POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 1st 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF POESTENKILL'S HOLSER ROAD PEOPLE - MORE POESTENKILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CIVICS FOR THE HOPELESS STUPIDS ON THE POESTENKILL TOWN BOARD AND FOR ANYONE ELSE IN POESTENKIILL WHO IS CONSIDERING REPLACING THEM!"
For anyone who wonders why law and government were being taught to five-year olds on the first day of kindergarten in the then-brand new Poestenkill Elementary School, my question as one of those people is when should law and government be taught?
At the age of thirty?
The age of fifty?
Never, because law is for lawyers, and if you are not a lawyer, you can't talk about law because then you would get in trouble for practicing law without a lawyer's license, which is absolute hogwash.
Our problem here in Poestenkill today, and as Poestenkill councilman Eric Wohlleber has made clear, it is a serious one, is that the machinery of government has been literally sabotaged and dismantled by people who gained control of our government going back to the early-1970's, in a revolt against the 1970 Comprehensive Plan and the imposition of zoning, so that today, we are left with this reality as it was so cogently expressed by the councilman on September 21, 2022, at what was billed as a "Special" Town Board Meeting, to wit:
WOHLLEBER: I'll just say two things I forgot to say last week.
Number one, we've gotten nothing out of this agreement.
We've gotten zero and given up a ton and ultimately, what we do today, in the past, this is we, we are lowering without a doubt the property values of folks that live nearby there because I don't know that - there's no doubt in my mind that this kind of operation that is going to run and likely expand and be able to run later than other businesses in town is going to have a negative impact on those folks.
And ultimately, if they, when they come to us four years ago and asked for help with a simple noise problem, which started as a simple noise problem, we would have been better off having just said how about we just do nothing and it'll just be, it'll just stay this bad.
Instead, we tried to help and we ultimately made it ten times worse.
end quotes
And the reason we are talking about that settlement three years later in 2025 is because Poestenkill continues to treat that settlement today as a valid legal document, even though it isn't, and never was, and Poestenkill continues to have § 150-28, the so-called "Wood Operations Law" added 4-15-2021 by L.L. No. 2-2021 to Article VI of Chapter 150 of the Code of Poestenkill, on the books as valid, despite the fact that on September 22, 2021, it was declared unconstitutional by Federal District Court Senior District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.
If we go back in time to this nation's beginnings, we find in John Adam's "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" as follows concerning the sole purpose of having a government in the first place, to wit:
Res populi, and the original meaning of the word republic could be no other than a government in which the property of the people predominated and governed; and it had more relation to property than liberty.
It signified a government, in which the property of the public, or people, and of every one of them, was secured and protected by law.
This idea, indeed, implies liberty; because property cannot be secure unless the man be at liberty to acquire, use, or part with it, at his discretion, and unless he have his personal liberty of life and limb, motion and rest, for that purpose.
It implies, moreover, that the property and liberty of all men, not merely of a majority, should be safe; for the people, or public, comprehends more than a majority, it comprehends all and every individual; and the property of every citizen is a part of the public property, as each citizen is a part of the public, people, or community.
end quotes
But as councilman Wohlleber made crystal clear on September 21, 2022, here in Poestenkill with its stupid government based on feelings that are generated in the gut by various gastric juices and fluids as its rudder, that is so not so!
While in Poestenkill, the property and liberty of all men and women should be safe, it is not!
And so, we do not have government here in Poestenkill.
We have a despotism, instead, which takes us to today's kindergarten civics lesson, to wit:
No, the authority of a New York Town Board is not absolute.
While Town Boards have broad powers to govern their towns, their authority is not unlimited and is subject to both the New York State Constitution and state laws.
Towns in New York have constitutional home rule powers, meaning they can enact local laws on matters of town property, affairs, and government, as long as those laws are not inconsistent with the state Constitution or laws of general statewide applicability.
Town Boards' authority is also defined and limited by state statutes, such as the Town Law, which outlines specific powers and duties, according to Town Law § 64.
Town boards cannot enact local laws that conflict with state laws, including those related to matters of statewide concern.
A Town Board's authority to enact local laws is not absolute and may be restricted by state legislation.
While Town Boards have broad powers, they cannot delegate all powers to other officials or agencies, especially those related to specific financial functions, according to the Office of the New York State Comptroller.
The limits on Town Board authority help ensure that local governments are accountable to the state and that there is a degree of uniformity in laws and regulations across the state.
State laws and the Constitution also serve to protect individual rights and ensure that Town Boards do not infringe upon those rights.
end quotes
Except in Poestenkill.
WHY?
THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 2nd 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF POESTENKILL'S HOLSER ROAD PEOPLE - NEW NEIGHBOR WHO CAME TO LYNN ROAD WITH A POWERFUL FRIEND ON THE POESTENKILL ZONING BOARD AND THEN CHANGED EVERYTHING FOR EVERYBODY ELSE IDENTIFIED AS MANDEL-CLEMENTE CLIENT JOE HITCHCOCK - THE DEAD GIVE-AWAY WAS THAT HE WAS THE ONLY PERSON ON LYNN ROAD WITH LINDA MANDEL-CLEMENTE AS HIS LAWYER - POLITICAL CLOUT WITH POESTENKILL ZONING BOARD DOES NOT COME FOR FREE, AFTERALL - LOCAL LAW NO 2-2021, THE WOOD OPERATIONS LAW, RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THE GROUNDS IT WAS JUST TOO STUPID TO BE A LAW!"
As those of us who have lived in this town for a long time and remember what it once was well know, there never were problems up on "the plateau" until a new neighbor came to Lynn Road with his wood processing business, a high-powered political lawyer named Linda Mandel-Clemente, and a powerful friend on the Poestenkill zoning board and changed life for everyone in Poestenkill, and not for the better, as the record of the fiasco clearly shows.
And that brings us to § 150-28.1(A) of Article VI of Chapter 150 of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill, added 4-15-2021 by L.L. No. 2-2021, which Code is worthless because nobody in town government bothers to follow it or even acknowledge its existence, where we have the following unconstitutional legislative stupidity from the clowns on the Poestenkill town board on 4-15-2021, to wit:
A. The Town of Poestenkill recognizes the tradition of wood operations and forestry in the Rensselaer Plateau section of the Town, and also recognizes that several commercial wood operations have been in operation in violation of the land use regulations.
Those in existence in the R, RA, RR-1, RR-2 and CLI Zones prior to the enactment of the Wood Operations Law and have never defied a duly served and posted cease-and-desist order under the former ordinance are to be grandfathered in.
Other commercial wood operations that are not grandfathered or are expanded beyond their grandfathered use or are created after the enactment of this law shall require a special use permit.
end quotes
The Town of Poestenkill recognizes the tradition of wood operations and forestry in the Rensselaer Plateau section of the Town?
Oh, really?
What tradition of wood operations?
Where is the Town of Poestenkill pulling that out from?
And if we are going to talk tradition here, we should go to a better reference than the clowns on the Poestenkill town board by going to Chapter XXXII of Landmarks of Rensselaer County, New York by George Baker Anderson, written in 1897, where under the title heading of "Town of Poestenkill," we have as follows:
None of the hamlets in the town of Poestenkill are very populous.
The principal one is Poestenkill, which is located on the Poesten kill in the western part of the town.
Its settlement has already been described.
At the close of the first quarter of the nineteenth century the business of the hamlet consisted of a saw mill, a store and a hotel.
Earlier in its history several small industries were located there, including a tannery operated by John Beals.
There were also several large bath houses for the convenience of those desiring to avail themselves of the mineral springs near the hamlet, which many years ago made the place a popular resort by reason of their supposed curative properties.
In 1813 or 1814 a flood, following two days' heavy rainfall, destroyed the tannery, bathhouses and several other buildings.
For several years a cotton batting factory was operated in the rear of the Blewer tavern by William L. Hoag and Nicholas Taylor.
The latter also was proprietor of a tannery and flax mill.
Later on John H. Dater had a small shirt factory there and William L. Hoag made wagons there about 1875.
The village now contains a population varying from 300 to 400, but the industries are not so important as they once were.
The other hamlets are East Poestenkill, in the eastern portion of the town, formerly known as Columbia; Barberville, about a mile easterly from Poestenkill, and Ives's Corners, a small hamlet near the centre of the town.
The principal industry in the vicinity of East Poestenkill for many years was the shirt and collar factory of Joel B. Dingman.
end quotes
So, hmmmmm.
No tradition of wood operations and forestry in the Rensselaer Plateau section of the Town are mentioned there, despite the claims by tall tale teller and lady lawyer Linda Mandel-Clemente that wood processing where Joe Hitchcock and the Holser Road subdivision are located had been going on since time immemorial, which is back before the dawn of time, even, which is how far back in time both lady lawyer Linda Mandel-Clemente and the Poestenkill town board claim this tradition of wood operations in the Rensselaer Plateau section of the Town goes to justify the language of the unconstitutional § 150-28.1(A) of Article VI of Chapter 150 of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill, added 4-15-2021 by L.L. No. 2-2021!
One would think if one was logical and rational that if wood operations had been going on on the "hill" since time immemorial according to Linda Mandel-Clemente, that the author of Chapter XXXII of Landmarks of Rensselaer County, New York by George Baker Anderson, written in 1897, would have picked up at least some clues as to its existence, but obviously not.
And what on earth is a "wood operation" in the first place?
Whatever it is, it is a figment of the imaginations of the clowns on the Poestenkill town board who can make it mean anything they want it to mean when they want it to mean something depending on who the person is they want to apply the meaning to, whether "friend" or "enemy," who they have for their lawyer, whether it be the politically-connected Linda Mantel-Clemente or somebody else without her clout in Poestenkill, and who they have for their surveyor, which is the text-book definition of a law that is unconstitutionally vague!
A law is considered unconstitutionally vague when its language is so unclear, imprecise, or lacking in specificity that it fails to provide fair notice to individuals about what conduct is prohibited or required.
Do I need a special use permit from Poestenkill to split wood with an axe?
Is splitting firewood in Poestenkill a wood operation?
This vagueness can lead to arbitrary enforcement and unequal application, violating the principle of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and welcome to Poestenkill, people!
Fair Notice:
A law must be clear enough for ordinary people to understand what it prohibits or requires.
And § 150-28.1(A) of Article VI of Chapter 150 of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill, added 4-15-2021 by L.L. No. 2-2021, fails that test big time, because when a law like that is so ambiguous so that people must guess at its meaning, it violates the principle of fair notice.
Arbitrary Enforcement:
A vague law allows law enforcement and courts to exercise excessive discretion, potentially leading to discriminatory or inconsistent application, and again, welcome to Poestenkill, people, where how you get treated depends on who you have for your lawyer and your surveyor.
Due Process Clause:
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protects individuals from government actions that are arbitrary, unjust, or unfair.
Vagueness can violate this protection by creating an environment where people are not adequately warned of what is prohibited and where laws are enforced inconsistently.
Void for Vagueness Doctrine:
This legal doctrine, derived from the Due Process Clause, allows courts to strike down laws that are deemed too vague to be enforced fairly.
end quotes
And thus, § 150-28.1(A) of Article VI of Chapter 150 of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill, added 4-15-2021 by L.L. No. 2-2021, became unconstitutional.
So why is it still in the Code Book?
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 2nd 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF POESTENKILL'S HOLSER ROAD PEOPLE - NEW NEIGHBOR WHO CAME TO LYNN ROAD WITH A POWERFUL FRIEND ON THE POESTENKILL ZONING BOARD AND THEN CHANGED EVERYTHING FOR EVERYBODY ELSE IDENTIFIED AS MANDEL-CLEMENTE CLIENT JOE HITCHCOCK - THE DEAD GIVE-AWAY WAS THAT HE WAS THE ONLY PERSON ON LYNN ROAD WITH LINDA MANDEL-CLEMENTE AS HIS LAWYER - POLITICAL CLOUT WITH POESTENKILL ZONING BOARD DOES NOT COME FOR FREE, AFTERALL - LOCAL LAW NO 2-2021, THE WOOD OPERATIONS LAW, RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THE GROUNDS IT WAS JUST TOO STUPID TO BE A LAW!"
As those of us who have lived in this town for a long time and remember what it once was well know, there never were problems up on "the plateau" until a new neighbor came to Lynn Road with his wood processing business, a high-powered political lawyer named Linda Mandel-Clemente, and a powerful friend on the Poestenkill zoning board and changed life for everyone in Poestenkill, and not for the better, as the record of the fiasco clearly shows.
And that brings us to § 150-28.1(A) of Article VI of Chapter 150 of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill, added 4-15-2021 by L.L. No. 2-2021, which Code is worthless because nobody in town government bothers to follow it or even acknowledge its existence, where we have the following unconstitutional legislative stupidity from the clowns on the Poestenkill town board on 4-15-2021, to wit:
A. The Town of Poestenkill recognizes the tradition of wood operations and forestry in the Rensselaer Plateau section of the Town, and also recognizes that several commercial wood operations have been in operation in violation of the land use regulations.
Those in existence in the R, RA, RR-1, RR-2 and CLI Zones prior to the enactment of the Wood Operations Law and have never defied a duly served and posted cease-and-desist order under the former ordinance are to be grandfathered in.
Other commercial wood operations that are not grandfathered or are expanded beyond their grandfathered use or are created after the enactment of this law shall require a special use permit.
end quotes
The Town of Poestenkill recognizes the tradition of wood operations and forestry in the Rensselaer Plateau section of the Town?
Oh, really?
What tradition of wood operations?
Where is the Town of Poestenkill pulling that out from?
And if we are going to talk tradition here, we should go to a better reference than the clowns on the Poestenkill town board by going to Chapter XXXII of Landmarks of Rensselaer County, New York by George Baker Anderson, written in 1897, where under the title heading of "Town of Poestenkill," we have as follows:
None of the hamlets in the town of Poestenkill are very populous.
The principal one is Poestenkill, which is located on the Poesten kill in the western part of the town.
Its settlement has already been described.
At the close of the first quarter of the nineteenth century the business of the hamlet consisted of a saw mill, a store and a hotel.
Earlier in its history several small industries were located there, including a tannery operated by John Beals.
There were also several large bath houses for the convenience of those desiring to avail themselves of the mineral springs near the hamlet, which many years ago made the place a popular resort by reason of their supposed curative properties.
In 1813 or 1814 a flood, following two days' heavy rainfall, destroyed the tannery, bathhouses and several other buildings.
For several years a cotton batting factory was operated in the rear of the Blewer tavern by William L. Hoag and Nicholas Taylor.
The latter also was proprietor of a tannery and flax mill.
Later on John H. Dater had a small shirt factory there and William L. Hoag made wagons there about 1875.
The village now contains a population varying from 300 to 400, but the industries are not so important as they once were.
The other hamlets are East Poestenkill, in the eastern portion of the town, formerly known as Columbia; Barberville, about a mile easterly from Poestenkill, and Ives's Corners, a small hamlet near the centre of the town.
The principal industry in the vicinity of East Poestenkill for many years was the shirt and collar factory of Joel B. Dingman.
end quotes
So, hmmmmm.
No tradition of wood operations and forestry in the Rensselaer Plateau section of the Town are mentioned there, despite the claims by tall tale teller and lady lawyer Linda Mandel-Clemente that wood processing where Joe Hitchcock and the Holser Road subdivision are located had been going on since time immemorial, which is back before the dawn of time, even, which is how far back in time both lady lawyer Linda Mandel-Clemente and the Poestenkill town board claim this tradition of wood operations in the Rensselaer Plateau section of the Town goes to justify the language of the unconstitutional § 150-28.1(A) of Article VI of Chapter 150 of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill, added 4-15-2021 by L.L. No. 2-2021!
One would think if one was logical and rational that if wood operations had been going on on the "hill" since time immemorial according to Linda Mandel-Clemente, that the author of Chapter XXXII of Landmarks of Rensselaer County, New York by George Baker Anderson, written in 1897, would have picked up at least some clues as to its existence, but obviously not.
And what on earth is a "wood operation" in the first place?
Whatever it is, it is a figment of the imaginations of the clowns on the Poestenkill town board who can make it mean anything they want it to mean when they want it to mean something depending on who the person is they want to apply the meaning to, whether "friend" or "enemy," who they have for their lawyer, whether it be the politically-connected Linda Mantel-Clemente or somebody else without her clout in Poestenkill, and who they have for their surveyor, which is the text-book definition of a law that is unconstitutionally vague!
A law is considered unconstitutionally vague when its language is so unclear, imprecise, or lacking in specificity that it fails to provide fair notice to individuals about what conduct is prohibited or required.
Do I need a special use permit from Poestenkill to split wood with an axe?
Is splitting firewood in Poestenkill a wood operation?
This vagueness can lead to arbitrary enforcement and unequal application, violating the principle of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and welcome to Poestenkill, people!
Fair Notice:
A law must be clear enough for ordinary people to understand what it prohibits or requires.
And § 150-28.1(A) of Article VI of Chapter 150 of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill, added 4-15-2021 by L.L. No. 2-2021, fails that test big time, because when a law like that is so ambiguous so that people must guess at its meaning, it violates the principle of fair notice.
Arbitrary Enforcement:
A vague law allows law enforcement and courts to exercise excessive discretion, potentially leading to discriminatory or inconsistent application, and again, welcome to Poestenkill, people, where how you get treated depends on who you have for your lawyer and your surveyor.
Due Process Clause:
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protects individuals from government actions that are arbitrary, unjust, or unfair.
Vagueness can violate this protection by creating an environment where people are not adequately warned of what is prohibited and where laws are enforced inconsistently.
Void for Vagueness Doctrine:
This legal doctrine, derived from the Due Process Clause, allows courts to strike down laws that are deemed too vague to be enforced fairly.
end quotes
And thus, § 150-28.1(A) of Article VI of Chapter 150 of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill, added 4-15-2021 by L.L. No. 2-2021, became unconstitutional.
So why is it still in the Code Book?
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 3rd 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF POESTENKILL'S HOLSER ROAD PEOPLE - JOE AND LINDA - A LAWYER-CLIENT MARRIAGE MADE IN LAWYER'S HEAVEN - POESTENKILL COUNCILWOMAN JUNE BUTLER FLIPS OUT AFTER ALLEGEDELY EATING SALAMI TAINTED WITH MACHINE OIL THAT WAS SLICED BY LAWYER LINDA MANDEL-CLEMENTE WITH A WOOD PROCESSOR - DECLARES TOM HOHMAN TO BE A CRIMINAL IN VIOLATION OF THE LAND USE REGULATIONS OF POESTENKILL - WHAT ON EARTH IS UP WITH THAT ASK CONCERNED POESTENKILL RESIDENTS SICK AND TIRED OF SUFFERING UNDER THE YOKE OF AN INSANE GOVERNMENT IN POESTENKILL - TIME TO PUT AN END TO KEVIN KRONAU'S LAME EXPERIMENT OF POESTENKILL BEING RUN LIKE A BUSINESS BY BUSINESSMEN FOR BUSINESSMEN - LET'S RESTORE RULE OF LAW, INSTEAD!"
Of all the insane going's-on to date with respect to this Hitchcock Fiasco which will have reverberations far into the future here in Poestenkill, for once insanity is implanted in a small community like Poestenkill, and once it takes roots as it clearly has, because there is nothing related to the Hitchcock Fiasco that could be called either sane or rational, it is almost impossible to eradicate, the most insane has to be Poestenkill town councilwoman June Butler accusing Tom Hohman of Barbersville of being in violation of Poestenkill's Land-Use Code, which is why she felt it necessary to pass § 150-28.1(A) of Article VI of Chapter 150 of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill, added 4-15-2021 by L.L. No. 2-2021, the so-called Wood Operations Law which has subsequently been ruled unconstitutional by a senior federal district court judge in the district court of the federal Northern District of New York, so as to make Tom Hohman "legal" when there was never any proof at all that Tom Hohman was doing anything in violation of the Poestenkill Land-Use Code.
In what can only be described as an unhinged or deranged fit caused by alleged gastric distress as a result of eating some rubber chicken at a political fundraiser that was slightly off, or salami tainted with machine oil from the just-sharpened blades of a wood processor that was sliced up by lawyer Linda Mandel-Clemente, which gastric distress was the result of the Boyle's Law equilibrium in her gut being thrown off kilter by an accumulation of excess gas, she simply started lashing out, throwing accusations out right and left of this one being in violation of the code, and that one being in violation of the code, absent any evidence that anybody besides Joe Hitchcock was in violation of anything, and especially Tom Hohman, who has been on the mountain for maybe eighty years and in that time, has never violated any codes I am aware of, nor to my knowledge, has Tom Hohman ever bothered anybody, expect maybe when he was pitching Little League and maybe scared somebody with his fast ball.
And despite that, despite the fact that Tom Hohman was never investigated for code violations, despite the fact that Tom Hohman was never charged with code violations, nonetheless, Poestenkill town councilman June Butler took pains to brand Tom as a code violator by name, which is to say, June has branded him as a criminal, because violating the Poestenkill Land Use Code as June Bulter says Tom Hohman did is a crime according to § 150-82(A) of Article XII of the Poestenkill Town Code, to wit:
Violation of any provision or requirement of this chapter or violation of any statement, plan, application, permit or certificate approved under the provisions of this chapter shall be considered an offense punishable by a fine of not more than $350 or imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months, or both, for conviction of a first offense; for conviction of a second offense, both of which were committed within a period of five years, punishable by a fine not less than $350 nor more than $700 or imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months, or both; and, upon conviction for a third or subsequent offense, all of which were committed within a period of five years, punishable by a fine not less than $700 nor more than $1,000 or imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months, or both.
However, for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon courts and judicial officers generally, violations of this chapter shall be deemed misdemeanors and for such purpose only all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to such violations.
end quotes
And as a result of Poestenkill councilwoman June Butler arbitrarily,, capriciously and insanely branding Tom Hohman as a code violator, we now find Tom Hohman's name enshrined as such in the September 22, 2021 Order of Federal District Court for the Northen District of New York granting Joe Hitchcock a preliminary injunction against out-of-control cowboy Poestenkill code enforcer Tracy Church, to wit:
4. Plaintiff's (Joe Hitchcock) likelihood of success on the merits of his Equal Protection claims
a. "Selective enforcement" claim
To plead a "selective enforcement" claim for equal protection, a plaintiff "must allege facts plausibly suggesting that (1) he was treated differently from similarly situated individuals; and (2) the defendants treated him differently due to his membership in a suspect class, inhibited his exercise of a fundamental right, acted out of malice, or acted irrationally and arbitrarily."
"A plaintiff cannot merely rest on 'a demonstration of different treatment from persons similarly situated.'"
"Instead, he must 'prove that the disparate treatment was caused by the impermissible motivation.'"
In support of his argument, Plaintiff refers to LL2's preamble, which "recognizes that several wood operations have been in operation in violation of the Land Use Regulations," and that such wood processing businesses constituted a "tradition."
Plaintiff also points to other named individuals, such as Hohman, who operate wood processing businesses in Defendant Town, and whose businesses were covered by LL2's grandfather clause.
As discussed with respect to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim, those individuals did not exercise fundamental rights by speaking out against Defendants or filing a lawsuit against them.
Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Plaintiff can satisfy the elements of his selective enforcement claim by showing that (1) Defendants treated Plaintiff disparately in that they created a "carve out" exception to the grandfather clause that only applies to him, and (2) such exception was the result of Defendants' impermissible motive to punish Plaintiff for exercising his fundamental rights.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is reasonably likely to be successful on his selective enforcement claim.
end quotes
And WTF, people!
Where on earth did Poestenkill councilwoman June Butler get off by dragging Tom Hohman into that Hitchcock Mess by accusing him of being a code violator so that we are now reading about Tom being such in a federal court decision, which is forever, despite Tom not having any role to play in the Hitchcock Fiasco, and despite June Butler having not a shred of evidence that Tom Hohman had ever violated anything?
What a dangerously insane act that was, and how can we trust June Butler not to do the same to any of us, and just have her in a fit of rage or insanity start leveling criminal charges against us for imaginary code violations, like she did with Tom Hohman?
The answer is, we can't!
June has got to go, as she cannot be trusted with our liberty, and that cannot happen soon enough.
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 3rd 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF POESTENKILL'S HOLSER ROAD PEOPLE - JOE AND LINDA - A LAWYER-CLIENT MARRIAGE MADE IN LAWYER'S HEAVEN - POESTENKILL COUNCILWOMAN JUNE BUTLER FLIPS OUT AFTER ALLEGEDELY EATING SALAMI TAINTED WITH MACHINE OIL THAT WAS SLICED BY LAWYER LINDA MANDEL-CLEMENTE WITH A WOOD PROCESSOR - DECLARES TOM HOHMAN TO BE A CRIMINAL IN VIOLATION OF THE LAND USE REGULATIONS OF POESTENKILL - WHAT ON EARTH IS UP WITH THAT ASK CONCERNED POESTENKILL RESIDENTS SICK AND TIRED OF SUFFERING UNDER THE YOKE OF AN INSANE GOVERNMENT IN POESTENKILL - TIME TO PUT AN END TO KEVIN KRONAU'S LAME EXPERIMENT OF POESTENKILL BEING RUN LIKE A BUSINESS BY BUSINESSMEN FOR BUSINESSMEN - LET'S RESTORE RULE OF LAW, INSTEAD!"
Of all the insane going's-on to date with respect to this Hitchcock Fiasco which will have reverberations far into the future here in Poestenkill, for once insanity is implanted in a small community like Poestenkill, and once it takes roots as it clearly has, because there is nothing related to the Hitchcock Fiasco that could be called either sane or rational, it is almost impossible to eradicate, the most insane has to be Poestenkill town councilwoman June Butler accusing Tom Hohman of Barbersville of being in violation of Poestenkill's Land-Use Code, which is why she felt it necessary to pass § 150-28.1(A) of Article VI of Chapter 150 of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill, added 4-15-2021 by L.L. No. 2-2021, the so-called Wood Operations Law which has subsequently been ruled unconstitutional by a senior federal district court judge in the district court of the federal Northern District of New York, so as to make Tom Hohman "legal" when there was never any proof at all that Tom Hohman was doing anything in violation of the Poestenkill Land-Use Code.
In what can only be described as an unhinged or deranged fit caused by alleged gastric distress as a result of eating some rubber chicken at a political fundraiser that was slightly off, or salami tainted with machine oil from the just-sharpened blades of a wood processor that was sliced up by lawyer Linda Mandel-Clemente, which gastric distress was the result of the Boyle's Law equilibrium in her gut being thrown off kilter by an accumulation of excess gas, she simply started lashing out, throwing accusations out right and left of this one being in violation of the code, and that one being in violation of the code, absent any evidence that anybody besides Joe Hitchcock was in violation of anything, and especially Tom Hohman, who has been on the mountain for maybe eighty years and in that time, has never violated any codes I am aware of, nor to my knowledge, has Tom Hohman ever bothered anybody, expect maybe when he was pitching Little League and maybe scared somebody with his fast ball.
And despite that, despite the fact that Tom Hohman was never investigated for code violations, despite the fact that Tom Hohman was never charged with code violations, nonetheless, Poestenkill town councilman June Butler took pains to brand Tom as a code violator by name, which is to say, June has branded him as a criminal, because violating the Poestenkill Land Use Code as June Bulter says Tom Hohman did is a crime according to § 150-82(A) of Article XII of the Poestenkill Town Code, to wit:
Violation of any provision or requirement of this chapter or violation of any statement, plan, application, permit or certificate approved under the provisions of this chapter shall be considered an offense punishable by a fine of not more than $350 or imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months, or both, for conviction of a first offense; for conviction of a second offense, both of which were committed within a period of five years, punishable by a fine not less than $350 nor more than $700 or imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months, or both; and, upon conviction for a third or subsequent offense, all of which were committed within a period of five years, punishable by a fine not less than $700 nor more than $1,000 or imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months, or both.
However, for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon courts and judicial officers generally, violations of this chapter shall be deemed misdemeanors and for such purpose only all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to such violations.
end quotes
And as a result of Poestenkill councilwoman June Butler arbitrarily,, capriciously and insanely branding Tom Hohman as a code violator, we now find Tom Hohman's name enshrined as such in the September 22, 2021 Order of Federal District Court for the Northen District of New York granting Joe Hitchcock a preliminary injunction against out-of-control cowboy Poestenkill code enforcer Tracy Church, to wit:
4. Plaintiff's (Joe Hitchcock) likelihood of success on the merits of his Equal Protection claims
a. "Selective enforcement" claim
To plead a "selective enforcement" claim for equal protection, a plaintiff "must allege facts plausibly suggesting that (1) he was treated differently from similarly situated individuals; and (2) the defendants treated him differently due to his membership in a suspect class, inhibited his exercise of a fundamental right, acted out of malice, or acted irrationally and arbitrarily."
"A plaintiff cannot merely rest on 'a demonstration of different treatment from persons similarly situated.'"
"Instead, he must 'prove that the disparate treatment was caused by the impermissible motivation.'"
In support of his argument, Plaintiff refers to LL2's preamble, which "recognizes that several wood operations have been in operation in violation of the Land Use Regulations," and that such wood processing businesses constituted a "tradition."
Plaintiff also points to other named individuals, such as Hohman, who operate wood processing businesses in Defendant Town, and whose businesses were covered by LL2's grandfather clause.
As discussed with respect to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim, those individuals did not exercise fundamental rights by speaking out against Defendants or filing a lawsuit against them.
Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Plaintiff can satisfy the elements of his selective enforcement claim by showing that (1) Defendants treated Plaintiff disparately in that they created a "carve out" exception to the grandfather clause that only applies to him, and (2) such exception was the result of Defendants' impermissible motive to punish Plaintiff for exercising his fundamental rights.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is reasonably likely to be successful on his selective enforcement claim.
end quotes
And WTF, people!
Where on earth did Poestenkill councilwoman June Butler get off by dragging Tom Hohman into that Hitchcock Mess by accusing him of being a code violator so that we are now reading about Tom being such in a federal court decision, which is forever, despite Tom not having any role to play in the Hitchcock Fiasco, and despite June Butler having not a shred of evidence that Tom Hohman had ever violated anything?
What a dangerously insane act that was, and how can we trust June Butler not to do the same to any of us, and just have her in a fit of rage or insanity start leveling criminal charges against us for imaginary code violations, like she did with Tom Hohman?
The answer is, we can't!
June has got to go, as she cannot be trusted with our liberty, and that cannot happen soon enough.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 4th 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF POESTENKILL'S HOLSER ROAD PEOPLE - EX POST FACTO LAWS AND ATTAINDER ALIVE AND WELL IN POSTENKILL - PROVES BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT POESTENKILL IS MIRED IN DARK AGES IGNORANCE - LOCAL LAW NO. 2 OF 2021, POESTENKILL'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL WOOD OPERATIONS LAW, VOTED THE MOST WEIRD, BIZARRE, ABSURD, STUPID, IDIOTIC, MORONIC, IMBECILIC PIECE OF CRAP LEGISLATION IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND GOING BACK TO TIME IMMEMORIAL BY PANEL OF EXPERTS ON STUPID IMBECILIC LEGISLATION!"
Were I looking for a prime example of an unconstitutional ex post facto law to present to the young adults in the kindergarten class at Poestenkill Elementary School, I could do no better than to present to them § 150-28.1(A) of Article VI of Chapter 150 of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill, added 4-15-2021 by L.L. No. 2-2021, wherein is stated as follows, to wit:
A. The Town of Poestenkill recognizes the tradition of wood operations and forestry in the Rensselaer Plateau section of the Town, and also recognizes that several commercial wood operations have been in operation in violation of the land use regulations.
Those in existence in the R, RA, RR-1, RR-2 and CLI Zones prior to the enactment of the Wood Operations Law and have never defied a duly served and posted cease-and-desist order under the former ordinance are to be grandfathered in.
end quotes
So, how then did the Town of Poestenkill recognize on 4-15-2021 that several unidentified commercial wood operations supposedly located in some unidentified location somewhere in Poestenkill had been in operation in violation of some unspecified land use regulations in Poestenkill?
The concept itself is absurd on its face!
"We know something, but we are not going to tell you what we know, because it's a secret, but you still have to believe we know it, and take our word for it that it is true!"
That's patently stupid, but that is exactly how the opening sentence of Local Law No. 2-2021 has to be interpreted.
And there we have a case of the Poestenkill town board exercising unlawful judicial authority by declaring those several unidentified commercial wood operations to have been in operation in violation of the land use regulations of Poestenkill, which is an unconstitutional act of attainder by the Poestenkill town board.
And this is what, fifth grade civics, that everywhere in America, which would include Poestenkill, although the fools on the town board would likely deny that, believing as they do that Poestenkill is a completely separate political entity with its own constitution and laws, thank you very much, bills of attainder like Poestenkill's Local Law No. 2-2021 are forbidden because they violate the fundamental principles of due process and separation of powers.
As is exactly the case here, they are legislative acts that declare someone guilty of a crime and impose punishment without a trial, effectively allowing the legislature to act as a court and bypass the judicial process, which undermines the core concept of a fair and impartial legal system which we do not have in Poestenkill, where it is the town board that determines who gets to be innocent and who then has to be guilty.
Bills of attainder like Poestenkill's unconstitutional Local Law No. 2-2021 deprive individuals of their right to a fair trial, which is a cornerstone of the American justice system, but not the so-called "justice" system of Poestenkill, which is a "no justice" system where the "justice" one gets or doesn't get depends on who you are, who your lawyer is or isn't and who your surveyor is or isn't.
Bills of attainder like Poestenkill's unconstitutional Local Law No. 2-2021 allow the government, in this case the Poestenkill town board, to punish individuals without a court determination of guilt, violating the principles of due process.
The Constitution establishes a clear separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Bills of attainder undermine this separation by allowing the legislature to exercise judicial functions, specifically the power to determine guilt and impose punishment.
The prohibition against bills of attainder is designed to prevent the government from using its power in a discriminatory or oppressive manner as is the case here in Poestenkill.
They allow for the potential for government overreach and the targeting of individuals or groups without the protections of a fair trial.
Bills of attainder were commonly used in England before the Founding, where they were often employed to target individuals who were perceived as disloyal or dangerous to the government.
Thus, as we learned as young adults in Poestenkill Elementary School, the Framers of the Constitution of New York of April 20, 1777 sought to prevent such abuses of power by prohibiting bills of attainder, to wit:
XLI. And this convention doth further ordain, determine, and declare, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, that trial by jury, in all cases in which it hath heretofore been used in the colony of New York, shall be established and remain inviolate forever.
And that no acts of attainder shall be passed by the legislature of this State for crimes, other than those committed before the termination of the present war; and that such acts shall not work a corruption of blood.
end quotes
That prohibition reflects the importance the Framers placed on protecting individual rights and preventing the abuse of governmental power in this state and in Poestenkill specifically.
As to the Poestenkill town board exercising unlawful judicial authority in enacting Local Law No. 2-2021, in New York, the judicial authority of the town board is limited to supporting the Town Court and its operations, not directly exercising judicial power.
The town board is responsible for funding the court's facilities and staff, but it does not hear cases or make legal decisions.
Town justices, elected separately, are responsible for presiding over civil and criminal matters within the town's jurisdiction.
The town board is the legislative body of the town and has various responsibilities, including setting the town budget, enacting local laws, and overseeing various town departments.
However, it does not have judicial authority.
The Town Court, also known as the Justice Court, is the judicial branch of the town government.
It is responsible for hearing both civil and criminal cases within the town's jurisdiction.
Town justices are elected officials who preside over the Town Court and are responsible for making legal decisions in cases before them.
So why doesn't anyone on the town board know any of that?
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 4th 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF POESTENKILL'S HOLSER ROAD PEOPLE - EX POST FACTO LAWS AND ATTAINDER ALIVE AND WELL IN POSTENKILL - PROVES BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT POESTENKILL IS MIRED IN DARK AGES IGNORANCE - LOCAL LAW NO. 2 OF 2021, POESTENKILL'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL WOOD OPERATIONS LAW, VOTED THE MOST WEIRD, BIZARRE, ABSURD, STUPID, IDIOTIC, MORONIC, IMBECILIC PIECE OF CRAP LEGISLATION IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND GOING BACK TO TIME IMMEMORIAL BY PANEL OF EXPERTS ON STUPID IMBECILIC LEGISLATION!"
Were I looking for a prime example of an unconstitutional ex post facto law to present to the young adults in the kindergarten class at Poestenkill Elementary School, I could do no better than to present to them § 150-28.1(A) of Article VI of Chapter 150 of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill, added 4-15-2021 by L.L. No. 2-2021, wherein is stated as follows, to wit:
A. The Town of Poestenkill recognizes the tradition of wood operations and forestry in the Rensselaer Plateau section of the Town, and also recognizes that several commercial wood operations have been in operation in violation of the land use regulations.
Those in existence in the R, RA, RR-1, RR-2 and CLI Zones prior to the enactment of the Wood Operations Law and have never defied a duly served and posted cease-and-desist order under the former ordinance are to be grandfathered in.
end quotes
So, how then did the Town of Poestenkill recognize on 4-15-2021 that several unidentified commercial wood operations supposedly located in some unidentified location somewhere in Poestenkill had been in operation in violation of some unspecified land use regulations in Poestenkill?
The concept itself is absurd on its face!
"We know something, but we are not going to tell you what we know, because it's a secret, but you still have to believe we know it, and take our word for it that it is true!"
That's patently stupid, but that is exactly how the opening sentence of Local Law No. 2-2021 has to be interpreted.
And there we have a case of the Poestenkill town board exercising unlawful judicial authority by declaring those several unidentified commercial wood operations to have been in operation in violation of the land use regulations of Poestenkill, which is an unconstitutional act of attainder by the Poestenkill town board.
And this is what, fifth grade civics, that everywhere in America, which would include Poestenkill, although the fools on the town board would likely deny that, believing as they do that Poestenkill is a completely separate political entity with its own constitution and laws, thank you very much, bills of attainder like Poestenkill's Local Law No. 2-2021 are forbidden because they violate the fundamental principles of due process and separation of powers.
As is exactly the case here, they are legislative acts that declare someone guilty of a crime and impose punishment without a trial, effectively allowing the legislature to act as a court and bypass the judicial process, which undermines the core concept of a fair and impartial legal system which we do not have in Poestenkill, where it is the town board that determines who gets to be innocent and who then has to be guilty.
Bills of attainder like Poestenkill's unconstitutional Local Law No. 2-2021 deprive individuals of their right to a fair trial, which is a cornerstone of the American justice system, but not the so-called "justice" system of Poestenkill, which is a "no justice" system where the "justice" one gets or doesn't get depends on who you are, who your lawyer is or isn't and who your surveyor is or isn't.
Bills of attainder like Poestenkill's unconstitutional Local Law No. 2-2021 allow the government, in this case the Poestenkill town board, to punish individuals without a court determination of guilt, violating the principles of due process.
The Constitution establishes a clear separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Bills of attainder undermine this separation by allowing the legislature to exercise judicial functions, specifically the power to determine guilt and impose punishment.
The prohibition against bills of attainder is designed to prevent the government from using its power in a discriminatory or oppressive manner as is the case here in Poestenkill.
They allow for the potential for government overreach and the targeting of individuals or groups without the protections of a fair trial.
Bills of attainder were commonly used in England before the Founding, where they were often employed to target individuals who were perceived as disloyal or dangerous to the government.
Thus, as we learned as young adults in Poestenkill Elementary School, the Framers of the Constitution of New York of April 20, 1777 sought to prevent such abuses of power by prohibiting bills of attainder, to wit:
XLI. And this convention doth further ordain, determine, and declare, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, that trial by jury, in all cases in which it hath heretofore been used in the colony of New York, shall be established and remain inviolate forever.
And that no acts of attainder shall be passed by the legislature of this State for crimes, other than those committed before the termination of the present war; and that such acts shall not work a corruption of blood.
end quotes
That prohibition reflects the importance the Framers placed on protecting individual rights and preventing the abuse of governmental power in this state and in Poestenkill specifically.
As to the Poestenkill town board exercising unlawful judicial authority in enacting Local Law No. 2-2021, in New York, the judicial authority of the town board is limited to supporting the Town Court and its operations, not directly exercising judicial power.
The town board is responsible for funding the court's facilities and staff, but it does not hear cases or make legal decisions.
Town justices, elected separately, are responsible for presiding over civil and criminal matters within the town's jurisdiction.
The town board is the legislative body of the town and has various responsibilities, including setting the town budget, enacting local laws, and overseeing various town departments.
However, it does not have judicial authority.
The Town Court, also known as the Justice Court, is the judicial branch of the town government.
It is responsible for hearing both civil and criminal cases within the town's jurisdiction.
Town justices are elected officials who preside over the Town Court and are responsible for making legal decisions in cases before them.
So why doesn't anyone on the town board know any of that?
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 5th 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF POESTENKILL'S HOLSER ROAD PEOPLE - WAY PAST TIME TO PUT AN END TO KEVIN KRONAU'S LAME EXPERIMENT OF POESTENKILL BEING RUN LIKE A BUSINESS BY BUSINESSMEN FOR BUSINESSMEN AS THEY RUN POESTENKILL INTO THE GROUND AS A THOROUGHLY MISMANAGED FAILED BIDNESS - LET'S RESTORE RULE OF LAW, INSTEAD - AND JUNE BUTLER OWES TOM HOHMAN A SERIOUS PUBLIC APOLOGY FOR DRAGGING HIS NAME INTO A FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT BY SMEARING HIM AS A LAW BREAKER AND CRIMINAL IN POESTENKILL WITHOUT A SHRED OF PROOF TO BACK UP HER FALSE CHARGES!"
Yes, people, Poestenkill isn't a town.
Poestenkill is a business, which more properly should be called a "bidness," that is run by businessmen for businessmen based on the Kevin Kronau model of government, which is why it is such a screwed-up mess where nothing makes sense, and nothing can be trusted, starting with this mock-worthy lash-up that dares to call itself the Poestenkill town government, and that takes us back to Poestenkill town councilwoman June Butler, herself one of the businessmen who runs Poestenkill government like a business, and a failing one, at that, and her smearing and attainting of Tom Hohman of Barbersville, with her empty and specious and frankly, whacky accusations that Tom Hohman is in violation of Poestenkill's Land-Use Code, which is why she felt it necessary to pass § 150-28.1(A) of Article VI of Chapter 150 of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill, added 4-15-2021 by L.L. No. 2-2021, the so-called Wood Operations Law which has subsequently been ruled unconstitutional by a senior federal district court judge in the district court of the federal Northern District of New York, so as to make Tom Hohman "legal" when there was never any proof at all that Tom Hohman was doing anything in violation of the Poestenkill Land-Use Code.
And that brings us back to the September 22, 2021 Order of Federal District Court for the Northen District of New York wherein June Butler's Local Law No. 2-2021 was declared unconstitutional, because quite frankly, it was way too absurd and stupid to be called a law, unless intentionally so as to mock the concept of "law," and the ramifications of her fit of idiocy, which we are commanded to have to respect, to wit:
4. Plaintiff's (Joe Hitchcock) likelihood of success on the merits of his Equal Protection claims
a. "Selective enforcement" claim
To plead a "selective enforcement" claim for equal protection, a plaintiff "must allege facts plausibly suggesting that (1) he was treated differently from similarly situated individuals; and (2) the defendants treated him differently due to his membership in a suspect class, inhibited his exercise of a fundamental right, acted out of malice, or acted irrationally and arbitrarily."
"A plaintiff cannot merely rest on 'a demonstration of different treatment from persons similarly situated.'"
"Instead, he must 'prove that the disparate treatment was caused by the impermissible motivation.'"
In support of his argument, Plaintiff refers to LL2's preamble, which "recognizes that several wood operations have been in operation in violation of the Land Use Regulations," and that such wood processing businesses constituted a "tradition."
Plaintiff also points to other named individuals, such as Hohman, who operate wood processing businesses in Defendant Town, and whose businesses were covered by LL2's grandfather clause.
As discussed with respect to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim, those individuals did not exercise fundamental rights by speaking out against Defendants or filing a lawsuit against them.
Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Plaintiff can satisfy the elements of his selective enforcement claim by showing that (1) Defendants treated Plaintiff disparately in that they created a "carve out" exception to the grandfather clause that only applies to him, and (2) such exception was the result of Defendants' impermissible motive to punish Plaintiff for exercising his fundamental rights.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is reasonably likely to be successful on his selective enforcement claim.
end quotes
Plaintiff also points to other named individuals, such as Hohman, who operate wood processing businesses in Defendant Town, and whose businesses were covered by LL2's grandfather clause?
As discussed with respect to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim, those individuals did not exercise fundamental rights by speaking out against Defendants or filing a lawsuit against them?
Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Plaintiff can satisfy the elements of his selective enforcement claim by showing that (1) Defendants treated Plaintiff disparately in that they created a "carve out" exception to the grandfather clause that only applies to him, and (2) such exception was the result of Defendants' impermissible motive to punish Plaintiff for exercising his fundamental rights?
Not hardly, people!
Based on the reasons stated above, a reasonable factfinder would find this whole circus to be nothing more than an insane charade, what with wood processing at 160 Lynn Road in Poestenkill going back to time immemorial, which Joe Hitchcock assured the federal court for the Northern District of New York he had substantial proof of, and processing wood like Joe Hitchcock does being no different than slicing salami or cutting fudge.
In fact, based on this record, a reasonable factfinder would believe he was presiding over a commitment proceeding to put some people in the lunatic asylum where they belong to protect civilized society from them.
And why on earth would Tom Hohman, who I have known for seventy years or so as someone who doesn't say much, suddenly jump up and exercise some kind of fundamental rights by speaking out against Poestenkill or filing a lawsuit against them because Joe Hitchcock was violating the Land Use Code on Lynn Road?
What kind of stupidity is that?
Because we have so many others in this town who appear to be insane, that someone is mistaking Tom Hohman of being another one of them?
He wasn't the one violating the Land-Use code up on 160 Lynn Road.
Tom Hohman doesn't even live near Lynn Road, nor was he involved in Joe Hitchcock's code violations, so why would Tom Hohman be filing a lawsuit against Poestenkill?
On what grounds?
And where would he get standing from to file a lawsuit against Poestenkill when he wasn't the one who had done anything wrong?
So this whole thing is so stupid it can't be believed, and especially that remark about a reasonable factfinder concluding that June Butler treated Joe Hitchcock disparately to punish Joe Hitchcock for exercising his fundamental rights based solely on the fact that Tom Hohman, who was never involved in the circus to begin with until June Butler stupidly dragged him into it, without his knowledge or consent most likely, did not exercise fundamental rights by speaking out against Poestenkill or filing a lawsuit against them.
What a field day a reasonable factfinder would have with that claim, putting Joe Hitchcock on the stand, under oath, and having him testify under penalty of perjury, with benefit of his counsel Linda Mandel-Clemente, of course, being there beside him to hold his hand and comfort him, to have Joe explain in detail on the record exactly what he knows about the habits of Tom Hohman, and the motivations of Tom Hohman, and the thought processes of Tom Hohman, and how he came to be in possession of such knowledge of the inner workings of the mind of Tom Hohman, and what proof he has to offer to sustain what he is saying about Tom Hohman not exercising fundamental rights by speaking out against Poestenkill or filing a lawsuit against them, and why Tom Hohman should have done either when it was Joe Hitchcock who was in violation of Poestenkill's Land-Use Code and not Tom Hohman.
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 5th 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF POESTENKILL'S HOLSER ROAD PEOPLE - WAY PAST TIME TO PUT AN END TO KEVIN KRONAU'S LAME EXPERIMENT OF POESTENKILL BEING RUN LIKE A BUSINESS BY BUSINESSMEN FOR BUSINESSMEN AS THEY RUN POESTENKILL INTO THE GROUND AS A THOROUGHLY MISMANAGED FAILED BIDNESS - LET'S RESTORE RULE OF LAW, INSTEAD - AND JUNE BUTLER OWES TOM HOHMAN A SERIOUS PUBLIC APOLOGY FOR DRAGGING HIS NAME INTO A FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT BY SMEARING HIM AS A LAW BREAKER AND CRIMINAL IN POESTENKILL WITHOUT A SHRED OF PROOF TO BACK UP HER FALSE CHARGES!"
Yes, people, Poestenkill isn't a town.
Poestenkill is a business, which more properly should be called a "bidness," that is run by businessmen for businessmen based on the Kevin Kronau model of government, which is why it is such a screwed-up mess where nothing makes sense, and nothing can be trusted, starting with this mock-worthy lash-up that dares to call itself the Poestenkill town government, and that takes us back to Poestenkill town councilwoman June Butler, herself one of the businessmen who runs Poestenkill government like a business, and a failing one, at that, and her smearing and attainting of Tom Hohman of Barbersville, with her empty and specious and frankly, whacky accusations that Tom Hohman is in violation of Poestenkill's Land-Use Code, which is why she felt it necessary to pass § 150-28.1(A) of Article VI of Chapter 150 of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill, added 4-15-2021 by L.L. No. 2-2021, the so-called Wood Operations Law which has subsequently been ruled unconstitutional by a senior federal district court judge in the district court of the federal Northern District of New York, so as to make Tom Hohman "legal" when there was never any proof at all that Tom Hohman was doing anything in violation of the Poestenkill Land-Use Code.
And that brings us back to the September 22, 2021 Order of Federal District Court for the Northen District of New York wherein June Butler's Local Law No. 2-2021 was declared unconstitutional, because quite frankly, it was way too absurd and stupid to be called a law, unless intentionally so as to mock the concept of "law," and the ramifications of her fit of idiocy, which we are commanded to have to respect, to wit:
4. Plaintiff's (Joe Hitchcock) likelihood of success on the merits of his Equal Protection claims
a. "Selective enforcement" claim
To plead a "selective enforcement" claim for equal protection, a plaintiff "must allege facts plausibly suggesting that (1) he was treated differently from similarly situated individuals; and (2) the defendants treated him differently due to his membership in a suspect class, inhibited his exercise of a fundamental right, acted out of malice, or acted irrationally and arbitrarily."
"A plaintiff cannot merely rest on 'a demonstration of different treatment from persons similarly situated.'"
"Instead, he must 'prove that the disparate treatment was caused by the impermissible motivation.'"
In support of his argument, Plaintiff refers to LL2's preamble, which "recognizes that several wood operations have been in operation in violation of the Land Use Regulations," and that such wood processing businesses constituted a "tradition."
Plaintiff also points to other named individuals, such as Hohman, who operate wood processing businesses in Defendant Town, and whose businesses were covered by LL2's grandfather clause.
As discussed with respect to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim, those individuals did not exercise fundamental rights by speaking out against Defendants or filing a lawsuit against them.
Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Plaintiff can satisfy the elements of his selective enforcement claim by showing that (1) Defendants treated Plaintiff disparately in that they created a "carve out" exception to the grandfather clause that only applies to him, and (2) such exception was the result of Defendants' impermissible motive to punish Plaintiff for exercising his fundamental rights.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is reasonably likely to be successful on his selective enforcement claim.
end quotes
Plaintiff also points to other named individuals, such as Hohman, who operate wood processing businesses in Defendant Town, and whose businesses were covered by LL2's grandfather clause?
As discussed with respect to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim, those individuals did not exercise fundamental rights by speaking out against Defendants or filing a lawsuit against them?
Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Plaintiff can satisfy the elements of his selective enforcement claim by showing that (1) Defendants treated Plaintiff disparately in that they created a "carve out" exception to the grandfather clause that only applies to him, and (2) such exception was the result of Defendants' impermissible motive to punish Plaintiff for exercising his fundamental rights?
Not hardly, people!
Based on the reasons stated above, a reasonable factfinder would find this whole circus to be nothing more than an insane charade, what with wood processing at 160 Lynn Road in Poestenkill going back to time immemorial, which Joe Hitchcock assured the federal court for the Northern District of New York he had substantial proof of, and processing wood like Joe Hitchcock does being no different than slicing salami or cutting fudge.
In fact, based on this record, a reasonable factfinder would believe he was presiding over a commitment proceeding to put some people in the lunatic asylum where they belong to protect civilized society from them.
And why on earth would Tom Hohman, who I have known for seventy years or so as someone who doesn't say much, suddenly jump up and exercise some kind of fundamental rights by speaking out against Poestenkill or filing a lawsuit against them because Joe Hitchcock was violating the Land Use Code on Lynn Road?
What kind of stupidity is that?
Because we have so many others in this town who appear to be insane, that someone is mistaking Tom Hohman of being another one of them?
He wasn't the one violating the Land-Use code up on 160 Lynn Road.
Tom Hohman doesn't even live near Lynn Road, nor was he involved in Joe Hitchcock's code violations, so why would Tom Hohman be filing a lawsuit against Poestenkill?
On what grounds?
And where would he get standing from to file a lawsuit against Poestenkill when he wasn't the one who had done anything wrong?
So this whole thing is so stupid it can't be believed, and especially that remark about a reasonable factfinder concluding that June Butler treated Joe Hitchcock disparately to punish Joe Hitchcock for exercising his fundamental rights based solely on the fact that Tom Hohman, who was never involved in the circus to begin with until June Butler stupidly dragged him into it, without his knowledge or consent most likely, did not exercise fundamental rights by speaking out against Poestenkill or filing a lawsuit against them.
What a field day a reasonable factfinder would have with that claim, putting Joe Hitchcock on the stand, under oath, and having him testify under penalty of perjury, with benefit of his counsel Linda Mandel-Clemente, of course, being there beside him to hold his hand and comfort him, to have Joe explain in detail on the record exactly what he knows about the habits of Tom Hohman, and the motivations of Tom Hohman, and the thought processes of Tom Hohman, and how he came to be in possession of such knowledge of the inner workings of the mind of Tom Hohman, and what proof he has to offer to sustain what he is saying about Tom Hohman not exercising fundamental rights by speaking out against Poestenkill or filing a lawsuit against them, and why Tom Hohman should have done either when it was Joe Hitchcock who was in violation of Poestenkill's Land-Use Code and not Tom Hohman.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 6th 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF POESTENKILL'S HOLSER ROAD PEOPLE - AND WHILE WE ARE ON THE SUBJECT OF ATTAINDER BEING ALIVE AND WELL IN MEDIEVIL POESTENKILL - TRESPASSERS PLAGUE LIBERTY LANE NEIGHBORHOOD - WHAT'S NEXT?"
As to the trespassers said to be plaguing the beleaguered Liberty Lane neighborhood, where the elderly no longer feel safe in their homes, and the state police have advised one elderly resident to have a security system installed because the neighborhood is no longer considered safe by that law enforcement agency, not much is known at present, other than that a neighbor with property between Liberty Lane and Rt. 66 has been picking them up on his high-tech security system and has put out a neighborhood alert with a NO TRESSPASSING sign posted on Liberty Lane, although neighbors wonder how much good a NO TRESSPASSING sign will do, especially when they are coming though at night.
More on that subject as further developments arise.
As to the subject of attainder being alive and well in Poestenkill despite being unconstitutional everywhere else in the United States, the best evidence we now have of its existence is the Seventh Cause of Action of the Verified Complaint that four high-powered lawyers, including a judge, filed on behalf of Joe Hitchcock in federal district court for the Northern District of New York in JOSEPH HITCHCOCK, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF POESTENKILL, NEW YORK; KEITH HAMMOND, in his official capacity as Town Supervisor of Poestenkill; and TRACY CHURCH, in his official capacity as Code Officer of Poestenkill and in his individual capacity, Defendants, 1:21-CV-758, wherein was stated as follows:
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: THE TOWN HAS VIOLATED AND IS VIOLATING HITCHCOCK’S RIGHTS BECAUSE LL2 IS A BILL OF ATTAINDER UNDER ARTICLE I, § 10, CL.1 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
199. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.
200. The Town has violated and is violating Hitchcock’s rights because LL2 is a Bill of Attainder under Article I, § 10, cl.1 of the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks this Court (1) to declare Town of Poestenkill’s Local Law 2, in so far as it requires plaintiff to obtain a special permit to lawfully operate his wood processing business unconstitutional; (2) to declare plaintiff is grandfathered in under Local Law 2; (3) to award plaintiff $1.00 in nominal damages; (4) to enjoin defendants from enforcing Town of Poestenkill’s Local Law 2 exclusion against plaintiff; (5) to award plaintiff compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial including to award plaintiff $1.00 in nominal damages from the Town’s unlawful interference with Plaintiff’s contractual and prospective business relations as may be proved at trial; (6) to award punitive damages against Defendant Church for his malicious actions on the abuse of process and selective enforcement causes of action; (7) to award plaintiff the cost of prosecuting this action together with attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988; and (8) to grant other and different relief that the Court, in the exercise of its wisdom and discretion, deems just and proper.
Submitted on this 1st day of July 2021,
/s/_Thomas Marcelle
Thomas Marcelle, Esq. (Bar Roll No. 102117)
Counsel for Plaintiff
61 Devonshire Drive
Slingerlands, New York 12207
/s/ Linda A. Mandel Clemente
Linda A. Mandel Clemente, Esq. (Bar Roll No. 103535)
Mandel Clemente, P.C.
Counsel for Plaintiff
77 Troy Road, Suite 1
East Greenbush, NY 12061
/s/ Adam Giangreco
Adam Giangreco, Esq. (Bar Roll No. 517518)
Counsel for Plaintiff
2390 Western Ave.
Guilderland, NY 12084
/s/ Eric M. Galarneau
Eric M. Galarneau, Esq. (Bar Roll. No. 509248)
Galarneau Law Firm PLLC
Counsel for Plaintiff
41 State Street, Suite 604-17
Albany New York 12207
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF
On this 1st day of July 2021, Joseph Hitchcock, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, declares that he has read the foregoing and the same is true to his own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, he believes them to be true.
/s/ Joseph Hitchcock
Joseph Hitchcock
end quotes
Given that Poestenkill was represented by counsel in that proceeding, and given that Poestenkill, when afforded full and fair opportunity to do so, made no effort in that proceeding to deny that LL2 was in fact as it was intended to be, which was an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder, Poestenkill cannot now come back at this late date to deny that.
Nor can Poestenkill deny that that Bill of Attainder was used against Tom Hohman of Poestenkill, who himself had nothing to do with the Hitchcock Fiasco, yet was smeared just the same by June Butler and Poestenkill as a law breaker and criminal with no due process of law afforded him whatsoever.
So much for Poestenkill being run as a business by businessmen for businessmen!
Time to get back to RULE OF LAW, instead.
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 6th 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF POESTENKILL'S HOLSER ROAD PEOPLE - AND WHILE WE ARE ON THE SUBJECT OF ATTAINDER BEING ALIVE AND WELL IN MEDIEVIL POESTENKILL - TRESPASSERS PLAGUE LIBERTY LANE NEIGHBORHOOD - WHAT'S NEXT?"
As to the trespassers said to be plaguing the beleaguered Liberty Lane neighborhood, where the elderly no longer feel safe in their homes, and the state police have advised one elderly resident to have a security system installed because the neighborhood is no longer considered safe by that law enforcement agency, not much is known at present, other than that a neighbor with property between Liberty Lane and Rt. 66 has been picking them up on his high-tech security system and has put out a neighborhood alert with a NO TRESSPASSING sign posted on Liberty Lane, although neighbors wonder how much good a NO TRESSPASSING sign will do, especially when they are coming though at night.
More on that subject as further developments arise.
As to the subject of attainder being alive and well in Poestenkill despite being unconstitutional everywhere else in the United States, the best evidence we now have of its existence is the Seventh Cause of Action of the Verified Complaint that four high-powered lawyers, including a judge, filed on behalf of Joe Hitchcock in federal district court for the Northern District of New York in JOSEPH HITCHCOCK, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF POESTENKILL, NEW YORK; KEITH HAMMOND, in his official capacity as Town Supervisor of Poestenkill; and TRACY CHURCH, in his official capacity as Code Officer of Poestenkill and in his individual capacity, Defendants, 1:21-CV-758, wherein was stated as follows:
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: THE TOWN HAS VIOLATED AND IS VIOLATING HITCHCOCK’S RIGHTS BECAUSE LL2 IS A BILL OF ATTAINDER UNDER ARTICLE I, § 10, CL.1 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
199. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.
200. The Town has violated and is violating Hitchcock’s rights because LL2 is a Bill of Attainder under Article I, § 10, cl.1 of the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks this Court (1) to declare Town of Poestenkill’s Local Law 2, in so far as it requires plaintiff to obtain a special permit to lawfully operate his wood processing business unconstitutional; (2) to declare plaintiff is grandfathered in under Local Law 2; (3) to award plaintiff $1.00 in nominal damages; (4) to enjoin defendants from enforcing Town of Poestenkill’s Local Law 2 exclusion against plaintiff; (5) to award plaintiff compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial including to award plaintiff $1.00 in nominal damages from the Town’s unlawful interference with Plaintiff’s contractual and prospective business relations as may be proved at trial; (6) to award punitive damages against Defendant Church for his malicious actions on the abuse of process and selective enforcement causes of action; (7) to award plaintiff the cost of prosecuting this action together with attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988; and (8) to grant other and different relief that the Court, in the exercise of its wisdom and discretion, deems just and proper.
Submitted on this 1st day of July 2021,
/s/_Thomas Marcelle
Thomas Marcelle, Esq. (Bar Roll No. 102117)
Counsel for Plaintiff
61 Devonshire Drive
Slingerlands, New York 12207
/s/ Linda A. Mandel Clemente
Linda A. Mandel Clemente, Esq. (Bar Roll No. 103535)
Mandel Clemente, P.C.
Counsel for Plaintiff
77 Troy Road, Suite 1
East Greenbush, NY 12061
/s/ Adam Giangreco
Adam Giangreco, Esq. (Bar Roll No. 517518)
Counsel for Plaintiff
2390 Western Ave.
Guilderland, NY 12084
/s/ Eric M. Galarneau
Eric M. Galarneau, Esq. (Bar Roll. No. 509248)
Galarneau Law Firm PLLC
Counsel for Plaintiff
41 State Street, Suite 604-17
Albany New York 12207
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF
On this 1st day of July 2021, Joseph Hitchcock, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, declares that he has read the foregoing and the same is true to his own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, he believes them to be true.
/s/ Joseph Hitchcock
Joseph Hitchcock
end quotes
Given that Poestenkill was represented by counsel in that proceeding, and given that Poestenkill, when afforded full and fair opportunity to do so, made no effort in that proceeding to deny that LL2 was in fact as it was intended to be, which was an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder, Poestenkill cannot now come back at this late date to deny that.
Nor can Poestenkill deny that that Bill of Attainder was used against Tom Hohman of Poestenkill, who himself had nothing to do with the Hitchcock Fiasco, yet was smeared just the same by June Butler and Poestenkill as a law breaker and criminal with no due process of law afforded him whatsoever.
So much for Poestenkill being run as a business by businessmen for businessmen!
Time to get back to RULE OF LAW, instead.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 7th 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF POESTENKILL'S HOLSER ROAD PEOPLE - A MOST INCREDIBLE DISPLAY OF PURE IGNORANCE ABOUT HOW GOVERNMENT IN A FREE COUNTRY IS SUPPOSED TO WORK - POESTENKILL HAS POWER TO MAKE LAWS AGAINST PEOPLE - NO TRESPASSING SIGNS ON LIBERTY LANE AN OPEN DECLARATION OF WAR - SOUTH SIDE OF LIBERTY LANE PBA COUNTRY - DANGER - STAY WELL AWAY!"
Yes, people, Liberty Lane is no stranger to acts of physical violence condoned by Poestenkill and the New York state police against professional engineer Paul Plante going back to December of 1989 when the New York state police and Poestenkill town court and the Rensselaer County District Attorney all stepped in to protect the politically-connected hit-and-run driver who ran down the engineer on Liberty Lane on Friday morning, December 29, 1989 as an act of political violence against Plante, so it is not at all surprising to see the warning signs of more violence to come being openly posted on Liberty Lane where this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89m5TEuu3M assault took place, and subsequent thereto, in a June 20, 2005 writing to the Poestenkill town board on the subject of acts of physical violence being aimed at Plante with the encouragement of the town of Poestenkill, then-Poestenkill town attorney and Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association member Patrick Tomaselli, Esquire, told the Poestenkill Town Board as follows with respect to a July 7, 2001 assault on professional engineer Paul Plante while he was standing on Liberty Lane in the Town of Poestenkill performing the duties and responsibilities of a licensed professional engineer:
Nonetheless, to the extent that I am able to comprehend Mr. Plante's assertions, I feel I must rectify some of his more glaring misrepresentations of fact, distortions of law and downright falsehoods.
Contrary to Paul's assertions, and even putting aside the issue of how it relates to the Town, there is no evidence whatsoever from the Federal District Court action that on July 7, 2001, Jeffrey Pelletier physically assaulted Paul and injured his spine on Liberty Lane.
While I have viewed the videotape referred to by Paul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89m5TEuu3M , I found no indication thereon of any physical assault whatsoever.
end quotes
And of course Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association member and then-Poestenkill town attorney Patrick Tomaselli, Esquire found no indication in that video of any physical assault of Plante whatsoever.
What Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association member and then-Poestenkill town attorney Patrick Tomaselli, Esquire did find in that video (cue, Youtube, Tomaselli-style "justice" being handed out to a well known agitator in Poestenkill, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKX3jSrbIAc ) was his preferred style of rough axe-handle justice being handed out to someone characterized as a "well known agitator" by Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association member and then-Poestenkill dog control officer in a May 1990 official report to the Poestenkill town board, which board approved the characterization and thus, painted a bull's eye on Plante's face and invited the political violence depicted in that video which followed, which was not an assault at all, just Plante getting some more of what he clearly deserves here in Poestenkill and that is why Patrick Tomaselli of Algonquin Estates has a shine on Poestenkill's Walk of Heroes where his name is remembered with great love and affection.
And having now demonstrated conclusively based on the record of this incredible Hitchcock Fiasco that June Butler's Local Law No. 2-2021 was nothing more than an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder from back in dark ages where the businessmen like June Butler who run Poestenkill like a business for the benefit of other businessmen in Poestenkill now have us firmly mired, let's first go back to where this forensic investigation began, which was the September 15th, 2022 Poestenkill Town Board Meeting (cue, Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKXplso7qXI ), where we had on the official record as follows, to wit:
HAMMOND: We all have our packets, we all know what's on the table, we have a settlement agreement proposed, basically I'll entertain a motion to accept the proposal.
BUTLER: I'll make a motion.
HAMMOND: Do I have a second?
Motion seconded.
WOHLLEBER: Can we have a discussion on this before you vote?
HAMMOND: We beat it to death, I told her that we would get him out of here, go ahead!
WOHLLEBER: Well, I think it's important to discuss how we got here because you know this all started because of the noise complaint.
You know it started because a neighbor was doing an abuse that was not allowed in the zoning and that's where we all got started from, and we made a lot of mistakes in this case, a lot mistakes, that doesn't mean we have to keep making mistakes.
We all make mistakes but what you have to do is learn from your mistakes and not repeat the mistakes over and over again, um, you know this all started you know ...
end quote
And that open confession by councilman Wohlleber of the incredible negligence and gross ignorance on the part of those businessmen on the town board who at that time were running Poestenkill like a business for the benefit of other businessmen in Poestenkill that caused the Hitchcock Fiasco in turn brings us further back in time to the Town of Poestenkill Town Board Meeting of 4/15/21, the official transcript of which is found as Exhibit B at Page 45 of 179 page Hitchcock Verified Complaint Case in JOSEPH HITCHCOCK, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF POESTENKILL, NEW YORK; KEITH HAMMOND, in his official capacity as Town Supervisor of Poestenkill; and TRACY CHURCH, in his official capacity as Code Officer of Poestenkill and in his individual capacity, Defendants,1:21-cv-00758-FJS-DJS, where we had this most incredible display of ignorance placed before us as the jurors in this matter, to wit:
MR. HAMMOND: Thank you.
Well we have our resolution that we just had our public hearing on.
I’d entertain a motion to go ahead.
MR. WOHLLEBER: Keith, before you get started, I just want to say a few things.
Number one, June, I know you worked really hard on this.
And I know it hasn’t been easy.
But I think you’ve done a great job trying to you have listened to everybody and and put this together in the best way you can.
I appreciate that.
Number one.
You know I would argue, kind of along the same lines as Mr. Hitchcock’s attorneys, that we are, in a sense, a passing, you know, this law is only for one person, for one property.
But I would argue that we’re doing it to their benefit.
You know I suggested that we wait on this until after the Article 78 but we decided to pursue it anyways.
And I think it’s a bad precedent because we’re now going to decide we could decide that that lawsuit, that Article 78, is moot, by the action the Board takes today.
And I think it’s a bad precedent to take.
This is for one property, and it’s to the benefit of that property by the way, if this is passed.
I think that this legislation as much as it’s been worked on and over and over and over is both too prescriptive and too vague.
You know there’s too much that we’re not addressing.
And I don’t want to I won’t belabor the points for what they are what I think they are.
But there’s too many things that we’re giving to the Planning Board and just letting them decide.
And I don’t think we’re giving them enough guidelines as to what the protections that should be put in both for the property owner and the business owner.
And in addition, I have concerns about traffic which I don’t think are addressed here.
And the other thing is that as Paul said, the grandfather issue here is is a major concern for me.
With all due respect, we have very a very poor record of properly defining and regulating grandfather.
Now this would be slightly different.
But we don’t have a good history of how we grandfather things, how we prove things, and I don’t have any faith that this legislation addresses those things.
So, for those reasons, I’ll be voting against this.
end quotes
Now, first off, as has been revealed by the official record in the Hitchcock litigation, where Poestenkill made no effort to defend itself, being without any defenses to offer, what June Butler worked her little heart out on was nothing more than an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder, which unconstitutional Bill of Attainder attainted Tom Hohman and branded him as a criminal and thus paved the way for a $225,000 payday of taxpayer money to Joe Hitchcock and a promise to not enforce any laws against him which was approved by the same June Butler, and make sense out of that if you can, because it makes no sense to me, but then, I am rational and sane, so it wouldn't.
Secondly, as to the issue of "grandfathering," that issue was covered quite well in Matter of Showers v. Town of Poestenkill, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department, Oct 31,1991,176 A.D.2d 1157 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991), as follows:
Petitioner first contends the Town's zoning ordinance exempted the preexisting undersized lots under a grandfather clause.
In order to qualify under that clause, the lots were required to have been in a subdivision approved "in accordance with the Town's Land Subdivision Regulations" (1986 Town of Poestenkill Zoning Ordinance, art II, § 102-4) or be held in single ownership.
Because the subdivision predated the 1971 enactment of the ordinance, it could not have been an approved subdivision.
The intent of the zoning ordinance was to require Planning Board approval of undeveloped subdivision lots.
Moreover, petitioner's claimed exemption of the lots under Town Law § 265-a was wholly untenable because the applicable exemption period in that statute commenced to run with the filing of the subdivision plat and expired long before the present approval in 1967 to the time of commencement of the petition and expired long before the present controversy.
end quotes
So why the businessmen on the Poestenkill town board in 2021 knew nothing about that is a real mystery, but the key point here is the statement by councilman Wohlleber in that meeting that what the town board was doing was to the benefit of one property and one property owner in Poestenkill, that being Joe Hitchcock.
And talk about one of the most incredibly ignorant statements to come out of Poestenkill town hall with its long history of ignorant statements, that takes the cake, because in New York, a Town Board cannot pass a law that solely benefits one property.
And that is something I knew before I graduated from Averill Park High School, and in fact, I learned it in Kindergarten right after WWII, because that is what the Nazis were doing in Germany - making laws against some, as Poestenkill does, while making other laws to the benefit of others, which is exactly how what passes for government in Poestenkill today functions.
So why were the businessmen on the Poestenkill town board on 4/15/2 ignorant of that fact?
In New York state, which includes Poestenkill, while Town Boards have broad legislative discretion, including zoning and land use regulations, they must exercise this authority in a way that does not discriminate against specific properties.
Any such law would likely be challenged as discriminatory and potentially unconstitutional, just as it was in JOSEPH HITCHCOCK, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF POESTENKILL, NEW YORK; KEITH HAMMOND, in his official capacity as Town Supervisor of Poestenkill; and TRACY CHURCH, in his official capacity as Code Officer of Poestenkill and in his individual capacity, Defendants,1:21-cv-00758-FJS-DJS.
As we learned back in high school, or maybe it was grade school, at least where I went to school, while Town Boards in New York have extensive power to adopt local laws related to their property, affairs, or government, as outlined in the Municipal Home Rule Law, which includes zoning, land use regulations, and other matters concerning the town's governance, that power is not absolute.
A Town Board cannot pass a law that singles out one property for special treatment or that is discriminatory in nature.
But try and tell that to the businessmen who run this town for their benefit and are not at all afraid to discriminate against those and use violence against those like Paul Plante of Liberty Lane who do not adhere to their banner.
As was proven in JOSEPH HITCHCOCK, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF POESTENKILL, NEW YORK; KEITH HAMMOND, in his official capacity as Town Supervisor of Poestenkill; and TRACY CHURCH, in his official capacity as Code Officer of Poestenkill and in his individual capacity, Defendants,1:21-cv-00758-FJS-DJS, laws must be applied consistently and fairly to all property owners within the town, and any law that favors one property would likely violate the principles of equal protection and due process under the law.
A Town Board law that solely benefits one property would likely be challenged in court as discriminatory and could be overturned if found to be unconstitutional because any land use regulation or zoning change must serve a legitimate public purpose, benefiting the community as a whole rather than just one individual property owner.
And how on earth five people on the Poestenkill town board in 2021 could not have known that defies belief, given it is so very basic to what living here in the United States of America is supposed to be all about!
And there they still sit today!
So no wonder people are fleeing Poestenkill for someplace more intelligent to live and raise a family where they are assured of being safe from their own town government.
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 7th 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF POESTENKILL'S HOLSER ROAD PEOPLE - A MOST INCREDIBLE DISPLAY OF PURE IGNORANCE ABOUT HOW GOVERNMENT IN A FREE COUNTRY IS SUPPOSED TO WORK - POESTENKILL HAS POWER TO MAKE LAWS AGAINST PEOPLE - NO TRESPASSING SIGNS ON LIBERTY LANE AN OPEN DECLARATION OF WAR - SOUTH SIDE OF LIBERTY LANE PBA COUNTRY - DANGER - STAY WELL AWAY!"
Yes, people, Liberty Lane is no stranger to acts of physical violence condoned by Poestenkill and the New York state police against professional engineer Paul Plante going back to December of 1989 when the New York state police and Poestenkill town court and the Rensselaer County District Attorney all stepped in to protect the politically-connected hit-and-run driver who ran down the engineer on Liberty Lane on Friday morning, December 29, 1989 as an act of political violence against Plante, so it is not at all surprising to see the warning signs of more violence to come being openly posted on Liberty Lane where this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89m5TEuu3M assault took place, and subsequent thereto, in a June 20, 2005 writing to the Poestenkill town board on the subject of acts of physical violence being aimed at Plante with the encouragement of the town of Poestenkill, then-Poestenkill town attorney and Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association member Patrick Tomaselli, Esquire, told the Poestenkill Town Board as follows with respect to a July 7, 2001 assault on professional engineer Paul Plante while he was standing on Liberty Lane in the Town of Poestenkill performing the duties and responsibilities of a licensed professional engineer:
Nonetheless, to the extent that I am able to comprehend Mr. Plante's assertions, I feel I must rectify some of his more glaring misrepresentations of fact, distortions of law and downright falsehoods.
Contrary to Paul's assertions, and even putting aside the issue of how it relates to the Town, there is no evidence whatsoever from the Federal District Court action that on July 7, 2001, Jeffrey Pelletier physically assaulted Paul and injured his spine on Liberty Lane.
While I have viewed the videotape referred to by Paul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89m5TEuu3M , I found no indication thereon of any physical assault whatsoever.
end quotes
And of course Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association member and then-Poestenkill town attorney Patrick Tomaselli, Esquire found no indication in that video of any physical assault of Plante whatsoever.
What Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association member and then-Poestenkill town attorney Patrick Tomaselli, Esquire did find in that video (cue, Youtube, Tomaselli-style "justice" being handed out to a well known agitator in Poestenkill, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKX3jSrbIAc ) was his preferred style of rough axe-handle justice being handed out to someone characterized as a "well known agitator" by Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association member and then-Poestenkill dog control officer in a May 1990 official report to the Poestenkill town board, which board approved the characterization and thus, painted a bull's eye on Plante's face and invited the political violence depicted in that video which followed, which was not an assault at all, just Plante getting some more of what he clearly deserves here in Poestenkill and that is why Patrick Tomaselli of Algonquin Estates has a shine on Poestenkill's Walk of Heroes where his name is remembered with great love and affection.
And having now demonstrated conclusively based on the record of this incredible Hitchcock Fiasco that June Butler's Local Law No. 2-2021 was nothing more than an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder from back in dark ages where the businessmen like June Butler who run Poestenkill like a business for the benefit of other businessmen in Poestenkill now have us firmly mired, let's first go back to where this forensic investigation began, which was the September 15th, 2022 Poestenkill Town Board Meeting (cue, Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKXplso7qXI ), where we had on the official record as follows, to wit:
HAMMOND: We all have our packets, we all know what's on the table, we have a settlement agreement proposed, basically I'll entertain a motion to accept the proposal.
BUTLER: I'll make a motion.
HAMMOND: Do I have a second?
Motion seconded.
WOHLLEBER: Can we have a discussion on this before you vote?
HAMMOND: We beat it to death, I told her that we would get him out of here, go ahead!
WOHLLEBER: Well, I think it's important to discuss how we got here because you know this all started because of the noise complaint.
You know it started because a neighbor was doing an abuse that was not allowed in the zoning and that's where we all got started from, and we made a lot of mistakes in this case, a lot mistakes, that doesn't mean we have to keep making mistakes.
We all make mistakes but what you have to do is learn from your mistakes and not repeat the mistakes over and over again, um, you know this all started you know ...
end quote
And that open confession by councilman Wohlleber of the incredible negligence and gross ignorance on the part of those businessmen on the town board who at that time were running Poestenkill like a business for the benefit of other businessmen in Poestenkill that caused the Hitchcock Fiasco in turn brings us further back in time to the Town of Poestenkill Town Board Meeting of 4/15/21, the official transcript of which is found as Exhibit B at Page 45 of 179 page Hitchcock Verified Complaint Case in JOSEPH HITCHCOCK, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF POESTENKILL, NEW YORK; KEITH HAMMOND, in his official capacity as Town Supervisor of Poestenkill; and TRACY CHURCH, in his official capacity as Code Officer of Poestenkill and in his individual capacity, Defendants,1:21-cv-00758-FJS-DJS, where we had this most incredible display of ignorance placed before us as the jurors in this matter, to wit:
MR. HAMMOND: Thank you.
Well we have our resolution that we just had our public hearing on.
I’d entertain a motion to go ahead.
MR. WOHLLEBER: Keith, before you get started, I just want to say a few things.
Number one, June, I know you worked really hard on this.
And I know it hasn’t been easy.
But I think you’ve done a great job trying to you have listened to everybody and and put this together in the best way you can.
I appreciate that.
Number one.
You know I would argue, kind of along the same lines as Mr. Hitchcock’s attorneys, that we are, in a sense, a passing, you know, this law is only for one person, for one property.
But I would argue that we’re doing it to their benefit.
You know I suggested that we wait on this until after the Article 78 but we decided to pursue it anyways.
And I think it’s a bad precedent because we’re now going to decide we could decide that that lawsuit, that Article 78, is moot, by the action the Board takes today.
And I think it’s a bad precedent to take.
This is for one property, and it’s to the benefit of that property by the way, if this is passed.
I think that this legislation as much as it’s been worked on and over and over and over is both too prescriptive and too vague.
You know there’s too much that we’re not addressing.
And I don’t want to I won’t belabor the points for what they are what I think they are.
But there’s too many things that we’re giving to the Planning Board and just letting them decide.
And I don’t think we’re giving them enough guidelines as to what the protections that should be put in both for the property owner and the business owner.
And in addition, I have concerns about traffic which I don’t think are addressed here.
And the other thing is that as Paul said, the grandfather issue here is is a major concern for me.
With all due respect, we have very a very poor record of properly defining and regulating grandfather.
Now this would be slightly different.
But we don’t have a good history of how we grandfather things, how we prove things, and I don’t have any faith that this legislation addresses those things.
So, for those reasons, I’ll be voting against this.
end quotes
Now, first off, as has been revealed by the official record in the Hitchcock litigation, where Poestenkill made no effort to defend itself, being without any defenses to offer, what June Butler worked her little heart out on was nothing more than an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder, which unconstitutional Bill of Attainder attainted Tom Hohman and branded him as a criminal and thus paved the way for a $225,000 payday of taxpayer money to Joe Hitchcock and a promise to not enforce any laws against him which was approved by the same June Butler, and make sense out of that if you can, because it makes no sense to me, but then, I am rational and sane, so it wouldn't.
Secondly, as to the issue of "grandfathering," that issue was covered quite well in Matter of Showers v. Town of Poestenkill, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department, Oct 31,1991,176 A.D.2d 1157 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991), as follows:
Petitioner first contends the Town's zoning ordinance exempted the preexisting undersized lots under a grandfather clause.
In order to qualify under that clause, the lots were required to have been in a subdivision approved "in accordance with the Town's Land Subdivision Regulations" (1986 Town of Poestenkill Zoning Ordinance, art II, § 102-4) or be held in single ownership.
Because the subdivision predated the 1971 enactment of the ordinance, it could not have been an approved subdivision.
The intent of the zoning ordinance was to require Planning Board approval of undeveloped subdivision lots.
Moreover, petitioner's claimed exemption of the lots under Town Law § 265-a was wholly untenable because the applicable exemption period in that statute commenced to run with the filing of the subdivision plat and expired long before the present approval in 1967 to the time of commencement of the petition and expired long before the present controversy.
end quotes
So why the businessmen on the Poestenkill town board in 2021 knew nothing about that is a real mystery, but the key point here is the statement by councilman Wohlleber in that meeting that what the town board was doing was to the benefit of one property and one property owner in Poestenkill, that being Joe Hitchcock.
And talk about one of the most incredibly ignorant statements to come out of Poestenkill town hall with its long history of ignorant statements, that takes the cake, because in New York, a Town Board cannot pass a law that solely benefits one property.
And that is something I knew before I graduated from Averill Park High School, and in fact, I learned it in Kindergarten right after WWII, because that is what the Nazis were doing in Germany - making laws against some, as Poestenkill does, while making other laws to the benefit of others, which is exactly how what passes for government in Poestenkill today functions.
So why were the businessmen on the Poestenkill town board on 4/15/2 ignorant of that fact?
In New York state, which includes Poestenkill, while Town Boards have broad legislative discretion, including zoning and land use regulations, they must exercise this authority in a way that does not discriminate against specific properties.
Any such law would likely be challenged as discriminatory and potentially unconstitutional, just as it was in JOSEPH HITCHCOCK, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF POESTENKILL, NEW YORK; KEITH HAMMOND, in his official capacity as Town Supervisor of Poestenkill; and TRACY CHURCH, in his official capacity as Code Officer of Poestenkill and in his individual capacity, Defendants,1:21-cv-00758-FJS-DJS.
As we learned back in high school, or maybe it was grade school, at least where I went to school, while Town Boards in New York have extensive power to adopt local laws related to their property, affairs, or government, as outlined in the Municipal Home Rule Law, which includes zoning, land use regulations, and other matters concerning the town's governance, that power is not absolute.
A Town Board cannot pass a law that singles out one property for special treatment or that is discriminatory in nature.
But try and tell that to the businessmen who run this town for their benefit and are not at all afraid to discriminate against those and use violence against those like Paul Plante of Liberty Lane who do not adhere to their banner.
As was proven in JOSEPH HITCHCOCK, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF POESTENKILL, NEW YORK; KEITH HAMMOND, in his official capacity as Town Supervisor of Poestenkill; and TRACY CHURCH, in his official capacity as Code Officer of Poestenkill and in his individual capacity, Defendants,1:21-cv-00758-FJS-DJS, laws must be applied consistently and fairly to all property owners within the town, and any law that favors one property would likely violate the principles of equal protection and due process under the law.
A Town Board law that solely benefits one property would likely be challenged in court as discriminatory and could be overturned if found to be unconstitutional because any land use regulation or zoning change must serve a legitimate public purpose, benefiting the community as a whole rather than just one individual property owner.
And how on earth five people on the Poestenkill town board in 2021 could not have known that defies belief, given it is so very basic to what living here in the United States of America is supposed to be all about!
And there they still sit today!
So no wonder people are fleeing Poestenkill for someplace more intelligent to live and raise a family where they are assured of being safe from their own town government.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 9th 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF THE PEOPLE OF POESTENKILL - A DEFENSE OF JEFFREY PELLETIER OF LIBERTY LANE - BECAUSE HE DESERVES ONE - ACTS OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE ON LIBERTY LANE ON JULY 7, 2001 PROVOKED AND ENCOURAGED BY POESTENKILL TOWN GOVERMENT - ATTACK FORGIVEN AS ACT OF TEMPORARY INSANITY CAUSED BY POESTENKILL GOVERNMENT HATE CAMPAIGN AGAINST PLANTE - BEING DRIVEN INSANE BY POESTENKILL, JEFF PELLETIER SHOULD NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TODAY FOR HIS ACTIONS ON JULY 7, 2001 - ASSAULT ON PLANTE COSTS HIM HIS CIVIL RIGHTS IN POESTENKILL - COMPARED TO WHAT POESTENKILL HAS DONE TO PLANTE, WHAT WAS DONE TO JOE HITCHCOCK WAS AS NOTHING - MERE PIFFLE BY WAY OF COMPARISON - JOE HITCHCOCK HAD NO CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATED - THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT COMPOSED BY LADY LAWYER LINDA MANDEL-CLEMENTE RATED AN UNBELIEVABLE, INDECIPHERABLE PIECE OF CRAP THAT RESULTED IN $225,000 PAYDAY FOR JOE HITCHCOCK APPROVED BY JUNE BUTLER - GRIFTERISM ALIVE AND WELL IN POESTEKILL!"
Speaking of people on Poestenkill's Liberty Lane being no strangers to acts of physical violence encouraged and condoned by Poestenkill and the New York state police against professional engineer Paul Plante going back to December of 1989 when the New York state police and Poestenkill town court and the Rensselaer County District Attorney all stepped in to protect the politically-connected hit-and-run driver who ran down the engineer on Liberty Lane on Friday morning, December 29, 1989 as an act of political violence against Plante, what we are seeing in this video is the direct result of the violence that was done to the impressionable mind of Poestenkill resident Jeff Pelletier of Liberty Lane by the pernicious influence of Keith Hammond, lawyer Patrick Tomaselli and the Poestenkill town board with its power to make laws against people it don't like in Poestenkill, also known as attainder or proscription, who is seen in this video doing to Plante exactly what his mind had been conditioned to do by that pernicious influence, to wit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89m5TEuu3M
When you listen to the language used by Jeff Pelletier in that video, what you are really hearing is the voice of Poestenkill town government.
So let us not condemn Jeff Pelletier today for what he had no control over on July 7, 2001, that being his insane rage at seeing Paul Plante walking on Liberty Lane which Poestenkill town court had plastered with Orders of Protection against Plante after the December 29, 1989 vehicular assault which resulted in criminal charges against Plante wherein was alleged that Plante was trying to kill his neighbor Gary Horton by crashing his body into Horton's truck while Horton was speeding down Liberty Lane being chased by Plante at better than forty miles per hour, which protective orders barred Plante from not only walking on Liberty Lane under threat of arrest by the state police, but down his own property line, as well, being essentially confined to what constitutes house arrest, and which protective orders helped form the idea in the mind of Jeff Pelletier that it would be looked favorably upon by Poestenkill town government if Jeff Pelletier were to assault Plante for violating those protective orders, which brings us to the real cause of the harm done on Liberty Lane on July 7, 2001, that being the pernicious influence on the mind of Jeff Pelletier by Poestenkill town attorney Patrick Tomaselli as we see in this June 20, 2005 writing to the Poestenkill town board on the subject of the July 7, 2001 assault on Plante and the federal civil rights lawsuit that resulted from Plante's incarceration in the Statton VA Hospital which was as a direct result of him being assaulted by Jeff Pelletier on July 7, 2001 while he was standing on Liberty Lane in the Town of Poestenkill performing the duties and responsibilities of a licensed professional engineer, to wit:
Nonetheless, to the extent that I am able to comprehend Mr. Plante's assertions, I feel I must rectify some of his more glaring misrepresentations of fact, distortions of law and downright falsehoods.
Contrary to Paul's assertions, and even putting aside the issue of how it relates to the Town, there is no evidence whatsoever from the Federal District Court action that on July 7, 2001, Jeffrey Pelletier physically assaulted Paul and injured his spine on Liberty Lane.
While I have viewed the videotape referred to by Paul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89m5TEuu3M , I found no indication thereon of any physical assault whatsoever.
end quotes
As to Plante being shut out of Poestenkill town government and losing his civil rights in Poestenkill as a result of that July 7, 2001 assault by Jeff Pelletier which was encouraged and provoked by Poestenkill town government and its attorney Patrick Tomaselli, that June 20, 2005 writing to the Poestenkill town board by Tomaselli continued as follows:
Because of the fact that Mr. Plante's letter speaks in large part to the Federal litigation wherein an appeal is now pending and to the Town's counsel in that matter, under cover of a copy of this letter to said counsel I am forwarding a copy of Paul's letter with my request that they contact Mr. Plante and request that he refrain from any further direct contact with the Town relating to that litigation.
Similarly, the Town is dissuaded from responding to Mr. Plante regarding such matters.
end quotes
And Plante has been a non-citizen without a voice in Poestenkill ever since, which is why when your civil rights in Poestenkill are being violated in Poestenkill by Poestenkill town government, it is best to keep quiet about it and say absolutely nothing.
As to the Pelletier assault leading to Plante's incarceration as a dangerous mental patient in the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany on 8/22/01, at page 2 of his August 22, 2001 Police Report, Stratton VA Police Officer Kirkum stated that on August 22, 2001, he made contact with NY State Veteran Service Officer Bill Shea who, according to Officer Kirkum, told Officer Kirkum that Poestenkill engineer Paul Plante had made numerous alleged verbal threats against Jeffrey Pelletier, and that somehow, those alleged threats against Pelletier were received by both Reiter and Shea by telephone!
According to the official record in connection with that incarceration, it was based on this conversation with Shea that Officer Kirkum then called New York State BCI Chris O'Brien in the Rensselaer County District Attorney's Office in Troy to obtain the direct admission paperwork for Plante that doctors Morris and Braaten of Troy's Samaritan Hospital had executed earlier that morning.
Thereafter, in Paul Plante, Plaintiff, v. Bechard et al, Defendants, 1:03-CV-753, a federal civil rights matter, the federal district court for the Northern District of New York found as follows in connection with that assault, to wit:
III. Facts
On May 22, 2001, Jeffrey Pelletier (Pelletier) was issued a sewage system construction permit by the Town of Rensselaer.
On July 7, Plante conducted an investigation of Defendants Aiken (Engineer) and McGrath’s “deliberate falsification of inspection data and fraudulent submissions” resulting in the issuance of the Pelletier permit.
During Plante’s investigation, Pelletier assaulted him.
On August 9, defendant Reiter (Rensselaer County Director of Veteran’s Service) warned Plante to back off the Pelletier investigation because he was a “protected person” in the county.
end quotes
And that, people, is how the game of power politics in Poestenkill is played, right on down to today, which brings us to the 5th cause of action in paragraph 193 at page 35 of the federal civil rights complaint for Joe Hitchcock that was the work of the fevered mind of lady lawyer Linda Mandel-Clemente where she claims as follows as a violation of Joe Hitchcock's federal civil rights, to wit::
Further, other property owners who are properly zoned for wooding processing with whom Hitchcock has been speaking, tell Hitchcock that are now have been and are deterred from contracting with him given the prospect of getting the defendants cited them or having the clearing job stopped midway through it.
end quote
For the record, Poestenkill never opposed that statement, even though it is undecipherable gibberish, and it is based on that undecipherable gibberish that June Butler authorized $225,000 of Poestenkill taxpayer dollars to be paid to Joe Hitchcock as recompense.
As to grifterism being alive and well in Poestenkill as evidenced by that transfer of taxpayer dollars to Joe Hitchcock that June Butler approved, in politics, especially Rensselaer County politics which includes Poestenkill, the word refers to people who use the political process as a way to enrich themselves.
The word "grifter" first appeared in print in 1915, and at that time, a grifter referred to any kind of criminal who used his wits, rather than brute force, to carry out crimes.
However, in recent years, pundits have begun talking about “political grifters,” which is quite similar to what was once called “honest graft” in the Tammany Hall era, and in 2014 former Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) wrote in Politico about what he called the rise of the “political grifter,” describing people who get into politics, and stay in politics, because they want to line their own pockets.
And on that note, while we are wondering what June Butler got out of that deal, we will take a rest.
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 9th 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF THE PEOPLE OF POESTENKILL - A DEFENSE OF JEFFREY PELLETIER OF LIBERTY LANE - BECAUSE HE DESERVES ONE - ACTS OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE ON LIBERTY LANE ON JULY 7, 2001 PROVOKED AND ENCOURAGED BY POESTENKILL TOWN GOVERMENT - ATTACK FORGIVEN AS ACT OF TEMPORARY INSANITY CAUSED BY POESTENKILL GOVERNMENT HATE CAMPAIGN AGAINST PLANTE - BEING DRIVEN INSANE BY POESTENKILL, JEFF PELLETIER SHOULD NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TODAY FOR HIS ACTIONS ON JULY 7, 2001 - ASSAULT ON PLANTE COSTS HIM HIS CIVIL RIGHTS IN POESTENKILL - COMPARED TO WHAT POESTENKILL HAS DONE TO PLANTE, WHAT WAS DONE TO JOE HITCHCOCK WAS AS NOTHING - MERE PIFFLE BY WAY OF COMPARISON - JOE HITCHCOCK HAD NO CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATED - THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT COMPOSED BY LADY LAWYER LINDA MANDEL-CLEMENTE RATED AN UNBELIEVABLE, INDECIPHERABLE PIECE OF CRAP THAT RESULTED IN $225,000 PAYDAY FOR JOE HITCHCOCK APPROVED BY JUNE BUTLER - GRIFTERISM ALIVE AND WELL IN POESTEKILL!"
Speaking of people on Poestenkill's Liberty Lane being no strangers to acts of physical violence encouraged and condoned by Poestenkill and the New York state police against professional engineer Paul Plante going back to December of 1989 when the New York state police and Poestenkill town court and the Rensselaer County District Attorney all stepped in to protect the politically-connected hit-and-run driver who ran down the engineer on Liberty Lane on Friday morning, December 29, 1989 as an act of political violence against Plante, what we are seeing in this video is the direct result of the violence that was done to the impressionable mind of Poestenkill resident Jeff Pelletier of Liberty Lane by the pernicious influence of Keith Hammond, lawyer Patrick Tomaselli and the Poestenkill town board with its power to make laws against people it don't like in Poestenkill, also known as attainder or proscription, who is seen in this video doing to Plante exactly what his mind had been conditioned to do by that pernicious influence, to wit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89m5TEuu3M
When you listen to the language used by Jeff Pelletier in that video, what you are really hearing is the voice of Poestenkill town government.
So let us not condemn Jeff Pelletier today for what he had no control over on July 7, 2001, that being his insane rage at seeing Paul Plante walking on Liberty Lane which Poestenkill town court had plastered with Orders of Protection against Plante after the December 29, 1989 vehicular assault which resulted in criminal charges against Plante wherein was alleged that Plante was trying to kill his neighbor Gary Horton by crashing his body into Horton's truck while Horton was speeding down Liberty Lane being chased by Plante at better than forty miles per hour, which protective orders barred Plante from not only walking on Liberty Lane under threat of arrest by the state police, but down his own property line, as well, being essentially confined to what constitutes house arrest, and which protective orders helped form the idea in the mind of Jeff Pelletier that it would be looked favorably upon by Poestenkill town government if Jeff Pelletier were to assault Plante for violating those protective orders, which brings us to the real cause of the harm done on Liberty Lane on July 7, 2001, that being the pernicious influence on the mind of Jeff Pelletier by Poestenkill town attorney Patrick Tomaselli as we see in this June 20, 2005 writing to the Poestenkill town board on the subject of the July 7, 2001 assault on Plante and the federal civil rights lawsuit that resulted from Plante's incarceration in the Statton VA Hospital which was as a direct result of him being assaulted by Jeff Pelletier on July 7, 2001 while he was standing on Liberty Lane in the Town of Poestenkill performing the duties and responsibilities of a licensed professional engineer, to wit:
Nonetheless, to the extent that I am able to comprehend Mr. Plante's assertions, I feel I must rectify some of his more glaring misrepresentations of fact, distortions of law and downright falsehoods.
Contrary to Paul's assertions, and even putting aside the issue of how it relates to the Town, there is no evidence whatsoever from the Federal District Court action that on July 7, 2001, Jeffrey Pelletier physically assaulted Paul and injured his spine on Liberty Lane.
While I have viewed the videotape referred to by Paul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89m5TEuu3M , I found no indication thereon of any physical assault whatsoever.
end quotes
As to Plante being shut out of Poestenkill town government and losing his civil rights in Poestenkill as a result of that July 7, 2001 assault by Jeff Pelletier which was encouraged and provoked by Poestenkill town government and its attorney Patrick Tomaselli, that June 20, 2005 writing to the Poestenkill town board by Tomaselli continued as follows:
Because of the fact that Mr. Plante's letter speaks in large part to the Federal litigation wherein an appeal is now pending and to the Town's counsel in that matter, under cover of a copy of this letter to said counsel I am forwarding a copy of Paul's letter with my request that they contact Mr. Plante and request that he refrain from any further direct contact with the Town relating to that litigation.
Similarly, the Town is dissuaded from responding to Mr. Plante regarding such matters.
end quotes
And Plante has been a non-citizen without a voice in Poestenkill ever since, which is why when your civil rights in Poestenkill are being violated in Poestenkill by Poestenkill town government, it is best to keep quiet about it and say absolutely nothing.
As to the Pelletier assault leading to Plante's incarceration as a dangerous mental patient in the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany on 8/22/01, at page 2 of his August 22, 2001 Police Report, Stratton VA Police Officer Kirkum stated that on August 22, 2001, he made contact with NY State Veteran Service Officer Bill Shea who, according to Officer Kirkum, told Officer Kirkum that Poestenkill engineer Paul Plante had made numerous alleged verbal threats against Jeffrey Pelletier, and that somehow, those alleged threats against Pelletier were received by both Reiter and Shea by telephone!
According to the official record in connection with that incarceration, it was based on this conversation with Shea that Officer Kirkum then called New York State BCI Chris O'Brien in the Rensselaer County District Attorney's Office in Troy to obtain the direct admission paperwork for Plante that doctors Morris and Braaten of Troy's Samaritan Hospital had executed earlier that morning.
Thereafter, in Paul Plante, Plaintiff, v. Bechard et al, Defendants, 1:03-CV-753, a federal civil rights matter, the federal district court for the Northern District of New York found as follows in connection with that assault, to wit:
III. Facts
On May 22, 2001, Jeffrey Pelletier (Pelletier) was issued a sewage system construction permit by the Town of Rensselaer.
On July 7, Plante conducted an investigation of Defendants Aiken (Engineer) and McGrath’s “deliberate falsification of inspection data and fraudulent submissions” resulting in the issuance of the Pelletier permit.
During Plante’s investigation, Pelletier assaulted him.
On August 9, defendant Reiter (Rensselaer County Director of Veteran’s Service) warned Plante to back off the Pelletier investigation because he was a “protected person” in the county.
end quotes
And that, people, is how the game of power politics in Poestenkill is played, right on down to today, which brings us to the 5th cause of action in paragraph 193 at page 35 of the federal civil rights complaint for Joe Hitchcock that was the work of the fevered mind of lady lawyer Linda Mandel-Clemente where she claims as follows as a violation of Joe Hitchcock's federal civil rights, to wit::
Further, other property owners who are properly zoned for wooding processing with whom Hitchcock has been speaking, tell Hitchcock that are now have been and are deterred from contracting with him given the prospect of getting the defendants cited them or having the clearing job stopped midway through it.
end quote
For the record, Poestenkill never opposed that statement, even though it is undecipherable gibberish, and it is based on that undecipherable gibberish that June Butler authorized $225,000 of Poestenkill taxpayer dollars to be paid to Joe Hitchcock as recompense.
As to grifterism being alive and well in Poestenkill as evidenced by that transfer of taxpayer dollars to Joe Hitchcock that June Butler approved, in politics, especially Rensselaer County politics which includes Poestenkill, the word refers to people who use the political process as a way to enrich themselves.
The word "grifter" first appeared in print in 1915, and at that time, a grifter referred to any kind of criminal who used his wits, rather than brute force, to carry out crimes.
However, in recent years, pundits have begun talking about “political grifters,” which is quite similar to what was once called “honest graft” in the Tammany Hall era, and in 2014 former Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) wrote in Politico about what he called the rise of the “political grifter,” describing people who get into politics, and stay in politics, because they want to line their own pockets.
And on that note, while we are wondering what June Butler got out of that deal, we will take a rest.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 10th 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF THE PEOPLE OF POESTENKILL - A TALE OF TWO FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUITS - THE STRANGE CASE OF PLANTE V BECHARD, MCGRATH AT AL - FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS IN POESTENKILL NOT GUARANTEED - CONSIDERED A COMMODITY ITEM - WHO CAN HAVE THEM TO BE DETERMINED BY JUNE BUTLER AND POESTENKILL TOWN BOARD - POESTENKILL KNOWN AS A SQUARE DEALER - WILL BACK HINKY DEALS TO THE HILT TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE EVER-CHANGING LAWS OF POESTENKILL!"
It is not at all trite to say that at this time in Poestenkill's troubled political history, Jeffrey Pelletier of Liberty Lane in Poestenkill, the one seen assaulting disabled veteran Paul Plante in this Youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89m5TEuu3M needs our prayers and compassion far more than he needs our condemnation, for he is, however misguided in his thinking by the pernicious influence of Keith Hammond, Patrick Tomaselli and Poestenkill town government he might be, for which he cannot be held to account, a member of the Poestenkill community notwithstanding and with compassion towards him, he can hopefully eradicate all the poison of hate that he has been filled with literally going back to the 1970's, so that all his life, he has been literally conditioned to hate Paul Plante as an enemy, which is what we see happening in that video where the torrent of hate pouring out of his mouth is a regurgitation of the hatred pumped in there in the first place by Keith Hammond and Poestenkill town government, which takes us back to December 9, 2003 and this AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY TO NOVEMBER 10, 2003 AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY DAVID T. LUNTZ ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS EUGENE BECHARD AND DAVID GEBHARDT in Paul Plante, Plaintiff, v. Bechard et al, Defendants, 1:03-CV-753, where we have the pernicious influence of the town of Poestenkill on the mind of Jeff Pelletier that had Jeff thinking and believing that it would be looked upon favorably by Poestenkill if Jeff were to assault Paul Plante on full display, to wit:
9. As to the role played by defendant Bechard in the events of August 22, 2001 complained of herein, with regard to Plaintiff's responsibilities pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 11, prior to bringing on the instant action in Federal Court for the Northern District of New York, plaintiff did conduct an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances herein, and after conducting such inquiry, plaintiff did certify to this Court that to the best of plaintiff's knowledge, information and belief, the Amended Complaint was not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; that the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; and that the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further discovery.
10. As to the best evidence of the role that defendant Bechard played in the conspiracy leading to plaintiff's unlawful arrest and confinement in the Albany VA Hospital on August 22, 2001, plaintiff relies upon personal statements made to him by defendant Bechard both before and after August 22, 2001, as well as sworn statements in a November 14, 2002 affidavit defendant Bechard submitted to Rensselaer County Supreme Court prior to the December 18, 2002 proceedings before Justice Cannizarro where the instant causes of action were discontinued in that forum without prejudice to plaintiff herein for re-filing in this forum.
11. Specifically, in paragraph 5 at page 3 of that November 14, 2002 affidavit, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit D and made a part hereof, defendant Bechard states:
"On or about August 13. 2001. I was contacted by telephone by Respondent Jeff Pelletier who indicated that he wished to file a formal complaint as to certain allegedly non-compliant construction work being performed by his neighbor Paul Plante, the petitioner herein."
"I duly recorded the substance of said complaint as related to me by Respondent Pelletier and at his direction and with his consent I signed his name to a Complaint Form as complainant."
(Exhibit D)
The Complaint Form which was signed by defendant Bechard on August 13, 2001 using defendant Jeffrey Pelletier's name is annexed hereto as Exhibit E and made a part hereof.
12. Referring to Exhibits B and C of the Amended Complaint, it becomes patently obvious that on the same day that plaintiff (Paul Plante) was meeting with defendants Ayers and Champagne (Rensselaer County Health Department) concerning the Jeffrey Pelletier sewage system permit, defendant Jeffrey Pelletier called defendant Bechard from cell phone 527-1300 (Exhibit E) to have defendant Bechard prepare a complaint alleging plaintiff was in violation of the Land-Use Code of the Town of Poestenkill as plaintiff was similarly alleging was the case with defendant Jeffrey Pelletier.
13. When plaintiff left his meeting with defendants Ayers and Champagne and went to confer with defendant Bechard concerning that August 13, 2001 meeting documented in Exhibits B and C of the Amended Complaint, plaintiff found himself instead confronted by defendant Bechard who informed plaintiff that plaintiff was in violation of the Land-Use Code of the Town of Poestenkill and therefore could not put in any complaints against defendant Jeffrey Pelletier.
14. Moreover, defendant Bechard informed plaintiff that he, defendant Bechard was referring the matter to defendant Gebhardt for prosecution.
15. In paragraph 6 of his November 14, 2002 affidavit to Rensselaer County Supreme Court annexed hereto as Exhibit D, defendant Bechard informed Rensselaer County Supreme Court that he resolved that complaint by defendant Jeffrey Pelletier on the same day, August 13, 2001.
16. However, even a cursory glance at the face of Exhibit E, which is the August 13, 2001 Complaint Form put into evidence in Rensselaer County Supreme Court by defendant Bechard himself, readily puts the lie to defendant Bechard's assertion in his November 14, 2002 affidavit that he resolved the matter on August 13, 2001.
17. According to defendant Bechard's own evidence, he did not check the "site" until "8/23", which is the day after the events of August 22, 2001 complained of herein.
18. Since plaintiff was directly involved throughout and according to defendant Bechard's own evidence, spoke to defendant Bechard on August 24, 2001 about the August 13, 2001 Jeffrey Pelletier complaint, plaintiff can and will testify that defendant Bechard only resolved the matter because plaintiff had not been incarcerated in the secure mental health facility of defendant Samaritan Hospital as was the plan when defendant Bechard joined the conspiracy on or about August 13, 2001, but instead had been freed by the Albany VA Hospital once it became apparent to that federal government institution that plaintiff's arrest and confinement there was based upon nothing more than a fraud, of which defendant Bechard was a part with his August 13, 2001 Complaint from defendant Jeffrey Pelletier annexed hereto as Exhibit E.
19. In fact, while plaintiff was incarcerated at the Albany VA Hospital, and was being evaluated by Dr. William F. Cox at that facility, the Bechard Complaint came up as a topic of conversation between plaintiff and Dr. Cox as alleged evidence of plaintiff's allegedly violent history of unlawful activities, said subject matter having been conveyed to Dr. Cox by defendants Robert Reiter and William Shea on the morning of August 22, 2001.
20. In fact, when plaintiff denied being in violation of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill, it is plaintiff's recollection that Dr. Cox thought him "paranoid" for thinking that a public official like defendant Bechard would deliberately frame plaintiff on false charges as was actually to be the case, according to defendant Bechard's own evidence annexed hereto as Exhibit E, and it was not until an Albany, New York police officer (fellow veteran), arrived at the VA and corroborated what plaintiff was telling Dr. Cox about corruption in the Town of Poestenkill that Dr. Cox relented in his belief that plaintiff was "paranoid" or "delusional" as had been reported to him by defendants Reiter and Shea earlier that morning when they provided Dr. Cox with "direct admission" paperwork (Amended Complaint, Exh. F) for plaintiff s arrest and incarceration as an alleged "dangerous mental patient from defendant Samaritan Hospital which had been "certified by defendant John Christian Braaten pursuant to New York State Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39. (See, November 10, 2003 affirmation of David Rook, Esq. on behalf of defendants Samaritan Hospital and Braaten)
21. It is plaintiff's distinct recollection herein, and plaintiff will testify as such, that after the failure of the defendants to capture plaintiff and incarcerate him in the secure mental health facility of defendant Samaritan Hospital on August 22, 2001, that defendant Bechard became extremely nervous about the role that he had played in the attempt, and that on August 24, 2001, defendant Bechard was concerned that plaintiff not judge him too harshly for what he had done, as he alleged to plaintiff that he himself had been pressured to frame plaintiff.
22. However, according to plaintiff's exhaustive research into the case law on such matters, and especially this Court's holdings in Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Department of Social Services, 234 F.Supp.2d 140, 167 (N.D.N.Y. 2002), such contrition by defendant Bechard after the fact does not absolve him of his guilt in the matter, and while a jury might find such alleged coercion of defendant Bechard to be extenuating, it certainly does not serve to excuse defendant Bechard from any prosecution whatsoever for his role in the conspiracy that resulted in plaintiff's unlawful arrest and incarceration on August 22, 2001 in the Albany VA Hospital as an alleged "dangerous mental patient", especially where in their various affirmative defenses presently pending before this Court in the above matter, defendants Jimino, Cybulski, Holt, Ayers, Champagne, Reiter, Gallerie and McGrath are all still relying upon the false August 13, 2001 complaint by defendant Jeffrey Pelletier to defendant Bechard as alleged proof that "any injury sustained by the plaintiff is caused by and contributed to by the negligence, lack of care, or culpable conduct on the part of the plaintiff." (Eighth Affirmative Defense of Rensselaer County Defendants and Defendant Gallerie; Fifth Affirmative Defense of Defendant McGrath).
23. Applying the "scintilla of evidence" rule, the "close nexus" test, and construing the Amended Complaint in a light most favorable to plaintiff in this above matter, it is clear that defendant Bechard was a direct participant or co-conspirator in the actions of the other defendants on August 22, 2001 in connection with the "psychiatric takedown" of the plaintiff herein as well as a beneficiary thereof insofar as that August 22, 2001 "psychiatric takedown" allowed defendant Bechard to evade judicial scrutiny of his own actions in connection with the Jeffrey Pelletier matter, and based upon Exhibits D and E annexed hereto, there is more than a "mere gleam, spark, the least bit, the smallest trace" of evidence at this preliminary stage of the proceedings herein to support plaintiff's contentions in the Amended Complaint that defendant Eugene Bechard, himself a "state actor", was part of an agreement between at least one other state actor, defendant Denise Ayers, and at least one private party, defendant Jeffrey Pelletier, to act in concert to violate plaintiff's constitutional rights, and an overt act done in furtherance of the goals causing damages to plaintiff on and after August 22, 2001.
24. Wherefore, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 11 and this Court's holdings in Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Department of Social Services, 234 F.Supp.2d 140, 167 (N.D.N.Y. 2002), plaintiff acted properly and without malice or ill intent in naming Eugene Bechard as a defendant party in this above action, and accordingly, the Rule 12(b)(6) motion of defendant Eugene Bechard presently pending before this Court should be denied in the sound exercise of this Court's discretion, along with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
end quotes
So no wonder Jeffry Pelletier of Liberty Lane in Poestenkill accepted and believed that it was okay for him to act in a lawless manner by assaulting Plante when the Code Enforcement Officer of Poestenkill instilled in his mind a belief that it was socially acceptable behavior in Poestenkill to do so.
And that affidavit also served to blow Jor Hitchcock's "Class of One" claim against Poestenkill out of the water because in retrospect, Joe Hitchcock got far better treatment from Poestenkill than did Plante, as Joe never got locked in a cage in a psych ward on fabricated charges while Plante most certainly did.
So why then did June Butler vote to give Joe Hitchcock $225,000 and why did she agree that Poestenkill would enforce no laws against Joe?
What's up with that?
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 10th 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF THE PEOPLE OF POESTENKILL - A TALE OF TWO FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUITS - THE STRANGE CASE OF PLANTE V BECHARD, MCGRATH AT AL - FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS IN POESTENKILL NOT GUARANTEED - CONSIDERED A COMMODITY ITEM - WHO CAN HAVE THEM TO BE DETERMINED BY JUNE BUTLER AND POESTENKILL TOWN BOARD - POESTENKILL KNOWN AS A SQUARE DEALER - WILL BACK HINKY DEALS TO THE HILT TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE EVER-CHANGING LAWS OF POESTENKILL!"
It is not at all trite to say that at this time in Poestenkill's troubled political history, Jeffrey Pelletier of Liberty Lane in Poestenkill, the one seen assaulting disabled veteran Paul Plante in this Youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89m5TEuu3M needs our prayers and compassion far more than he needs our condemnation, for he is, however misguided in his thinking by the pernicious influence of Keith Hammond, Patrick Tomaselli and Poestenkill town government he might be, for which he cannot be held to account, a member of the Poestenkill community notwithstanding and with compassion towards him, he can hopefully eradicate all the poison of hate that he has been filled with literally going back to the 1970's, so that all his life, he has been literally conditioned to hate Paul Plante as an enemy, which is what we see happening in that video where the torrent of hate pouring out of his mouth is a regurgitation of the hatred pumped in there in the first place by Keith Hammond and Poestenkill town government, which takes us back to December 9, 2003 and this AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY TO NOVEMBER 10, 2003 AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY DAVID T. LUNTZ ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS EUGENE BECHARD AND DAVID GEBHARDT in Paul Plante, Plaintiff, v. Bechard et al, Defendants, 1:03-CV-753, where we have the pernicious influence of the town of Poestenkill on the mind of Jeff Pelletier that had Jeff thinking and believing that it would be looked upon favorably by Poestenkill if Jeff were to assault Paul Plante on full display, to wit:
9. As to the role played by defendant Bechard in the events of August 22, 2001 complained of herein, with regard to Plaintiff's responsibilities pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 11, prior to bringing on the instant action in Federal Court for the Northern District of New York, plaintiff did conduct an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances herein, and after conducting such inquiry, plaintiff did certify to this Court that to the best of plaintiff's knowledge, information and belief, the Amended Complaint was not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; that the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; and that the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further discovery.
10. As to the best evidence of the role that defendant Bechard played in the conspiracy leading to plaintiff's unlawful arrest and confinement in the Albany VA Hospital on August 22, 2001, plaintiff relies upon personal statements made to him by defendant Bechard both before and after August 22, 2001, as well as sworn statements in a November 14, 2002 affidavit defendant Bechard submitted to Rensselaer County Supreme Court prior to the December 18, 2002 proceedings before Justice Cannizarro where the instant causes of action were discontinued in that forum without prejudice to plaintiff herein for re-filing in this forum.
11. Specifically, in paragraph 5 at page 3 of that November 14, 2002 affidavit, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit D and made a part hereof, defendant Bechard states:
"On or about August 13. 2001. I was contacted by telephone by Respondent Jeff Pelletier who indicated that he wished to file a formal complaint as to certain allegedly non-compliant construction work being performed by his neighbor Paul Plante, the petitioner herein."
"I duly recorded the substance of said complaint as related to me by Respondent Pelletier and at his direction and with his consent I signed his name to a Complaint Form as complainant."
(Exhibit D)
The Complaint Form which was signed by defendant Bechard on August 13, 2001 using defendant Jeffrey Pelletier's name is annexed hereto as Exhibit E and made a part hereof.
12. Referring to Exhibits B and C of the Amended Complaint, it becomes patently obvious that on the same day that plaintiff (Paul Plante) was meeting with defendants Ayers and Champagne (Rensselaer County Health Department) concerning the Jeffrey Pelletier sewage system permit, defendant Jeffrey Pelletier called defendant Bechard from cell phone 527-1300 (Exhibit E) to have defendant Bechard prepare a complaint alleging plaintiff was in violation of the Land-Use Code of the Town of Poestenkill as plaintiff was similarly alleging was the case with defendant Jeffrey Pelletier.
13. When plaintiff left his meeting with defendants Ayers and Champagne and went to confer with defendant Bechard concerning that August 13, 2001 meeting documented in Exhibits B and C of the Amended Complaint, plaintiff found himself instead confronted by defendant Bechard who informed plaintiff that plaintiff was in violation of the Land-Use Code of the Town of Poestenkill and therefore could not put in any complaints against defendant Jeffrey Pelletier.
14. Moreover, defendant Bechard informed plaintiff that he, defendant Bechard was referring the matter to defendant Gebhardt for prosecution.
15. In paragraph 6 of his November 14, 2002 affidavit to Rensselaer County Supreme Court annexed hereto as Exhibit D, defendant Bechard informed Rensselaer County Supreme Court that he resolved that complaint by defendant Jeffrey Pelletier on the same day, August 13, 2001.
16. However, even a cursory glance at the face of Exhibit E, which is the August 13, 2001 Complaint Form put into evidence in Rensselaer County Supreme Court by defendant Bechard himself, readily puts the lie to defendant Bechard's assertion in his November 14, 2002 affidavit that he resolved the matter on August 13, 2001.
17. According to defendant Bechard's own evidence, he did not check the "site" until "8/23", which is the day after the events of August 22, 2001 complained of herein.
18. Since plaintiff was directly involved throughout and according to defendant Bechard's own evidence, spoke to defendant Bechard on August 24, 2001 about the August 13, 2001 Jeffrey Pelletier complaint, plaintiff can and will testify that defendant Bechard only resolved the matter because plaintiff had not been incarcerated in the secure mental health facility of defendant Samaritan Hospital as was the plan when defendant Bechard joined the conspiracy on or about August 13, 2001, but instead had been freed by the Albany VA Hospital once it became apparent to that federal government institution that plaintiff's arrest and confinement there was based upon nothing more than a fraud, of which defendant Bechard was a part with his August 13, 2001 Complaint from defendant Jeffrey Pelletier annexed hereto as Exhibit E.
19. In fact, while plaintiff was incarcerated at the Albany VA Hospital, and was being evaluated by Dr. William F. Cox at that facility, the Bechard Complaint came up as a topic of conversation between plaintiff and Dr. Cox as alleged evidence of plaintiff's allegedly violent history of unlawful activities, said subject matter having been conveyed to Dr. Cox by defendants Robert Reiter and William Shea on the morning of August 22, 2001.
20. In fact, when plaintiff denied being in violation of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill, it is plaintiff's recollection that Dr. Cox thought him "paranoid" for thinking that a public official like defendant Bechard would deliberately frame plaintiff on false charges as was actually to be the case, according to defendant Bechard's own evidence annexed hereto as Exhibit E, and it was not until an Albany, New York police officer (fellow veteran), arrived at the VA and corroborated what plaintiff was telling Dr. Cox about corruption in the Town of Poestenkill that Dr. Cox relented in his belief that plaintiff was "paranoid" or "delusional" as had been reported to him by defendants Reiter and Shea earlier that morning when they provided Dr. Cox with "direct admission" paperwork (Amended Complaint, Exh. F) for plaintiff s arrest and incarceration as an alleged "dangerous mental patient from defendant Samaritan Hospital which had been "certified by defendant John Christian Braaten pursuant to New York State Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39. (See, November 10, 2003 affirmation of David Rook, Esq. on behalf of defendants Samaritan Hospital and Braaten)
21. It is plaintiff's distinct recollection herein, and plaintiff will testify as such, that after the failure of the defendants to capture plaintiff and incarcerate him in the secure mental health facility of defendant Samaritan Hospital on August 22, 2001, that defendant Bechard became extremely nervous about the role that he had played in the attempt, and that on August 24, 2001, defendant Bechard was concerned that plaintiff not judge him too harshly for what he had done, as he alleged to plaintiff that he himself had been pressured to frame plaintiff.
22. However, according to plaintiff's exhaustive research into the case law on such matters, and especially this Court's holdings in Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Department of Social Services, 234 F.Supp.2d 140, 167 (N.D.N.Y. 2002), such contrition by defendant Bechard after the fact does not absolve him of his guilt in the matter, and while a jury might find such alleged coercion of defendant Bechard to be extenuating, it certainly does not serve to excuse defendant Bechard from any prosecution whatsoever for his role in the conspiracy that resulted in plaintiff's unlawful arrest and incarceration on August 22, 2001 in the Albany VA Hospital as an alleged "dangerous mental patient", especially where in their various affirmative defenses presently pending before this Court in the above matter, defendants Jimino, Cybulski, Holt, Ayers, Champagne, Reiter, Gallerie and McGrath are all still relying upon the false August 13, 2001 complaint by defendant Jeffrey Pelletier to defendant Bechard as alleged proof that "any injury sustained by the plaintiff is caused by and contributed to by the negligence, lack of care, or culpable conduct on the part of the plaintiff." (Eighth Affirmative Defense of Rensselaer County Defendants and Defendant Gallerie; Fifth Affirmative Defense of Defendant McGrath).
23. Applying the "scintilla of evidence" rule, the "close nexus" test, and construing the Amended Complaint in a light most favorable to plaintiff in this above matter, it is clear that defendant Bechard was a direct participant or co-conspirator in the actions of the other defendants on August 22, 2001 in connection with the "psychiatric takedown" of the plaintiff herein as well as a beneficiary thereof insofar as that August 22, 2001 "psychiatric takedown" allowed defendant Bechard to evade judicial scrutiny of his own actions in connection with the Jeffrey Pelletier matter, and based upon Exhibits D and E annexed hereto, there is more than a "mere gleam, spark, the least bit, the smallest trace" of evidence at this preliminary stage of the proceedings herein to support plaintiff's contentions in the Amended Complaint that defendant Eugene Bechard, himself a "state actor", was part of an agreement between at least one other state actor, defendant Denise Ayers, and at least one private party, defendant Jeffrey Pelletier, to act in concert to violate plaintiff's constitutional rights, and an overt act done in furtherance of the goals causing damages to plaintiff on and after August 22, 2001.
24. Wherefore, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 11 and this Court's holdings in Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Department of Social Services, 234 F.Supp.2d 140, 167 (N.D.N.Y. 2002), plaintiff acted properly and without malice or ill intent in naming Eugene Bechard as a defendant party in this above action, and accordingly, the Rule 12(b)(6) motion of defendant Eugene Bechard presently pending before this Court should be denied in the sound exercise of this Court's discretion, along with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
end quotes
So no wonder Jeffry Pelletier of Liberty Lane in Poestenkill accepted and believed that it was okay for him to act in a lawless manner by assaulting Plante when the Code Enforcement Officer of Poestenkill instilled in his mind a belief that it was socially acceptable behavior in Poestenkill to do so.
And that affidavit also served to blow Jor Hitchcock's "Class of One" claim against Poestenkill out of the water because in retrospect, Joe Hitchcock got far better treatment from Poestenkill than did Plante, as Joe never got locked in a cage in a psych ward on fabricated charges while Plante most certainly did.
So why then did June Butler vote to give Joe Hitchcock $225,000 and why did she agree that Poestenkill would enforce no laws against Joe?
What's up with that?
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 12th 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF THE PEOPLE OF POESTENKILL, BECAUSE THEY LIKE IT AND EXPECT IT TO BE DONE TO THEM AND WOULD FEEL BAD ABOUT THEMSELVES IF IT WASN'T - THE CONTINUING TALE OF TWO FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUITS - IF EVERYONE IN POESTENKILL WERE ACTUALLY EQUAL, IT WOULD CAUSE THE COLLAPSE OF THE EXISTING POLITICAL SYSTEM IN RENSSELAER COUNTY WHICH IS BASED ON FAVORS FROM PUBLIC OFFICIALS FOR THOSE WELL OFF ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THEM!"
What is most incredible here from the Poestenkill Town Board Meeting of 4/15/21 on June Butler's unconstitutional Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto law known as Local Law No. 2-2021, the official transcript of which is found as Exhibit B at Page 45 of 179 page Hitchcock Verified Complaint in HITCHCOCK v. TOWN OF POESTENKILL, NEW YORK; KEITH HAMMOND, in his official capacity as Town Supervisor of Poestenkill; and TRACY CHURCH, in his official capacity as Code Officer of Poestenkill and in his individual capacity, 1:21-cv-00758-FJS-DJS, is that a whole room full of people, including then-Poestenkill planning board chairman, now-supervisor Tom Russell, heard Poestenkill councilman Eric Wohlleber say to councilperson June Butler, "You know I would argue, kind of along the same lines as Mr. Hitchcock’s attorneys, that we are, in a sense, a passing, you know, this law is only for one person, for one property, but I would argue that we’re doing it to their benefit," and not a single person in the room, including Tom Russell, raised their hand and stood up to say, "hey, wait a minute, what on earth is going on here, you people can't make laws that benefit one person!"
How on earth can that be?
How can a roomful of people who have the right to vote, a dangerous right in their hands as we can clearly see here, not know that the Poestenkill town board has no authority, jurisdiction or discretion to make a law intended to benefit Joe Hitchcock of 160 Lynn Road in Poestenkill who walked away with a $225,000 payday of taxpayer money as a result of the special treatment afforded him by June Butler and the Poestenkill town board, which board approved an agreement whereby they wiped Joe Hitchcock's record of code violations clean, as if they never happened, while further agreeing with Joe that the town would take no enforcement actions against Joe, who has achieved the coveted "protected person" status in Poestenkill.
Have these people no education in basic government in America that they wouldn't know the Poestenkill town board has no authority, jurisdiction of discretion to make laws that benefit only one person?
And if they have no education in basic government in America, which I started formally learning as a five-year old in the first kindergarten of the then-new Poestenkill elementary school, then how on earth did they ever get out of high school?
And what is even more bizarre and quite troubling is that Eric Wohlleber, himself, with a supposed college education, and a father-in-law who is a state supreme court justice, seemingly had no clue that the Poestenkill town board cannot make laws for or against a single person, but instead he meekly accepted June Butler's premise that it was entirely alright for the Poestenkill town board to make a law to benefit Joe Hitchcock of 160 Lynn Road in Poestenkill, who, as stated above, walked away with a $225,000 payday as a result, notwithstanding that a perusal of New York Town Law § 64, titled "General powers of town boards," which section of law Eric Wohlleber should know better than the back of his hand, makes it crystal clear that the Poestenkill town board never had such authority, jurisdiction or discretion, and in a free country with a constitution in place, it would be absurd to think they ever did.
So, going back to what we were taught in kindergarten here in Poestenkill when I was young and a five-year old was no longer considered a "child," that classification being reserved for those under the age of five, at which time, one became a young adult in training to be a productive citizen for the betterment of society as a whole, not just the cronies of Poestenkill councilwoman June Butler, here in New York state, which includes Poestenkill, a town like Poestenkill although it will argue otherwise, does not have the authority to deny residents like Paul Plante or the Holser Road people the right to participate in government.
New York law, which Poestenkill refuses to recognize, because it came from "outsiders," emphasizes the importance of citizen participation and access to government information, and while they deny it here in Poestenkill, local officials on the Poestenkill town board have a responsibility to facilitate meaningful participation by residents in local government affairs.
And in New York, town boards do not have the power to remove citizens from the town as they have been trying to do with Paul Plante of Liberty Lane, who was denounced as a "well-known agitator" in a May 1990 Report to the then-Poestenkill town board by then-Poestenkill dog control officer and Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association member Christine R. Lincoln.
Town boards are responsible for the governance of the town, but their authority does not extend to removing residents.
Town boards do have the authority to remove certain town officers, such as the town supervisor, under specific circumstances and procedures outlined in the Public Officers Law in NY which provides the framework for removal of public officers, which is a process distinct from simply removing citizens from a town, according to a legal opinion from the
Removal of public officials, if warranted, would involve a judicial process, not a direct action by the town board.
As to Paul Plante and the Holser Road people. New York law is intended to protect the rights of citizens to reside in the town, and town boards do not have the power to infringe upon those rights, according to a legal opinion from the Office of the New York State Comptroller.
So what's up with the government here in Poestenkill that they don't know that?
And more importantly how on earth were they ever elected to office in the first place?
Stay tuned, and when we return, it will be to hear the mellifluous and dulcet tones of lady lawyer and champion salami slicer Linda Mandel-Clemente telling us that "the folks of rural Poestenkill have been cutting and selling wood on their property from time in memorial," where the term "in memorial" is a Latin phrase equivalent to "in memory (of)", referring to remembering or honouring a deceased person "as a way of remembering someone who has died."
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
May 12th 2025 Edition
"ON THE INTENTIONAL ROYAL SCREWING OF THE PEOPLE OF POESTENKILL, BECAUSE THEY LIKE IT AND EXPECT IT TO BE DONE TO THEM AND WOULD FEEL BAD ABOUT THEMSELVES IF IT WASN'T - THE CONTINUING TALE OF TWO FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUITS - IF EVERYONE IN POESTENKILL WERE ACTUALLY EQUAL, IT WOULD CAUSE THE COLLAPSE OF THE EXISTING POLITICAL SYSTEM IN RENSSELAER COUNTY WHICH IS BASED ON FAVORS FROM PUBLIC OFFICIALS FOR THOSE WELL OFF ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THEM!"
What is most incredible here from the Poestenkill Town Board Meeting of 4/15/21 on June Butler's unconstitutional Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto law known as Local Law No. 2-2021, the official transcript of which is found as Exhibit B at Page 45 of 179 page Hitchcock Verified Complaint in HITCHCOCK v. TOWN OF POESTENKILL, NEW YORK; KEITH HAMMOND, in his official capacity as Town Supervisor of Poestenkill; and TRACY CHURCH, in his official capacity as Code Officer of Poestenkill and in his individual capacity, 1:21-cv-00758-FJS-DJS, is that a whole room full of people, including then-Poestenkill planning board chairman, now-supervisor Tom Russell, heard Poestenkill councilman Eric Wohlleber say to councilperson June Butler, "You know I would argue, kind of along the same lines as Mr. Hitchcock’s attorneys, that we are, in a sense, a passing, you know, this law is only for one person, for one property, but I would argue that we’re doing it to their benefit," and not a single person in the room, including Tom Russell, raised their hand and stood up to say, "hey, wait a minute, what on earth is going on here, you people can't make laws that benefit one person!"
How on earth can that be?
How can a roomful of people who have the right to vote, a dangerous right in their hands as we can clearly see here, not know that the Poestenkill town board has no authority, jurisdiction or discretion to make a law intended to benefit Joe Hitchcock of 160 Lynn Road in Poestenkill who walked away with a $225,000 payday of taxpayer money as a result of the special treatment afforded him by June Butler and the Poestenkill town board, which board approved an agreement whereby they wiped Joe Hitchcock's record of code violations clean, as if they never happened, while further agreeing with Joe that the town would take no enforcement actions against Joe, who has achieved the coveted "protected person" status in Poestenkill.
Have these people no education in basic government in America that they wouldn't know the Poestenkill town board has no authority, jurisdiction of discretion to make laws that benefit only one person?
And if they have no education in basic government in America, which I started formally learning as a five-year old in the first kindergarten of the then-new Poestenkill elementary school, then how on earth did they ever get out of high school?
And what is even more bizarre and quite troubling is that Eric Wohlleber, himself, with a supposed college education, and a father-in-law who is a state supreme court justice, seemingly had no clue that the Poestenkill town board cannot make laws for or against a single person, but instead he meekly accepted June Butler's premise that it was entirely alright for the Poestenkill town board to make a law to benefit Joe Hitchcock of 160 Lynn Road in Poestenkill, who, as stated above, walked away with a $225,000 payday as a result, notwithstanding that a perusal of New York Town Law § 64, titled "General powers of town boards," which section of law Eric Wohlleber should know better than the back of his hand, makes it crystal clear that the Poestenkill town board never had such authority, jurisdiction or discretion, and in a free country with a constitution in place, it would be absurd to think they ever did.
So, going back to what we were taught in kindergarten here in Poestenkill when I was young and a five-year old was no longer considered a "child," that classification being reserved for those under the age of five, at which time, one became a young adult in training to be a productive citizen for the betterment of society as a whole, not just the cronies of Poestenkill councilwoman June Butler, here in New York state, which includes Poestenkill, a town like Poestenkill although it will argue otherwise, does not have the authority to deny residents like Paul Plante or the Holser Road people the right to participate in government.
New York law, which Poestenkill refuses to recognize, because it came from "outsiders," emphasizes the importance of citizen participation and access to government information, and while they deny it here in Poestenkill, local officials on the Poestenkill town board have a responsibility to facilitate meaningful participation by residents in local government affairs.
And in New York, town boards do not have the power to remove citizens from the town as they have been trying to do with Paul Plante of Liberty Lane, who was denounced as a "well-known agitator" in a May 1990 Report to the then-Poestenkill town board by then-Poestenkill dog control officer and Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association member Christine R. Lincoln.
Town boards are responsible for the governance of the town, but their authority does not extend to removing residents.
Town boards do have the authority to remove certain town officers, such as the town supervisor, under specific circumstances and procedures outlined in the Public Officers Law in NY which provides the framework for removal of public officers, which is a process distinct from simply removing citizens from a town, according to a legal opinion from the
Removal of public officials, if warranted, would involve a judicial process, not a direct action by the town board.
As to Paul Plante and the Holser Road people. New York law is intended to protect the rights of citizens to reside in the town, and town boards do not have the power to infringe upon those rights, according to a legal opinion from the Office of the New York State Comptroller.
So what's up with the government here in Poestenkill that they don't know that?
And more importantly how on earth were they ever elected to office in the first place?
Stay tuned, and when we return, it will be to hear the mellifluous and dulcet tones of lady lawyer and champion salami slicer Linda Mandel-Clemente telling us that "the folks of rural Poestenkill have been cutting and selling wood on their property from time in memorial," where the term "in memorial" is a Latin phrase equivalent to "in memory (of)", referring to remembering or honouring a deceased person "as a way of remembering someone who has died."