The Unk DaRos/Andy Campbell campaign stood by the information on its website Friday, following public disclosure of part of a letter sent individually to , l and also campaign treasurer Yvette Larrieu as a representative of the campaign by a lawyer representing the Marcus Law Firm.
The letter, which Patch has learned the officials received on Monday, Oct. 24 from attorney Frederick Murolo, alleges that statements concerning the Marcus Law Firm on the DaRos/Campbell campaign platform in content entitled "The Tabor Drive Property" and "What The Supreme Court Did and Didn't Say” are false, misleading and defamatory. The letter also demands that the campaign retract the statements, and it further says that its clients intend to seek legal redress “as and when appropriate.”
"The town attorneys at the time simply didn't do their job . . . " one portion of the content to which the law firm has raised detailed objections concludes.
“We stand by the facts. The truth is on the Website,” said campaign manager John Murphy late Friday afternoon of information that has been on the site since mid-September.
The letter sent on behalf of the Marcus Law Firm does not seek redress against the town.
“There’s an ongoing suit, and I guess the Marcus Law Firm may not be happy about it,” said Victor Cassella, who chairs the Democratic Town Committee but said he was not well-versed on the contents of the letter the campaign received. “This is a subject of ongoing litigation. It’s really not a political issue. It appears that they might like to make it into one, but it’s not. “
The town has sued the Marcus Law Firm, alleging malpractice and negligence in its conduct of an early phase ofthe long-running Tabor eminent domain case, when it served as the town counselor. The town’s seizure by eminent domain of 77 acres of property by Tabor Drive in 2003 resulted in a suit by the developers New England Estates, which alleged loss of profits from the seizure.
Reversing a trial jury decision, the state Supreme Court found for the town in early 2010 because, it said, the developer only had an option to build on the land rather than ownership of it.
The town now owns the land, having paid the actual property owners for the tract. The litigation between the town and its former counselor continues.