Tuesday, June 28, 2011

loud, persistent barking pack of vicious dogs

This was all recorded yesterday afternoon. If you go to the glencadia dog blog and pick just about any day, you will see more of the same, and hear more of the same. This is just the way it is here: quiet.

No evidence of a problem. Lots of evidence of no problem.

Friday, June 24, 2011

fewer $20 an hour jobs versus one $450 an hour job

New to the blog? Try this entry, sort of background, or curious about town lawyers, try this entry.

Issue one: was David Everett hired legally?

David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna may not be the legal attorney for the zoning or planning board and may have no attorney-client relationship with any board or entity of the town of Stuyvesant.

Here is the moment when Tal left and Dave came in.

Why? Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna was hired by the town board in special session, as noted by Valerie Bertram in the June town board meeting. The extraordinary thing is that the firm was hired to handle zoning, planning and criminal charges against me, including services as a special prosecutor in criminal court. I think the issue of the special prosecutor might involve some violations of criminal proceedings, statutes dealing with prosecution, as normally hiring a special prosecutor has to be requested from a judge and is only granted when the regular prosecutor has some kind of close relationship with the accused, which Tal and I don't have. How you hire a special prosecutor seems to be a contentious issue in every case and not something one side can just do arbitrarily. But that's a side note for now since I blogged that issue before. Let's get to the main argument for this post.

Was this executive session legal according to Public Officers Law, article 7? I'm not sure.

§105. Conduct of executive sessions.
1. Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session

Full stop. I filed the lawsuit on Friday, it was served on Saturday, March 26, 2011 around noon. David Everett took over from Tal Rappleyea at the Monday, March 28, 2011 planning board hearing at 7 PM. The reason for removing Tal and putting David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna is the lawsuit, nothing else, so there could not have been a session prior to Saturday, March 26, 2011 or authorization for the session at the public meetings in March. You can't have an executive session to discuss a lawsuit until you have been notified that the suit is filed.

So the executive session had to happen between Saturday, March 26, 2011 and Monday, March 28, 2011. There was no public meeting in which an executive session could have been voted on between those the filing and change of attorneys.

But an executive session has to be part of a public meeting. The town board, it seems, conducted an executive session without approving and announcing the session in a public hearing. I see nothing in the law that remotely suggests such an action can be legal.

The legality of Mr. Everett's role in planning and zoning generally hinges entirely on the legality of the special session. I think. Anyone disagree? Why? What did I miss? Links?

Let's continue with the Public Officer's Law.
for the below enumerated purposes only, provided, however, that no action by formal vote shall be taken to appropriate public moneys:
Stop. Hiring Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna involved the spending of money. This firm is NOT involved in the federal lawsuit. Can the town legally pay Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna? Maybe they can hire the firm in executive session but when it comes time to pay them, they need to make a public presentation. Public moneys were appropriated as a result of the executive session held between Saturday, March 26, 2011 and Monday, March 28, 2011, start of the planning board.

The vote to hire this firm has implication for the town budget, perhaps 5 to 10% of the entire budget for the year for the whole town budget will go to this firm.

So, the special session was not called in a public hearing. Then the special session made decisions which lead to 5% to 10% of the annual budget being allocated in a particular way, funds that would not have been allocated without the executive session, funds with no direct relationship to pending litigation.

Here is the provision that allows for an executive session relevant to this case:
d. discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation;

They can have an executive session to discuss a lawsuit. The reason is valid. The way the session was called may not be. The subsequent payments made to WOH may or may not be according to the law.

Given that Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna is NOT the firm handling the federal lawsuit, though, that portion of the executive session, at least the decision to pay that firm, would certainly have had to have a public component to be legal. At least it seems pretty clear that the hiring was illegal given the language in the public officer's law.

Can they make decisions about planning and zoning attorneys without consulting the planning and zoning boards? Perhaps. Can they make budgetary decisions, or decisions involving public money, not directly related to the suit and still claim that the executive session was about current litigation? Not sure.

I'm just a humble dog farmer. Let's see what the grey beards have to say over at New York Department of State. Key quote: "As such, it is clear that an executive session is not separate and distinct from an open meeting, but rather that it is a part of an open meeting."

Sounds illegal to me, this special session in March. If the session was illegal, David Everett has no standing to represent himself as the attorney for the ZBA or planning boards. Or does he? How could he? He can't really be legally paid for this work, can he?  Could his correspondence still be confidential? Maybe Mr. Everett has no more standing to issue confidential letters than any member of the general public.

Anyway, please let me know if anyone knows of any laws that outweigh the public service law in terms of the conduct of meetings, open and executive. Or maybe there was a public meeting on Sunday or Monday on the dates in question and I'm not aware of it, or minutes are published somewhere other than the town website....

Speaking of minutes...

Now, what about the minutes for the executive session? Here is the law:

2. Minutes shall be taken at executive sessions of any action that is taken by formal vote which shall consist of a record or summary of the final determination of such action, and the date and vote thereon; provided, however, that such summary need not include any matter which is not required to be made public by the freedom of information law as added by article six of this chapter.
3. Minutes of meetings of all public bodies shall be available to the public in accordance with the provisions of the freedom of information law within two weeks from the date of such meeting except that minutes taken pursuant to subdivision two hereof shall be available to the public within one week from the date of the executive session.
Where are the minutes? If no minutes are released and available to the public, if no minutes were kept, then the session is invalid. I could FOIL the minutes but my FOILs are routinely ignored by the town.

Okay, I'll FOIL the minutes. There. FOILed.

The law says one week to make minutes public and this session occurred 3 months ago as I write this. I shouldn't have to FOIL the minutes. They should be on the town website or available to pick up at the office whenever the clerk is on duty.

Anyone out there have them?

Therefore, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna may have been selected illegally, or the firm may have been selected legally but cannot yet be paid for its work until the town conducts an open, public vote to pay them. The executive session seems to have violated the plain language of the law in the way it was called and because it lead to an expenditure of public money not directly related to a lawsuit, as it was not paid to a firm representing the town in a lawsuit and used for intern functions of the town.

Mr. Everett presented himself to the ZBA as their attorney. Is he?

At the very least, we should see the minutes and have an official statement from the town board about whether or not they feel they hired Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna legally. We would need to see the minutes of the session and the announcement of the public hear that occurred between Saturday, March 26, 2011 after the serving of the papers regarding the federal suit and Monday, March 28, 2011 at 7PM when Mr. Everett took over from Tal Rappleyea. Everett only handle cases when I am involved. Can this arrangement in and of itself be legal? Did Tal formally recuse himself? Was that done according to Hoyle?

Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna might need to re-imburse the town for any money spent on the mistake of assuming Mr. Everett was the official attorney for the ZBA and planning boards, payments to the taxpayer with interest. Then re-do the hiring of this firm in public, at least the payment portion of their arrangement, without discussing the lawsuit in federal court, which this firm has no role in defending.

Issue two: errors

David Everett is not always right.

Error one:

I think it is a mistake to assume Everett is the attorney legally empowered to represent the ZBA. He may not have advised the town board of the proper way to conduct an executive session. In this, he may have not shown attention to relevant laws and made his first mistake in this process. If, as I suggest may be the case, without knowing for sure, the town board screwed up the executive session, isn't that Dave Everett's fault? I mean, the town board is not made up of attorneys.

At every turn, Mr. Everett has made what appear to my lay, inexperienced eyes to be errors of law. If my simple reading of the law is roughly accurate, it may be a mistake to assume that Everett's opinions, as expressed in the secret letter, are correct.

That's another reason we should have a look at the secret letter. It might be wholly or partially wrong. More apparent mistakes:

Error two:

In the letter of April 4, 2011 Mr. David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, writing on behalf of the planning board as attorney, so claimed, noted Parkview Associates v. City of New York, 71 NY 2nd 274 (1988). This citation referred to my case, Glencadia Dog Camp, but is clearly more relevant to the permit granted in 2004 and reviewed in 2008 for Main Auto repair facility. This court decision noted here deals with an application approved by a planning board that was in violation of the law. The court held that the law supersedes planning approval. The approval of the auto repair facility in 2004 and reviewed subsequently to allow for a larger sign violates town zoning law (see page 14, Town of Stuyvesant Zoning Ordinance, Adopted on May 10, 2001 As Local Law #1-01). The repair shop is in an agricultural district and is clearly forbidden by local law.

Errors three, four and five:

In the letter on May 20, 2011 municipal attorney David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna wrote,

“As you know, the Town's zoning code provides that: Reasonable costs incurred by the Planning Board for private consultation fees of a planner, engineer, attorney or other extraordinary expense in connection with the review of a proposed site plan shall be charged to the applicant ....In this regard, the board may require such costs to be paid in advance, not to exceed 5% of the total project cost, and may deny application upon the failure of the applicant to make payment within 60 days of the date of the original application submission.
“As you know, the Planning Board has asked Mr. Jurkowski to review and comment on your client's noise study and provide technical advice on this matter. Mr. Jurkowski is a professional engineer licensed in New York and he is the designated Town Engineer. He also has experience with environmental noise impact issues. As required by the zoning code, the Board has requested that Mr. Pflaum post an escrow to cover Mr. Jurkowski fees in assisting the board with this matter. Mr. Jurkowski is preparing an estimate of the initial escrow amount.”

Here are the problems with these statements; 1) town policy and planning board procedures require that payments and escrow be set up in advance and not submitted at the end of the process due to problems and ethical violations in the past; 2) the cost of the project is zero therefor the entity before the board, me, does not have to pay squat; 3) Mr. Jurkowski is the engineer on the town garage project that I am leading the resistance to, a direct affect on his bottom line, and therefore should be excluded as a candidate due to conflict of interest.

Mr. Everett is clearly aware of the conflict of interest, as indicated by his letters referring to this blog, and yet continued to promote his opinion as vital. He failed to look for an unbiased opinion from an engineer not directly affected by my opposition to this town project.

I call that an error. I count five errors to date and we have one letter left.

Error six:

Mr. Everett's letter of June 3, 2011 repeats the error of the May 20th letter:
"As a result, under the Town's law, Mr. Pflaum will be responsible for paying the Board's engineering fees on this application up to May 23rd,the date when he withdrew his application. Mr. Jurkowski is preparing a final invoice for services rendered to the Board. Upon receipt of that invoice, I will forward it to you for payment by your client. It is my understanding from Mr. Jurkowski that his fees will be approximately $1,000 for this matter."
Sending this invoice could constitute an ethical violation, in contradiction to planning board policy and state law.

In conclusion, given Mr. Everett's track record of legal error (or so I say and I am not a lawyer and could be wrong) and possible lack of standing as attorney  (or so I say and I am not a lawyer and could be wrong), the secret letter should be released publicly, the town board should release the minutes of the executive session, the town should publicly hire the firm in order to be able to legally pay WOH, and the firm might need to return all payments made to date to the taxpayer, with interest.  (or so I say and I am not a lawyer)

Anyway, I would like to hear any opinions about why I might be wrong about any of this. Seems like the town didn't follow the rules and its Everett's fault. I am not a lawyer and I have no experience. Please consider all of these issues as questions. I am asking questions and I honestly would like responses.

How many times did I say I'm not a lawyer?

Again, I'm asking questions as a humble dog farmer with no experience in these matters. I have concerns and questions but no definitive answers and would welcome outside, unbiased expertise and opinion, from anyone really. Thanks for considering responding, lawyers.

I'm not a lawyer.

Issue three: jobs

In the past, town officials (Tal Rappleyea, Tom Shanahan, Valerie Bertram, Gerry Ennis, Howard Gleason) have promoted the theory that my business violates zoning by having too many employees. Zoning only allows two employees. They think I have had more. Scandalous! Hiring people! Arrest that man! Call in the $450 an hour hired gun to get him to stop this terrible crime! Too many jobs!

I do not think they have a clue what they are talking about, for the record. It's not really their business, is it? And I can have as many contractors as I want, can't I?

It seems to be possible the the secret letter may attempt to resurrect this charge of illegally creating too many jobs and violating town law by paying too much in taxes. This old charges is the standard back up charge in case the dog barking thing doesn't pan out. They had some other back up charges, and who knows what's in the secret letter, but this TOO MANY JOBS meme is a old solid Stuyvesant line of reasoning.

David Everett gets $450 an hour. People working at Glencadia might get $15, $20, $25, $30 an hour, more or less. When I post an ad for a job at $20 per hour, I get 300 responses. I stopped posting ads because it's too difficult to deal with the onslaught. What are the 299 people I didn't hire doing now? Auto detailing on Mr. Everett's BMW for $8 an hour?

Instead of paying more than $60,000 to fight a preposterous charge, I could have invested in the local economy and created at least one more job. Maybe for a guy making $450 an hour another $20 an hour job doesn't seem like a big deal.

Is that what's in the letter? A new plan to kill jobs?

There is one permanent $20 job dead already not out there somewhere because of someone else's quick in and out $450 an hour job.

But I could be wrong. I'm just a dog guy. I'm no economist. I'm not a lawyer. I work in a barn with animals. I just ask questions for free on my free blog. I'm sure David Everett has all the answers. Of course, he'll charge $450 an hour to put them in a letter with letterhead and all, and that is much more serious than a dumb blog.

No one really answers these kinds of questions do they? Not in Stuyvesant. Not in Columbia County.

Okay, I'll sit here in the barn with the dogs and goats and sheep and chickens and horses and wait for my answers.


Thursday, June 23, 2011

what's in the secret letter?

Need more local news? Try wikicoco.

David R. Everett, partner at Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, wrote some kind of secret letter to the zoning board (ZBA) of Stuyvesant this week. See this post.

The letter seems to argue that the ZBA can go on a fishing trip to get me some other way if the dog barking thing doesn't work out.

I haven't read the letter but I bet the phrases "original jurisdiction" and "specifically granted" feature prominently. I bet, and wouldn't it be nice to know?, that David R. Everett, partner at Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, argues that state law, as outlined here, allows jurisdictions to make exceptions to the appellate function of the ZBA.

The Court of Appeals, New York State's highest court, has recognized the necessity for and the value of boards of appeals as a "safety valve" to prevent the oppressive operation of zoning laws in particular instances, when the zoning restrictions are otherwise generally reasonable.

David R. Everett, partner at Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, proposes, with a creative reading of town law and clever citation of "specifically granted," to make the ZBA the opposite of a ZBA. Can he turn the ZBA into an agent for making zoning oppressive despite the fact that the purpose of the ZBA is to prevent zoning oppression?

You can use a safety belt to choke someone but that's not what its for. It's called a SAFETY belt because it is suppose to keep you safe. The Zoning Board of Appeals is called a board of APPEALS because that's what it's supposed to do, hear appeals.

If a creative reading of town law suggest that the ZBA has broad powers, if state laws allows for exceptions to the appellate functions of the ZBA, these two facts cannot add up to an opinion that renders the ZBA to be opposite of its purpose, not without violating the 5th amendment of the constitution anyway.

I didn't get the letter so I'm guessing. Dave says, "ZBA you can fish." Next, public comments. Someone says, "Fish!" Dave says, "Hey, guys, you can fish, remember?" All of a sudden my appeal of a dog barking issue is a hearing on whether or not my dogs run away or whether I filed my workman's comp correctly or if I wash my shoes before I go in the house or if I filed form 23B with the state office of stupid forms or some other thing.

I think that's the plan.

Monday, June 20, 2011

voodoo gets one more shot

If you are new to the blog, try this page first. Or this one.

Here's the deal with the ZBA hearing 6/21/11:

In August 2010, Gerry Ennis, zoning control officer of the town of Stuyvesant 12173, revoked my class 2 permit to operate my business based on a claim of loud barking. By October 2010, after intentional delay on the part of the town, I managed to lodge an appeal. The hearing tomorrow night is to hear my appeal of what Gerry Ennis did.

Here is the brief that should be what we consider tomorrow night.

Here are two science papers showing that the charge against me defy the laws of the universe.

I got a lot more documents I could present but I think these two should do it. 1) the case was mishandled legally; 2) the charge is not true because it cannot be true.

Therefore, the zoning board should vote to overturn the revocation of my permit. That will end this part of this battle. Anything else will prolong this farce.

Q: I still don't get this case.

A: Let's say you open the mail one day and it's a letter from the authorities: "Dear Will, You have kidnapped Santa's elves and until you either prove you didn't do it or let them go you will pay $200 per day in fine and fees."

So you write and ask how to appeal this decision. You have no right to appeal.

So you go ahead and prove that you didn't kidnap Santa's elves. You invite all the town over to have a look and see if anyone can spot them. You hire a professional elf finder, then another, and, nope, no sign of them anywhere.

Still, you keep paying the $200. After 6 months paying $200 per day, the guys accusing you of kidnapping the elves decide that they do need some evidence. So they get a video. They use this video to increase the fine to $300 per day.

After two months, they finally let you see the video. It doesn't show that you kidnapped Santa's elves. It's an episode of the Simpsons from 1997.

That's what happened!

Sunday, June 12, 2011

mystery of the potted plant

More videos on the news site. Kittens, ballet, music, robots, dogs, etc. Lots of videos there to see. If you're new to this blog, start, I don't know, here.

Between Friday, June 10 at 8 pm and Saturday, June 11 at 6 am someone stole the letters from the VFW down the road, laid the letters down in my driveway to spell "you suck," stole someone's potted plant, moved my dog sign and rigged up this bizarre construction.

State Police investigation followed. While I make this video, I am talking to the county sherrif's office. The letters: "YOU" came from "Congratulations Grads 2011: Be all you can be. Good Luck" turned into "Be all can be. Good Lu." And "Stuyvesant Falls Fire Department need volunteers" turned into "t yvesant Falls Fire Department..."

Anyone missing a potted plant? We have some theories about who did it and why the plant was hanging there.

This is not an isolated incident. See here. Or you can look at this.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

letter to Ron Knott, candidate for supervisor in Stuyvesant


Congratulations on your nomination to the Independence Party line.


We're still 5 months away from the election so I'm surprised at all this activity. But since we're kicking this off so early, let me ask you a 10 questions. Elected officials are supposed to answer questions. Here are some:

1. Will you invite Common Ground Services to speak about mediation in neighbor to neighbor disputes? Why not? It's free and would help prevent more chaos.

2. Do you think there should be any limit on the number of relatives employed by the supervisor or town board member? If you don't think there is a problem with your relatives working for the town, explain why not.

3. Do you think the billing problems I uncovered with the missing $10,000 in the attorney line in 2009 are or are not okay? Will you do anything to assure the taxpayer that the "help yourself" policy is over? Whether or not the actions were criminal, the invoices clearly stunk and the way the problem was handled stunk worse. You can't let $10,000 fly out the door with no paperwork. What are you going to do about it?

4. Does the boat club assessment make sense to you? Does it bother you that it was listed as a state park for tax purposes? When mistakes happen, if it was a mistake, will you do anything about it? Or will you continue the "see no evil" policies? Does it make sense that the listing was a mistake, yet when the mistake was corrected, the assessment did not go up? Explain. Would you fire Howard Gleason if you knew it wasn't a mistake? Would you ask him some tough questions about it?

5. Is Gerry Ennis qualified to hold his position given that he stalked my house before dawn 25 times? Would you ask him some questions about it? Do you expect him to enter honest, unbiased information into the public record or are false statements clearly meant to harm okay with you?

6. Will you allow citizens to see bank deposits and bank records and other financial instruments in such as way that these citizens can determine: 1) how many bank accounts the town has; 2) who checks are made out to; 3) how transfers are processed between accounts? Yes or no. If no, explain why this stuff is secret.

7. Will you consider consolidating assessment, highway and justice departments with other towns to save money? Do you think there are no savings to be had by getting rid of some positions and departments and equipment that we could likely share in a consortium?

8. Will you find ways to make town hall open to the people, with college credit classes and mentoring and tutoring programs for kids or something just as good? Right now, town hall is mostly for you folks and the rest of us don't really get to use it. It's way too big for such a small town. We could do something good with it, like foster education. Turn it into a satellite college and move all town functions to one room and share the meeting room with the college. I bet it wouldn't cost the taxpayer a dime and would increase the appeal of the town to get more people excited about Stuyvesant. While you're at it, can you make this town into an agro-tourism destination by assuring Hudson access, a network of trails and bike paths? (Okay, this question is more than one question...)

9. Will you guarantee no more tax increases? Can you cut the town budget by at least 25%? It wouldn't be hard and no one out here would notice if most of the town government ceased to exist. We waste A LOT of money. Can you cut the budget? Is there no waste?

10. Do you believe in the rule of law and science or do you think vigilante justice and voodoo are just as good? This is a serious question. The charge against me is more silly than a witchcraft charge and it hasn't seemed to bother you a bit until now. You did see that video of Ed Scott right? You think that's fine, threatening to do something illegal to someone for conducting a mandated sound test? You read Steve Montie's post that I should get out of town? No action necessary? All fine? Will you just pretend this stuff didn't happen and let everyone cash their checks with no questions asked?

In short, to sum all questions into one, is a supervisor supposed to supervise people or let them do whatever?

So far, I see no evidence that you understand the constitution. If you did, you wouldn't have let this dog barking thing escalate like it did. You happily joined in on that stuff.

I do not see evidence you care about the public good. If you did, you would want to know how $10,000 went from the town account to Tal Rappleyea's pocket with no paperwork.

I see no evidence you have a vision for the economic future of this town. This place has many assets: good soil, Hudson river access, close to New York City, a lot of protected land, views, Kinderhook creek. So why are so many farms struggling and there is no evidence of a policy to leverage our assets into prosperity?

Take a stand in favor of the rule of law, financial integrity, and equal protection. Thrown in no more voodoo. Convince me your heart is not in your pocket by opening up and sharing the financial information and taking some stands that are not pro-cronyism.

Surprise me by responding fully, honestly and with some understanding of why these questions matter. Or think about it and decide it's time for new leadership in this town and change your mind and don't run.

If you do run, good luck. I hope to hear a good discussion of real issues that will assure that if you win, we don't see money flying out the door, breakdown in the rule of law, taxes spiraling out of control and our town wasting our assets, as is happening now.



county board meeting tonight

I do have a standing request for an ethics hearing to remove Valerie Bertram from the county ethics board. No one ever said peep about it so far.

Does the Board of Supervisors ever draw the line with one of their own?

On the other blog a lot of economic development links.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

last stop on the voodoo express?

For more background on this case, try this post. For broader issues of local ethics enforcement, you might try this post.  For issues about whether or not the government of the town of Stuyvesant respects the rule of law, try this post. For financial irregularities, try this one or this one.  If you're interested in pre-dawn surveillance and stalking by officials, try that post. If you would like a discussion of the role of government lawyers in facilitating ethics or lack there of try this post. More on why I think the voodoo label is appropriate here. On the role of the county here and for problems elsewhere in the county here.  On my campaign to avoid this problems in the future through mediation, try this one. 

Last round, voodoo versus science:

Peter, please be advised that the Town of Stuyvesant ZBA has scheduled a special meeting on June 21st to hear the appeal related to the revocation of your client’s zoning permit to operate a kennel on his property. The meeting will be held at the Town Hall at 7 pm. If anything changes, I will let you know. Thanks. Dave
David R. Everett, Esq.Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, LLP, One Commerce Plaza, Albany, New York 12260

"The average background sound levels at the property line did not increase from previous measurement when the dogs were not barking."

-- Ken Andria, Senior Consultant Acoustic Dimensions international, Master of Science, Architectural Acoustics

"I hope that the issue soon will be settled in your favor. Anything else would be absurd if it is the noise levels that matter...Light intensity, the effect of gravity, many other forces in nature decay at the inverse square of distance given the formula of the surface of a sphere. To say that Glencadia Dog Camp obviously produces more barking noise at the relevant locations makes no more sense than to say that the sun is the brightest star in the universe."

-- Markku J ̈a ̈askel ̈ainen, PhD. Physics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, Institute of Fundamental Sciences

"Ken Andria has obtained MS. Degree from Graduate Program in Architectural Acoustics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, has presented his work at the Acoustical Society of America, has been awarded the prestigious Robert Bradford Newman Award ... as a Fellow of the Acoustical Society of America I endorse Ken Andria's measurements and report."

-- Ning Xiang, Ph.D. Prof. Director, Graduate Program in Architectural Acoustics School of Architecture Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

"I read about your “noise” problem on the Audio Engineering Society Facebook page and found other materials related to Glencadia Dog Camp on the web, unbelievable!"

-- Professor of Engineering, Germany

"The noise produced from the dog camp definitely exceeds that produced by a normal residence."

-- Gerry Ennis, zoning control officer, Stuyvesant

No one has consistently complained of dog barking. One household wrote a letter stating that there was no problem for four years, then complained, then says it's just my own personal dog, then says it's not loud but is annoying, then says it's loud, submits a video that shows that the barking cannot ever be loud, as indicated by the measurement and calculation.

Lastly, this whole process was illegal

Science, the law, even the star witness for the prosecution all agree. Seems like I should win.