apparently there is a hearing tonight in Stuyvesant

Who knew? Not me. Hearing number 21 on dog barking that no one complained about that isn't loud tonight...

tax increases in Stuyvesant

New to the blog? Want the biggest story? Now, on to today's news. Here is a story in the Register Star. It says:

The tentative budget calls for the town to spend $100,900 of an unexpended fund balance to soak up expenses. Knott said that would leave about $80,000 in that fund balance.

That doesn't seem possible. Let's go to the next part:

Combined contractual fees for the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board totaling $49,000 were reduced to a total of $2,000 in the preliminary 2013 budget. Knott said that the 2012 contractual fees “were in anticipation of some steep attorney fees.”

Wait. The 2011 budget was written in November 2011. At that time, the town had spent $100,000 on Whiteman Osterman and Hanna to put me in jail on false charges and to close my business down on false charges. Although they spent $100,000 without me filing any suit, the budget only showed $40,000 spent, $60,000 was simply not listed.

They knew they would have to pay Whiteman Osterman and Hanna to defend the action of the ZBA on September 27, 2011, so they allocated $40,000 more for 2012. In short, in 2011 and 2012, they budgeted $80,000 but ended up spending $200,000. And, they achieved nothing at all for all that money.

How did the reserve fund get back to $200,000 when they left $120,000 out of the budget?

Hext the article says:

Four out of five lawsuits brought against the town by Glencadia Dog Camp Owner Will Pflaum were decided during 2012.

Is the implication of this statement that the suits caused the attorney fees? Can't be true. In federal court, the town has insurance, so there were no expenses. The fees to Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna were spent BEFORE any suit was filed. What about the others, including the one on appeal about Ron Knott?

One suit claimed that ZBA Secretary Shirley Narzynski is operating an auto service facility in an agricultural zone. The town did not need to spend any money on that suit, as they could have deferred to the personal attorney for the Narzynskis. The town paid for her lawyer.

One suit claimed that Ron Knott is operating a heating and cooling facility without a permit. The town did not need to spend any money on that suit, as they could have deferred to the personal attorney for Knott. The taxpayer paid for Knott's personal attorney.

One suit was filed to get documents through FOIL. If the town had supplied the documents through FOIL, I wouldn't have had to sue. But the town learned nothing and they are STILL not giving out documents when requested. Guess what the next step is if your FOILs are denied?

After all this, the town LEARNED NOTHING. The 21st hearing on me is scheduled for October 23, 2012, a ZBA hearing for the same old stupid dog barking charge that no one complained about.

Why didn't Ron Knott pay for his own attorney? That would have saved a lot of money. I had to pay for my own attorney. Here is the appeal of the issue. Here is a quote:

To wit, the record demonstrates that the contract between Knott and special counsel William J. Better to defend the current use without permit or public hearing constitutes a violation of New York General Municipal Law § 805(1)(c). The purpose of this contract was to defend Knott’s private 8 business interest from the imposition of a routine public hearing, as mandated by law, a contract that benefits Knott Industries exclusively with no pretense of a public interest. Knott himself met with Better prior to hiring Better. Knott voted to hire Better. Knot signed the contract and approved Better’s invoices. Better served as ZBA attorney while also representing Knott in Supreme Court, all paid by the taxpayer. 

Here is the contract. That contract violates New York General Municipal Law § 805(1)(c). It's a misdemeanor, but a crime. So, the suit argues, if you read it, that Ron Knott should have a permit for his business to store chemicals and fuels and that he should pay for his own lawyer and not get free legal services from the taxpayer.

It's on appeal. Another FOIL lawsuit is certainly possible based on this letter.

In Stuyvesant, rumors in private conversations is the main way most people get their information, not in open discussion. In an open discussion we can agree on the facts that no one disputes and then figure out what the facts mean openly and frankly.

If people whisper in each other's ears when the other guy is not there to say, "Not true!" then you cannot move forward having established the facts.

Facts:

1. This thing started by the town coming after me. The town started it.

The town of Stuyvesant revoked my permit and tried to close my business down to impoverish my family and tried twice to lock me up on false charges in 2010 and 2011. I had no opportunity to present evidence on the basis of no violation in August 2010 before the town revoked my permit. The charges in criminal court were false and the town violated Public Officer's Law hiring a special prosecutor. 

2. The dog barking charge isn't true and no one within 1500 feet of the barn has complained and three have written letters saying as much. All my near neighbors agree with me.

The charge of dog barking defies the laws of physics and no town resident complained about dog barking in any way prior to the zoning officer revoking my permit. No complaint on record prior to revoking the permit. No complaints from any near neighbors, only from people who live very far away who complained months after the zoning guy already revoked the permit. 

3. The town spent $200,000 on a dog barking charge that does not involve anyone alleging the barking was loud.

They know the barking is not loud at more than 1000 feet. So, they spent all this money on a noise violation that involves quiet noise. Noise laws are for LOUD noises. 

4. The zoning officer put my house under surveillance 25 times before dawn in July 2010. There has been vandalism and threats directed against me, some of it by town officials.

5. Everything I alleged in court is true.

I filed a lawsuit arguing that the zoning board secretary is violating zoning law. She is violating the law. I filed a suit arguing the supervisor is violation zoning law. He is violating zoning law. I filed a suit arguing they did not give me documents requested through FOIL. They had not given me the documents requested through FOIL. I filed a suit because the town violated Public Officer's Law. They did violate Public Officer's Law. I filed a suit because the town assessor engages in assessment fraud. He does engage in fraud. I filed suit because the town attorney stole $10,000. He did steal $10,0000. I filed suit because the town attorney extorted $437.50 from me. He did extort money from me. 

I would like to establish these facts as a baseline.

new to the blog? saw a dog sign?

Sunshine on the Hudson is written by the owner of Glencadia Dog Camp, Will Pflaum. New York State has NO SYSTEM to police local and municipal ethics. The dog sign says that needs to change. My experience proves that with 1200 jurisdictions, New York needs a system to control local government corruption. No exaggeration: right now, not one New York corruption cop on the beat for 1200 jurisdictions.

After I paid one kickback and refused to pay another as a small business owner, the town of Stuyvesant revoked my permit to run my business and tried to imprison me on false charges. On the other hand, I have spent a few years requesting government documents, finding no show jobs, assessment fraud,  embezzlement and extortion, abuse of zoning and contracts, and the violation of public officer's law to hire the capital district's largest law firm to target me for investigation and prosecution for no other reason than my Freedom of Information requests (FOIL).

So that's what the dog sign is about: a battle between a government that abuses the law to help themselves to the taxpayer's money and a guy using the law to reveal these abuses and publish the results here on the blog, and getting hammered for saying no to corruption.  

The town of Stuyvesant will hold their 21st hearing on my business on October 23, 2012. They lost in state court and learned nothing. The dog signs stay up until they learn that the government exists for the public interest, not for the officers of the government to pursue vendettas and help themselves and their friends. 

ollie improvising

bad town, good town

Here is a good town, Ancram. Taxes decreasing. Open space protected. Beautiful website. Functioning environmental advisory board. Newcomers and old timers on the board working together.

Here is a bad town, Stuyvesant. Nothing but a little clique of closely tied people on the board. Hiring lawyers to pay for vendettas and to protect their petty rackets.

Taxes in Stuyvesant, spent on lawyers this year. Taxes spent on lawyers last year. The increase is 25% tax increase over two years, as the increase in 2013 is on top of the increase in 2012, increasing the 18.8% by 6.1% as well.

The increase is justified or not justified. As we see with Ancram, when a town is governed by intelligent, well meaning people, you can save money and lower taxes.

That is the problem in Stuyvesant: we are not governed by intelligent, honest, well meaning people.

Where did the money go? Look at this file. I call it FILE ONE.

Its kind of big and will take a long time to load on slow Columbia County internet connections, but it's worth a peak. On this paper you can see the money flying out the door for lawyers. What did the taxpayers get for that money?

We paid for Ron Knott's private lawyer with taxpayer funds. Yes. More here.

We paid for Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna in 2012, following 2011, to continue to try to close down my business in state court and lose? At just the ZBA/Town criminal court stage, they spent $140,000 and then another $50,000 in state court on the special prosecutor William Nolan and the special counsel David Everett of Albany's biggest law firm.

Look at FILE ONE again. That's your tax increase. What is the public interest in all of that?

Here goes the taxpayer's money. Here goes some more. Here goes some more. The honorable William J. Better. Next thing you know, it's all gone.

The only way to explain this is to blame me. I am a private citizen trying to operate a business that has not violated any provision of any ordinance. If the town says, "It's Will's fault because he sued us" that can't be right. If you mess with your business owners, they may sue you. As a government, you should think about that before you mess with them.

They did use the government as their personal vendetta machine. It didn't work, but it cost a lot of money. Back in 2011, they went around then complaining that it was my fault, hitting me in the face and complaining their collective hand hurt. That was before I filed any suit that they had to pay for. Insurance picked up the tab, so they kept on trying to get me.

If they are going to complain about their hands after they punch me, then they certainly will complain when I hit them back. Should we listen to them howl after they punched me? When they complain that I punched them back? Do you usually listen to the bully howl when the victim whoops him?

Who started the fight? Did I send a certified letter to Gerry Ennis, the zoning officer, or did he send one to me? Was that letter he sent to me correct or false? If it was false, not true, and everything that happened stems from a lie, well... who is at fault? Not hard to figure this stuff out.

I spent my own money. The cronies spent the taxpayer's money. I won. Now they want more taxpayer money. For what?

Did they learn something from this terrible experience? No. On October 23, 2012 the town will conduct their 21st hearing on my business. They have not changed their ways. They have learned nothing. They will keep using the government resources to conduct vendettas and feather their own nests.

So far, Ron Knott and company have learned nothing.

The town was in the wrong. The dog barking complaint was not worth the money and isn't true.

The town needs to fire Gerry Ennis, get rid of the lawyers and stop the hearings. Gerry Ennis is the zoning officer in the town. He revoked my permit and issued notices of violation on the basis of no complaint, saying the sound of a dog barking at 1000 is loud. It's not loud. He lied. He screwed up. It cost the town more than $200,000. Fire him.

25% tax increase and no end in sight. The first rule of government is that government exists for some kind of public interest. Tell me what the public interest was in all these lawyers? What is the public interest in hearing number 21 on dog barking when there is no complaint?

Time for the Town of Stuyvesant to look at the town of Ancram and learn something.

a cat sleeping on a sheep: it's not all corruption all the time at sunshine on the hudson!

This was the runt of the kitten litter with the lamb that almost died after birth. They have been interested in each other since the beginning. Last evening, Ollie, 10, put White Star on Rosie's back. Looks nice up there. If you listen carefully, you can hear the cat purr.

political vandalism in Stuyvesant

Here is the Register Star article on the legalistic portion of this vendetta. Here is the story on the vandalism. When the law isn't working for them as a weapon, they grab a spray paint can. Same guys in both cases. Different methods.

Both stories fail to mention this, which I guess is fine.

On our local Yahoo forum, Peter Donahoe said, "Signs defaced by vandalous fascists" that "many of the White on Red dog silhouette signs have been defaced in the last day.. well just wait until you get pushed around by bullies and look for help from someone..."

Lee Jamison noted, "Stuyvesant Vernacular Lawn Art collections were defaced in a massive town-wide attack this past Monday night!"

Michelle Richardson asked, "We usually blame "kids" with too much free time on their hands in late October. That one or more alleged "adults" with too much free time on their hands - which I don't doubt is the case here - took the time to drive around and paint on signs...well, it's Stuyvesant, so we're not really surprised, are we?"

Christian Sweningsen said, "I'm surprised - and I'll be surprised when the swastikas appear, too."

Michelle Richardson responded, "Vandalism has been ongoing. There are dog signs in the creek by the bridge, someone took the VFW sign letters to spell messages, and other activity in the West Ghent Rd area. I imagine any noise-sensitive neighbors that may have been sitting at home, might have noticed the extra traffic breaking the silence of hamlet/hamlet extension zoning."

Stuyvesant Falls report: Mine was defaced. Also, Carol and David. Pam's was stolen. Teresa's was defaced. Krishna's was stolen. Her neighbor's was stolen (forgot their names). Robert's was defaced (dome house). Kate's was not damaged. Phyllis's (post office) was not damaged. The one next to Phyllis by the post office disappeared (forgot the names, sorry). Chris's was stolen. Eva's was stolen (his neighbor), mother of Christine. The one on the house next to Red Oak farm was defaced. Jim's was stolen on Route 9. Peter's? Stolen, route 9?

Stuyvesant: Lee's defaced, Andrew's stolen way back? new one not touched, Ned's?, Mike's defaced, his neighbor's (Chris?), defaced, Frank's stolen...

Look at this video to see the official government response to this and other acts of vandalism:

I painted those myself, with my kids. They mean something to me. Thank you to everyone who put them up. 

Who did it? 

how many mean people can one small town have?

Don't get distracted by dog barking and keep your eye on Sleepergate.

Video from the hearing below, just a snippet. It's hard enough to talk in front of a room without being interrupted all the time. They don't read the paper when I give it to them and when I try to put it in their ear, they tell me to stop talking. Was I talking to them? Not really. I was trying to talk to the other people in the room, and to the video, to post here. Why not? The meanies don't listen.

Listen to Aenne at the end of her speech. It's all true. They wreck our property, shout "X" in the street,  racial stuff, bizarre stuff on facebook about children swimming.

What the hell is this? How about this? A member of the government wrote that note and put it into the public record. Who? They won't say. How about this? Nice? Or this? What does Al Sharpton have to do with my family, other than both his family and mine contain black people in them? Here is the fire chief, also on the ZBA stopping me from speaking last night, telling me to move out of town. We have posts about my children and family, calls for violence, racism, telling me to move out of town by a town official. And here is board member threatening more violence. Violence, vandalism, racism, perverted facebook posts about my children swimming naked. A fine bunch of people here in town running the place.

All you need to do is go to Google maps and then do 1/R^2 or, if you can't do that, drive by and roll down your window and listen. You don't spend $200,000 on lawyers for a dog barking complaint.

If you had a two year old traffic ticket, would the judge dismiss it just because its two years old? Seems like a good idea.

Lot of paper.  More here.

20th hearing set for TONIGHT

7 PM Stuyvesant Town Hall, 5 Sunset Drive, Stuyvesant NY 12173

Dear All,

Tomorrow night the Stuyvesant ZBA has called for the 20th hearing and 3th public hearing on a dog barking complaint by a former resident that defies the laws of physics, as no dog barking can be loud 1000 feet from the source. The hearing is to determine whether or not the town zoning officer was right to cite me for loud dog barking on August 9, 2010 based on the hearsay allegation that a neighbor who has since moved away complained of loud dog barking 1000 feet away from the source of the sound. 

From the Stuyvesant Zoning Ordinance, page 37:

Enforcement of Violations

The following procedures shall be applied when enforcing the provisions of this ordinance. 

Complaints 

A. Any person aggrieved may file a complaint.
B. The Z.E.O. may file a complaint on personal knowledge.
C. All complaints including those made on personal knowledge shall be in writing and must be filed in person with the Z.E.O.

http://www.stuyvesantny.us/BD-zoning/DOCUMENTS/Stuyvesant-Zoning-Ordinance.pdf

No complaints were filed in writing prior to August 9, 2010. The notice itself claims to be based on complaints, not the personal knowledge of the ZEO. Therefore, the notice of violation must be dismissed as deficient. 

Tomorrow's hearing defies a court order to vote to sustain or reject the notice of violation, an order intended to end the ongoing vendetta:

http://wikicoco.com/file/view/Decision+McGrath+05+21+12.pdf/340999424/Decision%20McGrath%2005%2021%2012.pdf

Further, the claim of loud dog barking at 1000 feet is impossible, as verified by four PhD acoustical engineers including the editor of the world's leading peer review acoustical architectural journal:

Full studies:

http://wikicoco.com/file/view/glencadia-documents.pdf/228284408/glencadia-documents.pdf

Quotes from experts:

http://wikicoco.com/file/detail/quotes.pdf

Further, a sound test was done with ZBA members present that perfectly supports the conclusions of the studies indicated above:

Video from test in August 2011:

http://www.sunshineonthehudson.com/2011/08/third-sound-test.html

Signed statement by ZBA members:

http://wikicoco.com/file/view/sound+test.pdf/365565714/sound%20test.pdf

Other sound test showed the same thing, as in April 2011:

http://www.sunshineonthehudson.com/2011/04/mountains-of-video-and-audio.html

And February 2011:

http://www.sunshineonthehudson.com/2011/02/truth.html

Meanwhile, problem dog barking is common in Stuyvesant Falls:

https://vimeo.com/22532665

Here is a map of the area showing that people who did not complain live closer than the distant neighbors who complained:

http://wikicoco.com/file/view/map.pdf/365563558/map.pdf

Here are the distances in feet:

http://www.sunshineonthehudson.com/2011/03/distance.html

Here are some of the more than 50 letters of support:

http://wikicoco.com/file/view/sample+letters+of+support.pdf/365563502/sample%20letters%20of%20support.pdf

Here is the ex-neighbor who supposedly complained saying there is no problem at all:

http://wikicoco.com/file/view/fritz-platt.mp3/365561684/fritz-platt.mp3

Here is the ex-neighbor claiming to see dogs 1000 feet away to the NORTH over an 8 foot fence through a window facing east that is 14 feet from the ground:

https://vimeo.com/26307171

If the charge defies the laws of physics and if you have more than 50 witnesses denying the charge and if you have three sound test which confirm that the charge is not true yet you find that a town continues to pursue the charge, you have to wonder why. Here is why:

https://vimeo.com/29510377

In short, this vendetta is motivate by unconstitutional motives and serves no public interest. Tomorrow's hearing should not be occurring. Knock it off. 

Sincerely, 

Will Pflaum

PS I filed and served an appeal in the Third Judicial Division today. 

tonight at the board meeting

Also, tonight at the re-scheduled town board meeting (with no public notice) in Stuyvesant we learned that 1) they had an executive session for a "personnel matter" -- insufficient description according to Public Officer's Law -- after which someone, who knows who, slipped out the back door and sped off in a new grey Honda sedan and 2) the town of Stuyvesant is selling off its highway department equipment for unexplained reasons.

right, dog barking, really, no kidding... and ...

Here we go again. That's the link to the surprisingly good Register Star story.

Read: new members on the board. Think: people are sick of this and quitting. Read: Ennis says 75 dogs are louder than one dog. Think: therefore the sun must, obviously, be the brightest star in the universe by far. I mean, just look at it.

Markku Jaaskelainen of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, Institute of Fundamental Sciences wrote, “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.” In his paper on the decay of sound, Dr. Jaaskelainen calculated that Glencadia Dog Camp would have to board 1352 dogs in order to achieve the level of sound of two dogs at 25 feet, as we see with the boxers at the Balint residence in the video annexed as file name “june 2010 walk through village” with Petition. “Glencadia Dog Camp has more dogs than other residents of the hamlet. However, distance is a tremendously important factor, given the inverse square calculation. 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.”  

(b) Ken Andria was the lead engineer on the study conducted by Acoustic Dimensions. Dr. Ning Xiang, Ph.D. Prof. Director, Graduate Program in Architectural Acoustics School of Architecture Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute wrote, “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.”

But we need to have more hearings on dog barking. Got it.

The town attorney Tal Rappleyea embezzled $10,000 and extorted money, $437 on June 21, 2009, from me, which I paid. The town zoning officer Gerry Ennis stalked my house before dawn 25 times. Town board member threatened violence. Board member and town employee says to get out of town. The town, lead by Tal Rappleyea, encouraged perjury to put me in jail on false charges. And again.

But we need to have more hearings on dog barking. Right.

The county attorney, Robert Fitzsimmons and assistant county attorney, Andrew Howard, allow and participate with his colleagues in stealing and continue to steal millions of dollars. There are multiple felonies out of the Columbia County Attorney Office every day. But there is no hearing on stealing, massive corruption. The DA knows all about it. The sheriff knows. The chair of the county board of supervisors knows.

But we need to have more hearings on dog barking. I see.

The town assessor made a fraudulent assessment of the Hook Boat Club, costing the town $500,000.

Woof?

The town of Stuyvesant spent $200,000 on a dog barking complaint, violated Public Officer's Law by hiring Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna in an illegal secret meeting to get me in criminal court on false charges. (David R. Everett of Chatham New York)

But we need to have more hearings on dog barking. Check.

The town ZEO Gerry Ennis said on the record that he gave me the ticket because he does not like my blog. The town clerk Melissa Naegeli passed around an anonymous note calling me a bad father for making a song she doesn't like.

Dog barking. Right. Got to get our priorities straight.

The only town resident who complained about dog barking lives so far away, 1800 feet, Mary Kline, that she cannot hear any dog barking at all. Her neighbors on all sides say they hear nothing. Mary Kline made racially weird comments online and thinks violence is the solution (online post). This is the town's only complaint, on which they are basing the $200,000 in tax money.

Dog barking, got it?

The town Supervisor, Ron Knott, took $40,000 from the town government in an illegal contract for his own business, violating General Municipal Law § 805-a (1)(c) to help himself.

Officials cannot “receive, or enter into any agreement, express or implied, for compensation for services to be rendered in relation to any matter before any municipal agency of which he is an officer, member or employee or of any municipal agency over which he has jurisdiction or to which he has the power to appoint any member, officer or employee.” Knott, as town supervisor, tapped public funds to defend his business in order to continue to operate Knott Industries without a permit. This undisputed misdemeanor is a violation of law. Violation of this provision for ethical government can result in the voiding of the contract in question, removal from office of the officer and return of misspent funds to the taxpayer (Matter of Keller v. Morgan, 149 AD 2d 801 - NY: Appellate Div., 3rd Dept. 1989; New York Attorney General opinions 2000-11 and 2005-10; Cahn v. Town of Huntington, 29 NY 2d 451 - NY: Court of Appeals 1972). Lesser ramifications may also be appropriate (Civil Service Forum v. Binghamton, 44 NY 2d 23 - NY: Court of Appeals 1978).

Dog barking.

Here is what I said to the board about 50 times:

In September 2010, I appealed the August 9, 2010 notice of violation still before this board. In November 2010 I submitted a paper by physics professor Dr. Markku Jaaskelainen demonstrating that the charge of loud noise was impossible based on calculations. Later, in April 2011, I submitted a paper by Dr. Ken Andria of Acoustic Dimensions based on measurements on site reaching the same conclusion, that the idea that dogs barking can be loud 1000 feet away is impossible. The results of these papers were endorsed by Dr. Ning Xiang, associate editor of the world's leading peer review acoustical architecture journal and Dr. Ernst Warsits, an acoustical engineering professor in Germany.

The fact that Ennis' notice of violation of August 9, 2010 accuses me of a violation which is entirely impossible is further established by subsequent sound tests, including in August 2011 with ZBA members Jensen, Keller, and Vick in attendance. Videos, signed testimony and audio recordings of these tests, along with science reports, were part of the record of the Article 78 proceeding in New York Supreme Court. There is no doubt that the charge in the notice of violation is false, indeed impossible.

The ZBA knows that the charge of loud dog barking is false. Look at those videos.

They don't need another public hearing. I did not kidnap Santa's elves.

Dear ZBA:

Our position is that the board should vote to dismiss the notice of violation of August 9, 2010 either because Gerry Ennis did not have a written complaint at the time he issued the notice of violation, as required by town zoning law, or because he did not offer any evidence to substantiate the charge of loud dog barking.

Since the ZBA took this issue after the judge’s decision of May 2012, I wrote three emails: July 24, 2012, July 29, 2012, August 7, 2012. In those emails, I made a number of points:

1. I inquired as to whether we should we write to the judge for clarification on the issues below without a response from the ZBA:

A) Does the ZBA need to or can the ZBA hold a second public hearing if it wants to, even though the decision references August 9, 2011 and the notice of the hearing referencing the very issue under consideration now, as above? Is one public hearing enough?

B) Do you need to gather more evidence or are 17 hearings and $200,000 in costs enough to allow the board to vote up or down on the notice of violation?

2.     The judge’s decision refers explicitly to the public hearing of August 9, 2011. No need for another one.

3.     There is no complaint of any kind behind this notice of violation.

4.     The charge that my dog boarding facility produces "unusual noise... that exceeds that produced by a normal residence" is clearly not true. The notice of violation is false and defies the laws of physics.

5.     ZEO Ennis is welcome to send a new notice of violation if a violation is ongoing.

6.     The notice was not based on a written complaint as required by the Town Zoning Ordinance.

7.     One of the two people who made the verbal complaint no longer lives in town. The remaining complaint, Mary Kline, is based on racial bias, as evidenced by her internet posts promoting violence and suggesting racial motivation, not dog barking.

8.     There have been 17 hearings on this issue in town hall, including a ZBA public hearing. More than 2000 pages and many gigabytes of digital documents are on file with state court pertaining to this matter. Your lawyer has all the documents and we would the entire record considered if any piece of the record is to be considered.

9.     The notice alleges a noise violation more than two years ago.

10.  There is no evidence of any violation, not even a written complaint, prior to the issuance of the notice of violation. No decibel readings, no sound tests, no coherent written complaint, nothing to indicate a violation existed on August 9, 2010 or exists now in 2012.

11.  The ZEO has explicitly, clearly and on the record linked his decision to issue a notice of violation to the publication of evidence of criminal activity by town employees on my blog. He said, "Mr. Pflaum thinks he can hide behind his computer and write whatever he wants." Correct. That is exactly what I think. The link between the notice of violation and free speech is on the record, recorded and part of the set of documents submitted to the Supreme Court as part of the Article 78 proceedings.

12.  No one who lives or works within 1500 feet of my barn has complained of dog barking. There is not one single complaint from anyone who lives or works within 1500 feet and letters of support indicating no dog barking problem from people who do live and work with 1500 feet.

13.  The ZBA includes town employees/spouses.

14.  An anonymous note attacking my family, submitted to the ZBA by the town clerk, who refuses to disclose the source of the note she introduced as evidence, an act endorsed by David Everett, remains part of the record before the board and has not been stricken from the record.

15.  Steve Montie, board member and town employee, has endorsed violence against me and said that I should move out of town in writing.  These were not slips of the tongue, as he maintains his advocacy of violence even as he sits on the board. Ed Scott also endorsed vigilante violence on video. Ed Scott stands by his promotion of violence. Mary Kline stands by her promotion of violence. Vandalism, as encouraged by town officials, has occurred at our property as a probably consequence of previous hearings here at the ZBA.

16.  The only town resident who complained of dog barking prior to August 9, 2010, Mary Kline, also endorses violence, posted racially charged attacks on my inter-racial family and lives more than 1600 feet away from the dog boarding facility. By endorsing the notice based solely on her complaint, the ZBA would be endorsing and encouraging her racist vigilantism.

17.  The ZEO is on record admitting to have stalked my property before dawn 25 times.

18.  A federal civil rights action is already filed on this case.

19.  The ZBA has already voted on the issue of noise. The majority of the board voted that there was no violation by a 3 to 2 vote. Two members voted that there was a noise violation, although they both acknowledged that the noise is not loud at the property line. The ZBA was unanimous in acknowledging no loud noise.

Sincerely,

Will Pflaum

New York Times quote

How's this:

Assemblyman Vito J. Lopez is accused of sexual harassment and has been censured.Senator Shirley L. Huntley said she would surrender to the authorities on Monday. She said she did not know the charges, but her announcement came months after one of her aides and three others were charged with stealing taxpayer money that had been directed to a nonprofit group that Ms. Huntley founded. Already this year, one former State Senate majority leader, Pedro Espada Jr., a Democrat, was convicted of stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the nonprofit health care network he founded; another former majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, a Republican, was charged by federal prosecutors with taking bribes, and a former Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Carl Kruger, was sentenced to seven years in prison for taking bribes.

So, if there is no agency with oversight of local government, would the situation not be even worse at the local level? Yes. 

knot suit

Here is an article in the Register Star. Point one: the town of Stuyvesant paid for the legal fees of the town Supervisor, Ron Knott, to defend his own personal business. I raised this issue in my filings but the court did not address this serious ethical breech. Here is what I said:

As Knott has benefitted materially from the contract between the Town and Better, at the very least, Knott should not have participated in the decision-making process to hire Better, nor have any conversations with Better about the matter at issue in this case, as per General Municipal Law § 805-a (1)(c). 

The New York Attorney General says (Opinion, Attorney General, [Inf.] 93-36), “The purpose of section 805-a and common law conflict of interest rules is to ensure that public responsibilities are performed impartially and solely in the public interest. If a public body was allowed to waive conflicts of interests, this important public purpose would not be achieved.” In the Better-Knott situation, the public interest is clearly secondary to the private interests of Knott. This Better-Knott problem would not have happened if Knott had hired his own lawyer. It would be better not to force the taxpayer to pay for Knott’s private lawyer.

Nothing about that in the decision of the court. This bothers me. 

i wrote a novel

I wrote another book, if anyone wants some historical fiction.

And here's a NY Times review of Zack Marshall of Philmont:

"I single out Miarden Jackson and Zack Marshall. The blithe grace with which Mr. Jackson delivered an air somersault and many dance phrases was marvelous. The rosy-cheeked Mr. Marshall has brilliance of footwork that often matches Mr. Hanna’s, but better yet is his effortless, through-the-body wavelike response to music — in one simple marking step, a curve passed up his body like a ripple."

 Congrats Zack! Here's the link.

The First Sunshine on the Hudson Podcast

Sunshine on the Hudson, first PODCAST.

Here is the first edition. Have a listen. Listen to Republican Congressman Chris Gibson say that Barack Obama is okay with the drone strikes and that congress has oversight over the program... But others say there is no oversight. Who's right?

Then we get to Sleepergate update with phone calls: the county sheriff saying he doesn't want to know about more than a million dollars missing and doesn't want to talk about whether or not I can go back in the office a video the crooks in action (or not) at the county attorney's office. Also, a clip that is one more nail in the coffin of this claim to work 30 hours a week by these crooked lawyers... and I go easy on the ranting chipmunk.

And I think I like Chris Gibson. He was a soldier. Almost 20 years ago he found himself in Saudi Arabia ready for war and he said, "Wait, congress has not approved this!" Here is 20 years later, still hammering away on the issue. That's a guy I can understand and like.

Better production values for the next podcast! iTunes feeds! I'm new to podcasts!

Thank you Mr. Gibson. Full interview.

fire down the road

TCl offers the lowest risk, lowest liability option for safe disposal of your non-PCB, PCB contaminated and PCB obsolete electrical equipment. We look forward to serving your disposal needs.

It's on fire. Sam Pratt is the place to go for the real info on this. Thanks Sam. Huge problem.

do these guys ever vote? what is this board for?

Another story in the Register Star about the dog war.

I've been thinking about how badly these guys want me to withdraw my appeal. Kind of like when the fox told Chanteclear to stick his neck out a little further so he could hear his cock-a-doodle do a little better. If you're a rooster, generally, when a fox asks you to do something, you shouldn't do it. The fact they asked me to withdraw the appeal is kind of making me think I shouldn't do it.

It's a bunch of nonsense. I already won the case in state court. I don't know what kind of game they're playing, but it's a waste of time and money.

times union readers

Over at the other blog, I write about how a small business person takes risks, has to deal with planning and zoning, workman's comp, payroll, and a whole lot of crap and cannot pass the buck. When Mitt Romney claims he was chief executive but not in charge, I don't feel a lot of sympathy.

Hello people coming here from the article by Chris Churchhill in the Times Union. A couple of years of struggle cannot be broken down into 800 words but Chris did as good a job as anyone could have, so thanks. And he was completely fair to the town. A well-balanced piece of journalism.

Here a couple of points that don't fit in the article. The town spent as much as $200,000 hiring the biggest law firm in the capital district in an illegal executive session, Whiteman Osterman and Hanna to work as special counsel in zoning and planning and special prosecutor against me in town criminal court. The town and the law firm wanted to close my business and put me in jail on false charges. Town officials harassed me (page 122, paragraph 414), threaten to beat me up, said good, yes, beat him up, told me to get out of town, observed my house every day before dawn with video cameras, made other threats, and more incidents,  and the reason for all of this cannot be clearer. Here is the town zoning officer saying why they did this himself. They told me I had no right to appeal anything they did.  The town raised taxes 18% to pay for all of this. More on the Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna thing here at page 78, paragraph 265.


By the way, the idea that there can be loud barking at more than 1000 feet defies the laws of physics. They should have charged me with kidnapping Santa's elves: it's more likely. The town cronies know there is no noise but voted against me on the noise charge anyway. You can tell it is not loud right there from your computer. (At page 107, paragraph 368.)


So now, is five lawsuits too much of a response to all of this? Well, what are the lawsuits about? Well, keeping my business open, getting information, Freedom of Information, stopping cronies from running businesses prohibited by the zoning law, assessment corruption, and the town attorney stealing a lot of money. Five is no where near enough, since there is so much crap to try to put a stop to!


Another thing: I said I sent in 100 FOIL requests -- those requests are mostly to every town in Columbia and Greene Counties for attorney invoices, not to Stuyvesant. I have only sent Stuyvesant about 20 requests over two years. I can hear the spin from the town side already about the 100 FOIL requests!


I built sound proofing. The town revoked my permit after the work was done anyway. I tried mediation. The town said no. I tried to cut a deal. The town agreed, but not in good faith. Here is the neighbor who is supposed complaining. 


So thanks for stopping by the blog. Comment, say hello, thanks. Here is the zoning officer of the town of Stuyvesant explaining why they hired the biggest law firm in the capital district, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, to close down a family business and put the operator in jail on false charges, right from the horse's mouth:



And yes, the town attorney did steal $10,000 from the town and a whole lot more from the county, that would be: Tal G. Rappleyea, a man who has as many as fourteen (14) jobs in 2011 and 2012. He is or was until early 2012 an assistant county attorney, claiming work 6 hours per day at $27 per hour. Rappleyea was in 2011 or is in 2012 the designated town attorney for Durham, Ashland, Athens, Prattsville, Lexington, Germantown, Cairo, Stuyvesant, Austerlitz, Copake, Chatham, Greenville, and Jewett.

New York structural malfuction

There is an article in the Register Star today about the suit against the town and a business owned by a town official being tossed out by the judge. I'll post the decision if anyone wants to see it, but essentially, the judge didn't buy my argument that standing should include more than the local effects of the business, that there needs to be a rational application of the law to apply to all in order to allow those living under the law to know what is and is not allowed. The judge sided with the town that the issue should be considered narrowly.

Courts probably don't want to have to deal with every case of insider dealing that the system of local control and 1200 jurisdictions creates in New York. There is no other mechanism to deal with insider dealing, though.

I know that these small towns should not have town courts and town highway departments. You simply spend too much money for too uneven a product, including complete incompetence and corruption, patronage and abuse of criminal justice, in many instances, by allowing 1200 jurisdictions to administer justice and buy equipment and hire workers. If you reduced the number of jurisdictions, they would be easier to police. If you get rid of town court and town highway departments, you could save boatloads of money and get better justice and better roads.

Speaking of police, I also know that a county of 65,000 people should not have 6 police forces, like Columbia County. Comstat, used in the New York City to put resources where they are needed, lead to an 85% reduction in crime over 20 years with no increase in spending. That's what this rural area needs: the ability to allocate resources based on hard data regardless of arbitrary political unit, "Hudson" or "Philmont" even Columbia County. If there is a crime wave in Philmont, take officers out of Hudson. You could save a lot of money and get a better product.

In terms of the town assessor, real estate taxes should, ideally, be largely replaced with other taxes, as property taxes are expensive to collect, inherently unfair, cause distortions in development, and punish farmers, retirees, and poor towns. But if we can't get rid of assessment, we should get rid of the local assessment office and standardize the system in larger units with layers of accountability by people who do not know each other. You can save a lot of money, or better yet, get rid of the tax all together and replace school funding with a better mechanism.

But what about zoning and planning, the issues at the heart of the case that was dismissed? My answer to this problem is more complicated and I'm still chewing it over. I know that letting many small towns around control zoning and planning has lead to nothing good and a lot bad. I know that the power in these boards, if there will continue to be boards, has to be more dispersed. I'm thinking...

FOIL

On Feburary 8, 2012 I sued the Town of Stuyvesant to get photos of the Hook Boat Club, invoices for Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, cancelled checks for Tal Rappleyea and some other stuff. After I sued them, I got everything I wanted. Today I got the judge's decision. Since I got everything I wanted, if the case is dismissed, fine with me. I sued. I got what I wanted. I won.

When the court says "given that petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the matter must be dismissed as moot" that means I got the documents. So case dismissed. I won.

Moral of the story:
If you send in  FOIL request, you had better be prepared to sue to get what you want to see. I am prepared to sue and I did get to see what I am entitled to see.

Here is the Register Star (written a few days after I posted the decision here on my blog). If you read the article you wouldn't know that I 1) did not get the documents until I sued; 2) got them after I sued. That's all you need to know. In my opinion, I won the case before the judge's decision.

And the Register Star story refers to Robert Freeman's Committee on Open Government talking about Melissa Naegeli a year and a half ago, or whatever it's called. Here is the man when he came to Stuyvesant.


Pending litigation: "neither a member of the public, nor an adverse party, forfeits rights to disclosure of government records once a government agency becomes involved in litigation” Orange County Publs. v. County of Orange, 637 N.Y.S.2d 596, 602 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995) as per matters of Farbman & Sons v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., supra; Matter of Burke v Yudelson, 51 AD2d 673, 674 [4th Dept 1976]).

Definition of privilege: Only communications that have as their purpose the obtaining by the client, or the providing by the attorney, of legal advice or assistance, come within the privilege (matters of King v Ashley, 179 N.Y. 281 [1904]; Kenford Co. v County of Erie, 55 AD2d 466, 469 [4th Dept 1977]; Stefano v C. P. Ward, Inc., 19 AD2d 473 [3d Dept 1963].)

Letters and memos are different than invoices (matters of Steele v New York State Dept. of Health, supra; Mahoney v Staffa, supra; Matter of Austin v Purcell, supra). The court recognizes that not all communications between attorney and client are privileged (matter of Priest v Hennessy, supra, 51 NY2d, at 68, 69.). In particular, “fee arrangements between attorney and client do not ordinarily constitute a confidential communication and, thus, are not privileged in the usual case” (supra). Indeed, “[a] communication concerning the fee to be paid has no direct relevance to the legal advice to be given,” but rather “is a collateral matter which, unlike communications which relate to the subject matter of the attorney's professional employment, is not privileged” (matter of Priest v Hennessy, supra, 51 NY2d, at 69.)

Definition of attorney work: Respondents’ denial of the FOIL request cannot be upheld unless the descriptive material is uniquely the product of the professional skills of respondent's counsel. The preparation and submission of a bill for fees due and owing, not at all dependent on legal expertise, education or training, cannot be “attribute[d].. to the unique skills of an attorney” (Brandman v Cross & Brown Co., 125 Misc 2d 185, 188 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1984]). In Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Mosczydlowski (supra), as cited in Orange County Publs. v. County of Orange, 637 N.Y.S.2d 596, 602 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995 a FOIL exemption for material covered by CPLR 3101 (d) was allowed in attorney invoices: “legal issues researched, which bear upon the law firm's theories…; conferences with witnesses not yet identified… in ongoing litigation” (also see, De La Roche v De La Roche, supra, 209 AD2d, at 158, 159.).

Glencadia Dog Camp: we won a lawsuit

Albany Times Union
Radio: wgxc.org
And here is the Register Star.
Here is the judge's decision.
Well, $300,000 later, that suit is done. Four more to go.
Here is Sam Pratt's version of this.

register star pimping crony spin

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 The Register Star ran an letter by planning board member and former head of the Stuyvesant Republican party Tom Shanahan called "Courts have better things to do."

I found out Mr. Shanahan objects to lawsuits the hard way. On October 26, 2011 I filed my first article 78 suit. On October 30, 2011, after Mr. Shanahan was seen observing my property, I was given a citation in town criminal court for dog barking. The charge is ridiculous but the charge allows up to 15 days in jail. When I showed up at the appearance date on the ticket on November 9, 2011, Judge Carrie O’Hare reported that the affidavit for this charge disappeared off the face of the earth. 

Since I filed my suits, this kind of nonsense has now stopped completely.
Here is the latest article in the paper.

schmo

The Lawyer Roll for Stuyvesant 2011-2012

William S. Nolan: special prosecutor, wrote response to motion to dismiss on criminal dog barking charge, lost, charge disappeared off the face of the earth

Philip Meyer: answered FOIL law suit, state court, associate of William J. Better, lost

Sharon Siegel: hired by insurance company, federal court, still in court
Thomas J. Mortati: hired by insurance company, federal court, still in court

David R. Everett: did the ZBA stuff in 2011, town level action, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, hired in violation of  Public Officers Law, lost his case, yanked off case by other partners at firm to stop the embarrassing antics such as this
John Allen: partner Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna
Tammy Cumo: associate lawyer Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna
Denise Hartman: Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna
Heidi Nicholson: Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna

John Henry: answered the dog lawsuit, state court, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, senior partner

Tal Rappleyea: town attorney, got more than $12,000 for dog barking issue, came up with the theory on Town Law 267, the theory that Everette used, the theory that the judge threw out, lost his job as county attorney

William J. Better: defended Knott and Narzynski with taxpayer money, many tens of thousands to defend private interests of officials in state court, still in court

Everett, Rapplyea, Better, Meyer, Siegel, Mortati, Nolan, Henry, Allen, Cumo, Hartman, and Nicholson versus some schmo or a Schmozilla.

12 lawyers. 1 dog guy. 12 against 1?

William S. Nolan of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna served as special prosecutor on the dog barking charge. He violated his duty as a prosecutor by pursuing a charge he knew to be false at the time her pursued the charge. He was just promoted by Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna.