the sheep ratted me out

I think this cartoon explains it. 

But my own dog did not rat me out. It was a sheep. 

The man came over telling the sheep, "Imagine a world with no dog... now sign here."

Dave Everett saw the affidavit, got all sheepish, "No good. What about Will's donkey, was it braying?"

"Why, Dave, does Suyvesant's annoying noise law apply to jackasses?"

"Yes, but you'll need a special prosecutor who specializes in ass."

"You're hired! Break out the executive session."

audio from tonight's meeting

About transcribing tapes and audio.

And here is the budget hearing.

Woofergate update: missing paperwork

I filed a lawsuit on the 26th. They wrote me a ticket on the 30th which could lead to 15 days in jail. False charge.

My lawyer wrote to the special prosecutor on November 1. On November 9, tonight, I show up in court and no paperwork seems to exist. No explanation. No one from the town showed up at all. No Tal, no special prosecutor, no officer.

Lawsuit filed, retaliation with ticket, tapes destroyed, paperwork missing in court, $80,000 budget hole, two news stories about the same thing, an election-- all in one week.

Woofergate

Ron Knott and company won... congrats.

In the meantime, other breaking news in Stuyvesant: the Town Clerk, Melissa Naegeli reported that the town destroyed evidence that pertains to two lawsuits.

As you can read in that email exchange (linked above), I don't think the town routinely makes transcripts of tapes and then destroys the tapes. I believe that the tapes existed as late as last month. They tapes were destroyed to conceal the truth.

There is nothing routine about this.

I want the tapes to exist and be public. Why? I have nothing to hide and I'm not lying.

Tal Rappleyea, Ron Knott, David R. Everett of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna, Gerry Ennis and the rest want the tapes to cease to exist. Why? They are afraid of the truth.

Tal Rappleyea is guilty of various crimes that have to do with the tapes. He lied about what happened in that Planning Board meeting in this letter. Very convenient for Tal that the tapes ceased to exist, don't you think?

Convenient, but dangerous.

You will note that Rappleyea threatens to sue me if I say he is guilty of crimes. Well, I say he is guilty. My defense? It's true. Let's settle this by listening to the tape... oh, they got destroyed.

Criminal violations:

What is Tal Rappleyea guilty of? He submitted a request for payment when I was an applicant before the Planning Board, claiming to have preformed services that were not in fact preformed and coercing payment.

By demanding payment as a public official for services, fees which applicant was in no way obligated to pay even if the services had in fact been rendered, Rappleyea engaged in official misconduct.

Rappleyea received $10,000 in 2009 and other additional funds in 2010 with no paperwork, invoices, vouchers, or contracts to justify these appropriations of funds. Rappleyea and Bertram have noted different explanations for these discrepancies at different times, none of which are consistent with the invoices themselves.

That's what the missing tapes are about.

Other matters relating to these tapes:

Gerry Ennis, Tal Rappleyea and David Everett all claim that I made some sort of misleading statements about by business when I was explaining what I did at that hearing. I deny it.

Election Day in Stuyvesant

When your position is indefensible, you don't defend it. That has been the Republican strategy in this election. Ron Knott and the Republicans refused to debate. They sent out fliers full of nonsense. Ron Knott lied to the Register Star.

The town, under Ron Knott's leadership, spent probably $100,000 to prosecute and close down a small business because they didn't like the guy who owned it. Now they have two lawsuits are are $100,000 in the red.

The town has spent $100,000 and will certainly spend much more over the next year. Nothing will change about how I run my business. I never stopped criticizing or, now, suing this town. The campaign achieved nothing. The business is still open and they still don't like that guy, me.

How do you defend what they did? You don't. You run a whisper campaign. You lie. You gin up "us versus them" sentiment.

The Republican strategy may work: this is a very Republican town. Oh well.

If the harassment and unconstitutional abuse of power continue, the suits will keep coming, the blog will keep coming, the dog signs will go back up.

Luckily, the founding fathers of this country, like James Madision, understood factional rule.

James Madison in Federalist Paper 10 wrote, “a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.”

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

To allow the Town to act as it has done and continues to do would suggest that populism outweighs fundamental law in the United States.

So...

castro figured it out... now, hello, Stuyvesant?

“The state has no business getting involved in a matter between two individuals.” — Raul Castro

Well, the communist party of Cuba figured that out. Now, just waiting for the government of the town of Stuyvesant to figure it out.

Figure this out: butt out. When people start yelling across a fence, don't take sides.

Instead of wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on special prosecutors, why not  tell anyone complaining about their neighbor to do one of these:

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/nuisance-from-a-neighbors-noise-light-or-odor-emissions.html

Note: "Odor and noise from a dog kennel"

There is precedent for this kind of suit. 

Someone complains? Tell them to go to mediation.

They refuse? Tell them to file a nuisance law suit.

Let the neighbor deal with it themselves. Let them pay for it if they think they have a good case.

Have the town butt the hell out.

That's what Communists do these days. But here in Stuyvesant, the wall is still up. Big Brother meddling in private matters between neighbors.

Big Brother is too expensive for a Small Town. 

on loud

Here is an essay on what loud means.

radio interview

Thanks, WGXC.

more than the figures in the paper

By the way, in addition to the numbers in the paper, the town spent on Tal Rappleyea about another $10,000 to harass me and the numbers for Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna do not include October or their response to my article 78.

that's better, a good article

This is real journalism. Nice. The article is simple neutral and accurate.  That's all I want.

Now, forget the paper. Let's look at Ron Knot, candidate for supervisor.

I proposed with mediation (and wrote to Common Ground and asked them to come speak), compromise (my application to the Planning Board to add voluntary conditions to my permit), and concern for other (the more than $5000 I spent on sound proofing) before my permit was revoked.

I have now filed two lawsuits. They are only asking for fairness that could have been achieved here in town. They certainly can be settled with little fuss and expense.

Election in 7 days. It's not to late to change course and be reasonable.

Here is a quote from the paper:

Knott said, and explained that as Pflaum’s business grew (not true and how would he know?) and “neighbors complained (after the zoning officer went to them and asked them to complaint 4 months after he revoked the permit), we as a Town Board had to respond. All we’ve been asking is for him to comply with zoning,” Knott said. (although he didn't violate any provision of the zoning and the town board has no role in the process so this "we" is kind of illegal)

Total bull. Here are the "findings" the town spent $80,000 to produce. Does this sound like they are giving me a fair chance to run my business without a ridiculous amount of interference? Does this sound like David Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna was fair?

Read it for yourself.

Did I work for mediation or not? Yes, I did. I wanted a town-wide policy of professional mediation services through Common Ground services for all neighbor-to-neighbor complaints. I was not against participating in such a process myself but I wanted it to be a town policy first.

Here is Ron Knot at the February town board meeting. Here Ron thinks zoning and planning board hearings ARE mediation. They are not. They are enforcement, which won't work. I called for a different process.

Here is my letter read by Valerie Bertram. Audio.

Here is the letter I wrote that Ron was responding to.

Here is the blog entry I wrote at the time.

Ron Knott is lying. If not, refute any of these statements:

1) Ron says "the neighbors complained." That's not even true. No one submitted a complaint in writing prior to the revocation of the permit. The only people who complained prior to the revocation are Mary Kline and Patty Yerick. Kline lives 1700 feet away and the zoning officer solicited the complaint from her.

2) Ron says my business grew. How would he know? The complaining neighbors said the problem started in Fall 2009. That makes zero sense. In Summer 2009 when they wrote this letter, I had more dogs than in Fall 2009. I had more dogs in 2007 than in 2009. What a lot of horse rubbish.

3) Ron says I violated some kind of zoning ordinance. Which one? Specifically, what did I violate? The "findings" the town paid $80,000 to produce don't even allege that I violated any rule.

So, therefore, Ron is lying. Isn't he?

the dog ate my budget! then he went on my computer and pissed on my spreadsheets! then he logged into my email account and sent out this email asking to hire a special prosecutor in a dog barking complaint in secret executive session! honest teacher, it was the dog!

Here is the Register Star piece on my conflict with the town.

Here is more about the coming dog tax in Stuyvesant.

You know how in China after they execute you they send a bill to your family for the bullet? That's what the Register Star is doing in today's article.

The town spent $100K to harass me and now they are blaming me for the expense. Outrageous.

My fault the town spent the money? Only if you are retarded.

Wow, it's the worst article they could have written. This is so stupid its hard to know where to begin. The legal fees TO DATE are for process in TOWN HALL that the government had complete control over.

The money was paid to Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, not to Burke, Scolamiero, Mortati & Hurd. Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna has not responded to ANY LAWSUIT.

 Burke, Scolamiero, Mortati & Hurd has responded to a lawsuit but they ARE PAID BY THE INSURANCE POLICY.

 Is the Register Star awake?

To what law firm and in what venue? How can you screw something that fundamental up accidentally?

The fees below are only for municipal actions, within Stuyvesant jurisdiction. These numbers do not include fees for representation in courts outside of the Town of Stuyvesant (State and Federal).

Tal Rappleyea for work on Glencadia matter:
August 2010 = 1562.50
September 2010 = 437.50
October 2010 = 937.50
 November 2010 = 1406.25
 December 2010 = 875
January 2011 = 593.75
February 2011 = 375
March 2011 = 1125
April 2011 = 250
May 2011 = 312.50
June 2011 = 250
Total for Tal for 2010 and 2011: $8115

 Whiteman Osterman and Hanna:
 March 2011: $11,811.53
April 2011: $7,141.56
May 2011: $6,694.17

Total legal expenses as of May 1: $57,761

 Missing: WOH for June, July, August, September and October. At $8,000 per month, an average of the three available months, WOH would have been paid another $40,000 making the grand total to date approximately: $97,761 WOH and Stuyvesant signed a contract on March 10, 2011.

 Burke, Scolamiero, Mortati & Hurd, the town's lawyer in Federal court, is paid by insurance.

Expenses to town: $0

filed an article 78 today

http://wikicoco.com/file/view/art78-pflaum-v-zba-ennis-stuyvesant.pdf/268973564/art78-pflaum-v-zba-ennis-stuyvesant.pdf

Federal court, state court... anywhere else? Did I miss any jurisdictions?

thanks to the community

My letter to the editor in the Register Star.

allowed, not allowed?

hi

Cross link to my other blog with a shocking but common display of corruption in New York State municipal corruption.

Occupy Albany

All about it on my other blog.

Keep Stuyvesant, "Stuyvesant"

This post is about the coming election in the town of Stuyvesant, Columbia County and in other local towns.

1. These local elections should be on the EVEN years when turn out is greater. Skip the whole odd year election if you ask me.

2. There should be term limits in Columbia County.

3. Towns should not have the broad powers they have but function as community boards. A town of 2000 people should not have a 1.2 million dollar budget, 17 employees, a court, and millions in assets.

4. Services should be consolidated.

That said, we still have an election. The slogan for the Republicans and supervisor candidate Ron Knott is Keep Stuyvesant, "Stuyvesant" -- with the quote marks.

As opposed to what? Open to outsiders? Are you sure you don't want people to move in and invest in the town? Seems like you've made it pretty clear. Why not make it your slogan for the election?

Oh, you did.

Here were the options for an election slogan that the Stuyvesant Republican Party considered:

1. Keep Stuyvesant, "Stuyvesant" 
2. Keep out non-Stuyvesant, "from Stuyvesant" 
3. Stuyvesant means "Town of Stuyvesant" not "Stuyvesant Town" or "Bedford Stuyvesant"
4. Simple: Vote for the Right People not the Wrong People 
5. We only know Stuyvesant, not what it means.  
6. We love to run this town. Don't try to stop us from doing it. Vote right.
7. from elections to lawsuits, bring it on
8. We don't need no stinking badges
9. Vote for Us, or We'll send over Ennis to Knock over your Fence
10. Vote for us. But you'll need a permit first. 

I have no doubt that if elected Ron Knott will keep Stuyvesant "Stuyvesant" and no one will mistake the place for a well run town lead by honest officials who care about the taxpayer. Say "Stuyvesant" to someone from say, Ghent, and I'm sure they think, "Gee, I wish our town could have that type of leadership!" Keep Ghent, "Stuyvesant"?

occupy wall street

Here is my story: I run a successful small business, paying taxes, and creating jobs. Despite local corruption and government incompetence I will work to get capital to expand existing and start new businesses. Due to local corruption and difficult access to capital this process will take 5 years instead of 1 year. In the intervening 4 years, 3 or 4 jobs won't exist and tax revenue will not be collected. I am the 99% # OWS

more commercial activity

last night's executive session: Whiteman Osterman and Hanna suing the town? violating public officer's law again? speculation?

Howl alert: before anyone starts howling: 1) if you didn't go into executive session with little explanation, people would not have to speculate about what you are doing; 2) the conclusion that Whiteman Osterman and Hanna is suing the town is based on logical induction, not inside information.

So at the town board meeting (Stuyvesant) last night, the town transferred $14,000 to zoning and planning to pay for the special counsel and special prosecutors of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna. David R. Everett of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna was there. The board and David R. Everett, attorney and lawyer and partner at Albany's biggest law firm, the largest law firm in the capital district, went into executive session for 30 minutes. The reason was "Pending litigation regarding the Glencadia matter."

The only pending litigation right now is a Federal civil rights lawsuit and Everett would have no role in that case other than perhaps as a witness, so it can't be related to that case. There is no other pending litigation, so it's a bit of a mystery. Maybe Whiteman Osterman and Hanna is going to sue the Town of Stuyvesant for non-payment? That's the only case that would seem to be a legal reason for an executive session involving a lawyer unrelated to ongoing litigation.

So either  Whiteman Osterman and Hanna is suing the Town of Stuyvesant or the town board of Stuyvesant violated Public Officer's law again. Anyone see any other possibilities?

I mean maybe they talked about who would represent them in State Court - but that is not pending litigation. They might have said "potential pending litigation" in that case. But why talk about something that may or may not happen before it happens? And they didn't say "potential" litigation. The only actual pending litigation is in Federal Court. There is no activity in town bodies: the planning boards and zoning boards are done.

Wait: I got away out for them! I can save them! They can claim that the ... means that ... is pending... but ... so .... with case law showing... which must exist... Phew!

Or maybe they talked about the Federal lawsuit, but how can they talk to a lawyer about a case he is not handling? Can you talk about pending litigation with a lawyer unrelated to the case and call that conversation privileged? I would think not, but it's certainly a fine issue for judicial review.

Perhaps they went into the session to talk about the handwritten note inserted into the public record by someone in the town, a packet of materials relating to protected First Amendment speech which the town ZBA accepted as evidence, including an anonymous slanderous note, the author of which is known to the town clerk but is not the person who delivered the package of materials to the town.

This matter does relate to pending litigation, as it is a clear violation of civil rights. The attorney in question, David R. Everett, is involved in this incident since he accepted the same packet of protected speech, included anonymous libel, as evidence for ZBA action. The only comment he made about the packet was "excellent" in an email to the town clerk.

I think they could legally go into executive session to talk about this. But they would have to state the reason as "personnel" as the person who wrote the note and the clerk herself, who accepted the note, and the secretary of the zoning board, who passed the note to the members of the board, all work for the town. But they didn't say "personnel" and name the parties.

So, no, I don't think that cuts the mustard. They couldn't have talked about that, not legally.

I will now FOIL the minutes of the executive session and by law the minutes have to be released to the public in 7 days from yesterday. But they certainly have not written the minutes yet. So they have some time to think about what they did and adjust the minutes accordingly.

The minutes will probably be one sentence.

I mean, other than Everett suing Stuyvesant, they cannot go into executive session to discuss pending litigation, not legally, unless they claim that ... means ... which is a stretch.