Friday, August 12, 2011

stuyvesant and the law


Will Conclusion at Zoning 8/9/11 from Rhonda Granger on Vimeo.

That's the video from the hearing. Here are some of the letters written after the hearing. Nieghbor Jamie Pilkington wrote, "There was no one in the audience who spends more time walking/biking past Will’s farm than me. No one. I can assure you, the dog barking that comes from 7 other locations in the hamlet far exceeds any sound I’ve ever heard coming from Will’s farm." Neighbor Pam Herzing wrote, "No Justice in Stuyvesant." Neighbor Janardan Culver wrote, "Will Pflaum and his family are a big asset to our community and are wonderful, considerate people."

"We hear dogs barking on a daily basis both from our neighbors and as we walk through the community. We have never noticed any difference in the loudness or quantity of dogs barking when we are near the Glencadia Dog Camp, in fact, the barking from our neighbors dogs is much louder and more frequent," said David Reynolds and M. Carol Leber.

"We the Vlad family live on 66 Rybka road which is very close to Will's family business and we don't hear the dogs barking from Will's business. On August 7th 2011 we went to the open house in the Dog Barn and we saw all the dogs which were very friendly and very happy. It would be foolish and not fair to close down Will's family business."

Observer Larissa Phillips wrote, "The way that the town board is going about this process seems unprofessional and inexperienced... to the point that it looks very much like bias or bullying or something much worse, probably illegal, is going on."

Observer Liz Rice wrote, "I was shocked by the disrespect and bullying that was allowed. I cannot believe the allegations were so feeble and that proof was not needed or required by those people opposing Mr. Pflaum. The board members were rude and intolerant of Mr. Pflaum's attempts to clear his name and treated him with bias and disrespect."

Observer Megan Lipke noted, "The town board is gaining a reputation for being a collection of ignorant, racist and resentful hicks."

Melanie Bonventre said this to the board: "I hope you can find it in your hearts to back down. I know it is hard to admit you are wrong or have lost. But you are wrong and you have lost."

Matthew Wohlers coninuted, "I am astonished to hear that in these difficult times of high unemployment and hardship, the Board of Stuyvesant is prepared to destroy not only a family business, but also jobs of members of its own community."

Here is the case I was not allowed to make by the zoning board: all the complaints are false and the existence of "complaints" is entirely dependent on the hostility of the town government. If the government were not hostile, the complaints would not exist.

The complaints did not emerge because of something I did. The complaints emerged because the town board wanted to get me. The hostility of the town government pre-dates the complaints. The town was involved in and encouraged the complaints.

Not only are the complaints the product of a government encouraged campaign of harassment, all the letters included bald face lies.

That is my case. It's not that people have legitimate complaints, or that they are mistaken about what dogs they here. I could make a case about that, or that this is simply a misunderstanding between neighbors.

I don't believe the evidence supports those cases. The case I want to make, because I believe it is true and something I can and hopefully will prove in a court of law, is that the town started the whole thing, went out fishing for complaints, and that the people who complained did so because they wanted to accrue advantages for themselves in future dealings with the town government.

The whole process was illegal from the start. By encouraging public comments when they are not necessary, after the town encouraged people to submit letters full of lies, the zoning board, in illegal coordination with the town board, is promoting a climate of violence and harassment that is a threat to public safety. The ZBA process itself is part of a broad conspiracy to deny me my constitutional rights and attack me and my family extra-judicially with threats, vandalism and denial of essential services.

That is the case I wanted to make. The board didn't want to hear it. I have the evidence to prove it.

I didn't get a chance to finish my presentation. Here are the files I would have present. I would have presented this list of vigilantism, threats and surveillance. This list has grown longer since the hearing. This witch hunt has consequences for public safety and the zoning board seems not to care about the safety of my family.

If Bill Vick had not interrupted me, I would have gone over the law and science with a fine tooth comb.

If I had not been stopped, I would have explained that the reason people felt comfortable or even obliged to send in coordinated letters full of statements that the writers knew to be false at the time is because the town board made it very clear that they approved of this kind of illegal lying. Patty Yerick claims to have an upstairs, bedroon window out of which she can see dogs on my property and see my house and has continually contracted herself. I paid for a sound study that has been endorsed by the editor of the world's leading peer review acoustical architecture journal in the world. Ron Knott, the town's deputy supervisor, sided with the lady with the magic window, not with the guy with 3 PhD acoustical engineers and a PhD physics on his side. Here are the problems with Ron Knott piling on and saying things he couldn't possibly know and in fact was very wrong.

If I had not been interrupted, I would have shown that the town engaged in bad faith negotiations and simultaneously encouraged the complaint campaign in the first place. The behavior of the town is so outrageous, my evidence is so good, they stopped me from talking.

If they had not deprived me of the opportunity to make my case, I would have shown that David R. Everett's presence in this process is a violation of New York State public officers law.

We would have talked about Al Sharpton. We would have shown this video about the magic window.


I would have played this statement by Valerie Bertram that I am convicted already. Here is Valerie Bertram explaining how to solve the problem: but what is it that they are asking me to do, other than move out of town? Here is what the supervisor thinks about the fire chief telling me to get out of town and a member of her town board threatening to beat me up.

The board didn't give me time to go over all the things Gerry Ennis did wrong.

What is the different between this resolution in the town board and this act of vandalism? No difference. The town board encourages vandalism and engages in threats. The town board encourages divisive hearing and then there is vandalism the next day in the neighborhood.

The town board is lawless. This town government is utter disrespectful of the rule of law and encourages extra-judicial behavior. This combination is a recipe for damage to property and public safety and is utterly reckless and dangerous.

How can I say that? I can prove it. But they cut me off before I was done.

I just got the invoices for Whiteman Osterman and Hanna, Albany attorneys lawyers, David R. Everett, partner through FOIL. Mr. Everett and the rest of the team at Whiteman Osterman and Hanna has been an enthusiastic even zealous enablers of the dangerous vendetta of the town government of Stuyvesant against my family and small children. Yes, Whiteman Osterman and Hanna, I will demand you answer for your role as lawyer to the ... cronies.

When my mother-in-law said this reminded her of her parent's generation, you did do the math, right? She was born in 1947 in Germany.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment