know what i mean. pets are so womderful.

"you have no empathy for anyone else."

i'm sorry you feel that way

>take care of your pooping puppy and a kid that needs training. you have no empathy for anyone else.

Did you really put those two sentences next to each other?

because i'm 100% certain that lucille has "issues"

like what? seriously, i'm asking for it,give it to me. what issues do you think i have?

Lucille, she said that her husband is a lawyer, not a shrink.

lucille, you have been a total attention grabbing bitch recently. sorry. but you have been over the top on so many levels.

"do the names of the other board members trip off the tip of your tongue?" I'm going to have to agree with her."

hunter, would you be indifferent to being a defendant in a bias lawsuit? why or why not?

LucilleIsSolicitingThe OpinionOf A TrollFor Legal Advice

"lucille, you have been a total attention grabbing bitch recently. sorry. but you have been over the top on so many levels. "

whose attention am i grabbing? what top? what levels? what does any of it mean?

Indifferent to being involved in ligitation (on either side), absolutely not indifferent.

Bias lawsuit vs. something else, it's all a pain.

Nobody's going to really believe this crap from this guy. Citing that Melanie Griffith couldn't be approved because she wanted to buy drugs was my favorite indication that this was all a joke. Reading his carefully tailored Wikipedia advertisement (even now after the lawsuit was filed) told me all I needed to know about this guy.

Icanputalotofwordstogetherwithoutspacesandamusemyselfinsodoingandpossiblyannoysomeoneelsebutevenifidon'tannoythatpersonilooksmartithinkdon'ti?

>LucilleIsSolicitingThe OpinionOf A TrollFor Legal Advice

Or, you can get legal points of view from someone who says she isn't a lawyer, but her husband is.

"hunter, would you be indifferent to being a defendant in a bias lawsuit?" is what was written

"LucilleIsSolicitingThe OpinionOf A TrollFor Legal Advice" is what ar read in that line above

Lucille, damn it, give her a break. She's not a lawyer, so she's not in a position to know the difference between being a defendant and being a lawyer giving advice.

You, on the other hand, are a lawyer representing a "homogenious" clientele.

hunter, listen to me. if you whether you confirm or deny, i will believe you. you've been trolling here for a while. but the one that really went after her, was that you?...........because it just totally occured to me that this nutty bitch did it all herself.

Hey, MidtownerVirgin!

Midtowner, what do you think of a W-shaped Tushy?

Lucille, I came on about the same time as Midtowner, and quickly learned how to use the search function, ironically just like Midtowner.

did ar just have some kind of breakdown? i'll check the other theads.

how old are you

Me or midtownereast? Midtowner is 43 or 44.

you

Me? I'm not 43 or 44.