POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 2d 2024 Edition
"ON POESTENKILL'S WORTHLESS ETHICS LAW - A CLARIFICATION"
According to YouTube, the YouTube video of the September 14, 2023 Poestenkill Town Board Meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiTSiQs53aw is listed as "This video isn't available anymore."
Someone's sensibilities must have been offended.
However, the commentary on the town board lying to us about PFAS is on this YouTube video of the June 8, 2023 Poestenkill Town Board Meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cXdWg5pAgY , not the YouTube video of the September 14, 2023 Poestenkill Town Board Meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiTSiQs53aw as was incorrectly mentioned in the article.
We will see how quickly this one gets taken down, as well.
THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 4th 2024 Edition
"WHO IS BURYING EVIDENCE IN POESTENKILL, AND WHY?"
First off, as to why intellectual liberty is important, especially in Poestenkill, intellectual liberty gives people, that being us, the taxpayers of this town who pay an exorbitant amount of money for the poor excuse of a town government that we get in return from this town board, the right to think for themselves and it respects individual dignity and self-rule, which freedom allows people to form their own ideas and opinions by questioning the world around them, something I fought and bled for in Viet Nam to protect, and so, I for one do not appreciate it being denied to me in Poestenkill, where I have resided for over seventy years.
But enough of that!
Getting to the heart of the matter before us in this edition, here is a question for all those residents of Poestenkill residing in the area of proposed Water District No. 2: Other than the YouTube video of the September 14, 2023 Poestenkill Town Board Meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiTSiQs53aw which incidentally is back up this morning with 495 views to date, what concrete proof do we, the property owners in that district, have that the public hearing for Water District No. 2, which has never been held, is still open?
And that answer is none!
And is this important?
Only if one believes in RULE OF LAW in Poestenkill, as opposed to arbitrary rule of whim and personal feelings, it is.
By way of review, NYS Town Law Article 12-A, Section 209-D, which is a law, not a mere hint, or a suggestion, states in clear and unequivocal statutory language binding both on the Poestenkill town board and the residents of Poestenkill, that PRIOR (happening before something else) to making a determination as to whether or not create a special district for the purpose of providing water, the Town Board is required to “hold a public hearing to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof.”
And as has been previously stated, that has never been done.
Yes, as we clearly see in a News 10 video https://www.news10.com/video/proposed-5 ... l/8640983/ on May 11, 2023 there was the usual Poestenkill "dog-and-pony show," where we were presented with numbers by the Laberge Group, but that was not “a public hearing to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof.”
News 10 also had a print version titled "Proposed $5.5 million water district for Poestenkill" by James De La Fuente on May 11, 2023 https://www.news10.com/news/proposed-5- ... estenkill/ wherein was stated as follows on the subject:
POESTENKILL, N.Y. (NEWS10) – It has been more than two years since PFAS were found in Poestenkill drinking water and tonight NEWS10 was at a public meeting where a new water district is being presented followed by public comment.
Dozens filled the Poestenkill fire house as the Laberge group presented a $5.5 million solution to the unhealthy water supply.
Nearly 60% of that bill would be covered by grants, but that still leaves the town and residents on the hook for the rest.
It’s now causing sticker shock for many in this small community.
“People you are being flim flammed."
"You want to be flim flammed, go along with these people,” said Paul Plante.
It will cost all property owners nearly $1000 a year, whether they are connected to the system or not.
“The question is, is it affordable, are we paying the right cost?” asked Greg Pattenaude.
“$1,000 a year is quite an expense for some people,” said Terry D’Arcangelo.
“I’m a disabled veteran on a fixed income and I’m going to be driven off my property,” said Plante.
“Tomhannock reservoir is far more susceptible to PFA contamination then on our ground water supply,” said Plante.
end quotes
But nowhere does that article mention that the public hearing was held open.
WICC, the Water Insecurity Correction Coalition, also posted an article online https://yeswicc.com/news/let-public-vot ... aynbspnbsp on May 12, 2023 titled "LET PUBLIC VOTE ON PROPOSED NEW WATER DISTRICT, POESTENKILL RESIDENTS SAY" wherein was stated thusly:
POESTENKILL, NY – The Town Board held a well-attended public hearing on the proposed water district in Poestenkill yesterday.
Residents heard from the Laberge Group, the consulting agency that put together the proposed plan, before having the opportunity to raise concerns to the Board.
Terri-Lee Jacangelo, a resident who lives on Seneca Drive, expressed frustration with how long it has taken to propose a solution to the PFAS problem, given it has been two years since the contaminant was first found in Algonquin Middle School’s water supply.
“We don’t have final [cost] numbers out… is [the water district] going to go to the citizens to vote on?”
Greg Pattenaude spoke on behalf of the Concerned Citizens for Clean Water, telling the Board that “we believe clean water is important,” but emphasized that the “overhead does seem excessive.”
The Town of Poestenkill would have to take out a loan to pay for this, and residents within Water District 2 would be responsible for $405 per household every year.
Residents would also of course have to pay for the water they use on top of debt service payments.
Laberge estimated that the average household would use 73,000 gallons a year, which at the current water district rate would incur about $420 per home.
With an estimated $140 for operation and maintenance costs, the total price per home would be $965 a year.
In addition, homeowners would be responsible for the one-time cost of connecting the service line to their homes, a cost that Laberge’s proposal didn’t estimate.
The price tag of the switch from well water to public water seemed to be a chief concern for those residing within the proposed district.
Resident Paul Plante emphasized that once “the district is formed, then the cost of engineering shifts to us… I’m a disabled veteran on a fixed income.”
“Don’t put it out to a vote until the cost is significantly clarified,” said Dominic Jacangelo, former Town Supervisor and the construction supervisor for Poestenkill’s first water district.
If the Board moves forward with the proposed district, they say construction would commence this summer with the aim of completing it by December 2024.
Though the Board tabled the public hearing after all residents had a chance to speak, Supervisor Keith Hammond made a note to say that the hearing will be “ongoing” so residents have a continuous chance to talk and ask questions about the district as the process endures.
Hammond said that residents would be invited to speak again after next week’s public discussion on the state’s final report on PFAS contamination in the town.
end quotes
However, that never happened.
So where are we now?
Does anyone have a clue?
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 4th 2024 Edition
"WHO IS BURYING EVIDENCE IN POESTENKILL, AND WHY?"
First off, as to why intellectual liberty is important, especially in Poestenkill, intellectual liberty gives people, that being us, the taxpayers of this town who pay an exorbitant amount of money for the poor excuse of a town government that we get in return from this town board, the right to think for themselves and it respects individual dignity and self-rule, which freedom allows people to form their own ideas and opinions by questioning the world around them, something I fought and bled for in Viet Nam to protect, and so, I for one do not appreciate it being denied to me in Poestenkill, where I have resided for over seventy years.
But enough of that!
Getting to the heart of the matter before us in this edition, here is a question for all those residents of Poestenkill residing in the area of proposed Water District No. 2: Other than the YouTube video of the September 14, 2023 Poestenkill Town Board Meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiTSiQs53aw which incidentally is back up this morning with 495 views to date, what concrete proof do we, the property owners in that district, have that the public hearing for Water District No. 2, which has never been held, is still open?
And that answer is none!
And is this important?
Only if one believes in RULE OF LAW in Poestenkill, as opposed to arbitrary rule of whim and personal feelings, it is.
By way of review, NYS Town Law Article 12-A, Section 209-D, which is a law, not a mere hint, or a suggestion, states in clear and unequivocal statutory language binding both on the Poestenkill town board and the residents of Poestenkill, that PRIOR (happening before something else) to making a determination as to whether or not create a special district for the purpose of providing water, the Town Board is required to “hold a public hearing to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof.”
And as has been previously stated, that has never been done.
Yes, as we clearly see in a News 10 video https://www.news10.com/video/proposed-5 ... l/8640983/ on May 11, 2023 there was the usual Poestenkill "dog-and-pony show," where we were presented with numbers by the Laberge Group, but that was not “a public hearing to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof.”
News 10 also had a print version titled "Proposed $5.5 million water district for Poestenkill" by James De La Fuente on May 11, 2023 https://www.news10.com/news/proposed-5- ... estenkill/ wherein was stated as follows on the subject:
POESTENKILL, N.Y. (NEWS10) – It has been more than two years since PFAS were found in Poestenkill drinking water and tonight NEWS10 was at a public meeting where a new water district is being presented followed by public comment.
Dozens filled the Poestenkill fire house as the Laberge group presented a $5.5 million solution to the unhealthy water supply.
Nearly 60% of that bill would be covered by grants, but that still leaves the town and residents on the hook for the rest.
It’s now causing sticker shock for many in this small community.
“People you are being flim flammed."
"You want to be flim flammed, go along with these people,” said Paul Plante.
It will cost all property owners nearly $1000 a year, whether they are connected to the system or not.
“The question is, is it affordable, are we paying the right cost?” asked Greg Pattenaude.
“$1,000 a year is quite an expense for some people,” said Terry D’Arcangelo.
“I’m a disabled veteran on a fixed income and I’m going to be driven off my property,” said Plante.
“Tomhannock reservoir is far more susceptible to PFA contamination then on our ground water supply,” said Plante.
end quotes
But nowhere does that article mention that the public hearing was held open.
WICC, the Water Insecurity Correction Coalition, also posted an article online https://yeswicc.com/news/let-public-vot ... aynbspnbsp on May 12, 2023 titled "LET PUBLIC VOTE ON PROPOSED NEW WATER DISTRICT, POESTENKILL RESIDENTS SAY" wherein was stated thusly:
POESTENKILL, NY – The Town Board held a well-attended public hearing on the proposed water district in Poestenkill yesterday.
Residents heard from the Laberge Group, the consulting agency that put together the proposed plan, before having the opportunity to raise concerns to the Board.
Terri-Lee Jacangelo, a resident who lives on Seneca Drive, expressed frustration with how long it has taken to propose a solution to the PFAS problem, given it has been two years since the contaminant was first found in Algonquin Middle School’s water supply.
“We don’t have final [cost] numbers out… is [the water district] going to go to the citizens to vote on?”
Greg Pattenaude spoke on behalf of the Concerned Citizens for Clean Water, telling the Board that “we believe clean water is important,” but emphasized that the “overhead does seem excessive.”
The Town of Poestenkill would have to take out a loan to pay for this, and residents within Water District 2 would be responsible for $405 per household every year.
Residents would also of course have to pay for the water they use on top of debt service payments.
Laberge estimated that the average household would use 73,000 gallons a year, which at the current water district rate would incur about $420 per home.
With an estimated $140 for operation and maintenance costs, the total price per home would be $965 a year.
In addition, homeowners would be responsible for the one-time cost of connecting the service line to their homes, a cost that Laberge’s proposal didn’t estimate.
The price tag of the switch from well water to public water seemed to be a chief concern for those residing within the proposed district.
Resident Paul Plante emphasized that once “the district is formed, then the cost of engineering shifts to us… I’m a disabled veteran on a fixed income.”
“Don’t put it out to a vote until the cost is significantly clarified,” said Dominic Jacangelo, former Town Supervisor and the construction supervisor for Poestenkill’s first water district.
If the Board moves forward with the proposed district, they say construction would commence this summer with the aim of completing it by December 2024.
Though the Board tabled the public hearing after all residents had a chance to speak, Supervisor Keith Hammond made a note to say that the hearing will be “ongoing” so residents have a continuous chance to talk and ask questions about the district as the process endures.
Hammond said that residents would be invited to speak again after next week’s public discussion on the state’s final report on PFAS contamination in the town.
end quotes
However, that never happened.
So where are we now?
Does anyone have a clue?
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
5 JANUARY 2024
TO: Poestenkill Town Clerk
FOR: The record
Please have the town record reflect the fact that at 5:27 AM this morning, 5 JANUARY 2024, as I stepped out of my front door to begin my day, which includes exercising my right pursuant to §8 of Article I, the Bill of Rights, of the New York State Constitution wherein is clearly stated that every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, including continuing to expose endemic corruption in Poestenkill as I have been doing with my series of newsletter article on the subject; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, as Poestenkill is and has been attempting to do with this intimidation and harassment, including Poestenkill code enforcer and civil rights violator Tracy Church enlisting the Sand Lake state police as his political goons and enforcers to come to my office in Sand Lake to intimidate and harass me on 6 February 2021, as was the case in January of 1990 when the state police acted in a similar capacity to cover up the Gary Horton vehicular assault on myself on 29 December 1989, and as was the case on the morning of August 22, 2001 when a New York State Police BCI named Chris O'Brien acted as a "mule" for Rensselaer County and Poestenkill to get a fraudulent New York State Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.39 and 9.40 incarceration order for myself to VA Police officer Arnold E. Kirkum at the Stratton VA in Albany so that on the morning of August 22, 2001, I was seized by VA personnel at Officer Kirkum's directive and placed into involuntary psychiatric custody on the tenth floor of the VA Hospital, in the custody of a Dr. Cox, to my detriment and harm in further retaliation for my attempt to expose corruption in Poestenkill, it was to see the Nazi concentration camp spotlights of Patricia Gettings come to life as she continues to stalk me and harass me, so that my land to the north of the Gettings compound was once again illuminated up into the treetops for a distance of several hundred yards, as once again, Gettings continues to prove that she is an untouchable in Poestenkill with immunity from the law, and to prove the truth of the promise made to me in 1988 by then-state police BCI captain Jerry Looney, a powerful Republican political figure in Rensselaer County that once labeled a "troublemaker" for going after corruption in Rensselaer County and Poestenkill, that there would be no protection of law for me for the remainder of my life,
As to §8 of Article I, the Bill of Rights, of the New York State Constitution, the term "every person" would include myself, as Poestenkill has absolutely no authority, jurisdiction or discretion to strip me of my constitutional rights for having had the temerity to take Poestenkill to court to successfully challenge the endemic corruption in this town, nor does Poestenkill have any authority, jurisdiction of discretion to strip me of the equal protection of law guaranteed me by §11 of Article I, the Bill of Rights, of the New York State Constitution which state that NO person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof, Poestenkill being a subdivision thereof.
As to the corruption in this town, no better example can be found than this sentence from the October 3, 2002 decision of Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield in my favor and against the town of Poestenkiill, represented in that matter by town attorney Patrick Tomaselli, in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 204938, where Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield wrote as follows concerning lawlessness and endemic corruption in Poestenkill, to wit:
Petitioner Pro Se, Paul R. Plante (Plante) commenced this Article 78 proceeding challenging and seeking to annul the respondent Planning Board of the Town of Poestenkill's (Poestenkill) April 3, 2002 resolution approving respondent Showers Enterprises, Inc.'s (Showers) application to subdivide property that is subject to a series of prior judicial determinations and determining that subdivision would have no environmental impact.
The administrative record here reflects Poestenkill's complicity with Showers and Valente in using the proposed subdivision as a means of avoiding SEQRA review by reducing the impact of the immediate proposal without inquiring into the possibility of further development at a later date.
end quotes
The word "complicity" is defined as "the state of being involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing," as in Poestenkill was guilty in that matter of being involved in some underhanded or illegal activity in that matter.
With respect to my exposure of endemic corruption in Poestenkill, and Poestenkill's complicity in crimes which is the basis of this on-going intimidation and harassment, I refer to a transcript decision of Supreme Court Justice Edward Spain dated March 28, 1994, in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Poestenkill Town Board, Jay F. Nish, Paul Sieloff, Nelson Armlin, Mark Dunlea and Kristine Legenbauer, Rensselaer County Index No. 179138, wherein Judge Spain annulled a resolution of the Poestenkill Town Board made on November 10, 1992 based upon facts stated under oath by myself in my pro se petition in that matter.
That happened to be the second confirmed willful violation of New York Penal Law § 175.40, entitled “Issuing a false certificate,” “(A) person is guilty of issuing a false certificate when, being a public servant authorized by law to make or issue official certificates or other official written instruments, and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another person, he issues such an instrument, or makes the same with intent that it be issued, knowing that it contains a false statement or false information,” a class E felony, by the corrupt Town of Poestenkill in a little more than a month, the first willful violation, another class E felony, being found at paragraph 18 of an April 25, 1996 sworn affidavit by myself to the New York State Appellate Court, as follows:
18. Annexed hereto as Exhibit D and made a part hereof is a February 15, 1994 decision of Honorable Edward O. Spain, J.S.C. in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 177914.
Having had two confirmed felonies by the corrupt Town of Poestenkill brought before him by myself caused Judge Spain some consternation because in New York State, a Supreme Court judge can determine that indeed a felony has been committed, but lacks the authority, jurisdiction and discretion to order that the felonies be prosecuted, nor can a Supreme Court Justice unilaterally protect a person like myself from the political retaliation that followed and continues to this day.
Paul R. Plante, NYSPE
TO: Poestenkill Town Clerk
FOR: The record
Please have the town record reflect the fact that at 5:27 AM this morning, 5 JANUARY 2024, as I stepped out of my front door to begin my day, which includes exercising my right pursuant to §8 of Article I, the Bill of Rights, of the New York State Constitution wherein is clearly stated that every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, including continuing to expose endemic corruption in Poestenkill as I have been doing with my series of newsletter article on the subject; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, as Poestenkill is and has been attempting to do with this intimidation and harassment, including Poestenkill code enforcer and civil rights violator Tracy Church enlisting the Sand Lake state police as his political goons and enforcers to come to my office in Sand Lake to intimidate and harass me on 6 February 2021, as was the case in January of 1990 when the state police acted in a similar capacity to cover up the Gary Horton vehicular assault on myself on 29 December 1989, and as was the case on the morning of August 22, 2001 when a New York State Police BCI named Chris O'Brien acted as a "mule" for Rensselaer County and Poestenkill to get a fraudulent New York State Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.39 and 9.40 incarceration order for myself to VA Police officer Arnold E. Kirkum at the Stratton VA in Albany so that on the morning of August 22, 2001, I was seized by VA personnel at Officer Kirkum's directive and placed into involuntary psychiatric custody on the tenth floor of the VA Hospital, in the custody of a Dr. Cox, to my detriment and harm in further retaliation for my attempt to expose corruption in Poestenkill, it was to see the Nazi concentration camp spotlights of Patricia Gettings come to life as she continues to stalk me and harass me, so that my land to the north of the Gettings compound was once again illuminated up into the treetops for a distance of several hundred yards, as once again, Gettings continues to prove that she is an untouchable in Poestenkill with immunity from the law, and to prove the truth of the promise made to me in 1988 by then-state police BCI captain Jerry Looney, a powerful Republican political figure in Rensselaer County that once labeled a "troublemaker" for going after corruption in Rensselaer County and Poestenkill, that there would be no protection of law for me for the remainder of my life,
As to §8 of Article I, the Bill of Rights, of the New York State Constitution, the term "every person" would include myself, as Poestenkill has absolutely no authority, jurisdiction or discretion to strip me of my constitutional rights for having had the temerity to take Poestenkill to court to successfully challenge the endemic corruption in this town, nor does Poestenkill have any authority, jurisdiction of discretion to strip me of the equal protection of law guaranteed me by §11 of Article I, the Bill of Rights, of the New York State Constitution which state that NO person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof, Poestenkill being a subdivision thereof.
As to the corruption in this town, no better example can be found than this sentence from the October 3, 2002 decision of Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield in my favor and against the town of Poestenkiill, represented in that matter by town attorney Patrick Tomaselli, in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 204938, where Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield wrote as follows concerning lawlessness and endemic corruption in Poestenkill, to wit:
Petitioner Pro Se, Paul R. Plante (Plante) commenced this Article 78 proceeding challenging and seeking to annul the respondent Planning Board of the Town of Poestenkill's (Poestenkill) April 3, 2002 resolution approving respondent Showers Enterprises, Inc.'s (Showers) application to subdivide property that is subject to a series of prior judicial determinations and determining that subdivision would have no environmental impact.
The administrative record here reflects Poestenkill's complicity with Showers and Valente in using the proposed subdivision as a means of avoiding SEQRA review by reducing the impact of the immediate proposal without inquiring into the possibility of further development at a later date.
end quotes
The word "complicity" is defined as "the state of being involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing," as in Poestenkill was guilty in that matter of being involved in some underhanded or illegal activity in that matter.
With respect to my exposure of endemic corruption in Poestenkill, and Poestenkill's complicity in crimes which is the basis of this on-going intimidation and harassment, I refer to a transcript decision of Supreme Court Justice Edward Spain dated March 28, 1994, in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Poestenkill Town Board, Jay F. Nish, Paul Sieloff, Nelson Armlin, Mark Dunlea and Kristine Legenbauer, Rensselaer County Index No. 179138, wherein Judge Spain annulled a resolution of the Poestenkill Town Board made on November 10, 1992 based upon facts stated under oath by myself in my pro se petition in that matter.
That happened to be the second confirmed willful violation of New York Penal Law § 175.40, entitled “Issuing a false certificate,” “(A) person is guilty of issuing a false certificate when, being a public servant authorized by law to make or issue official certificates or other official written instruments, and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another person, he issues such an instrument, or makes the same with intent that it be issued, knowing that it contains a false statement or false information,” a class E felony, by the corrupt Town of Poestenkill in a little more than a month, the first willful violation, another class E felony, being found at paragraph 18 of an April 25, 1996 sworn affidavit by myself to the New York State Appellate Court, as follows:
18. Annexed hereto as Exhibit D and made a part hereof is a February 15, 1994 decision of Honorable Edward O. Spain, J.S.C. in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 177914.
Having had two confirmed felonies by the corrupt Town of Poestenkill brought before him by myself caused Judge Spain some consternation because in New York State, a Supreme Court judge can determine that indeed a felony has been committed, but lacks the authority, jurisdiction and discretion to order that the felonies be prosecuted, nor can a Supreme Court Justice unilaterally protect a person like myself from the political retaliation that followed and continues to this day.
Paul R. Plante, NYSPE
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 5th 2024 Edition
"YOUTUBE VIDEOS OF TOWN BOARD MEETINGS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS"
In response to the YouTube video of the September 14, 2023 Poestenkill Town Board Meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiTSiQs53aw being listed as "This video isn't available anymore," I sent off an inquiry to the New York State Committee On Open Government, something we are sorely lacking here in Poestenkill, asking for a determination as to whether or not those YouTube videos are considered "public records," as opposed to the personal property of the Poestenkill town supervisor and his political cronies on the town board to do with as they please, as if it were they who were the "law" in Poestenkill, instead of what is written in the statutes governing their conduct.
The response I received back is as follows, to wit:
The Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) defines “records” expansively to mean “any information kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced by, with, or for an agency” [FOIL § 86(4)]. As such, a recording of an open meeting by the Town would constitute a record subject to rights of access under the Law.
As to who caused that video to be taken down, in all likelihood we will never know, but the list of suspects is a short one, consisting of Hammond planning board chairman Tom Russell, now the supervisor, Hammond crony, political running mate and zoning board chairman Frank Burzesi, now a councilperson, self-appointed Poestenkill "chief fiscal officer" and councilman David Hass, councilman Eric Wohlleber, and councilperson June Butler, all of whom have been members of the Poestenkill town board since at least January of 2017, and Poestenkill's conflicted town attorney Andy Gilchrist.
Nor is this playing games with town records anything new in this town with its long and well-established record of corruption, as we see in an October 8, 2013 communication from then-supervisor Dominic Jacangelo to myself wherein was stated as follows:
Dear Mr. Plante:
Thank you for your letter of 10-4-2013 regarding various issues that came up during the Town Planning Board meeting at which you spoke.
I sought out the tape that you referred to in your letter.
It appears, although a recorder was in the room, it did not record the meeting.
end quotes
To which absurdity I responded on 1 November 2013, as follows:
RE: Town Planning Board; 1 October 2013 Public Hearing on Pelletier; Discriminatory Town Policy; your email of 8 October 2013
Dear Mr. Supervisor:
First of all, let me apologize for not getting back to you sooner concerning your 8 October 2013 email to me wherein you stated as follows for the record:
"I sought out the tape that you referred to in your letter."
"It appears, although a recorder was in the room, it did not record the meeting."
" I will review the minutes once they are distributed."
end quote
For the record, the tape I referred to in my letter to you of 4 October 2013 was the tape recording of the Pelletier public hearing before the Poestenkill Planning Board on 1 October 2013.
I must say that I find myself perplexed as to how that audio tape could have disappeared as you are implying it did, since I was sitting right there in the front row at the public hearing in Poestenkill Town Hall when Planning Board Chairman David Loucks was setting up the tape recorder to record the public hearing.
Like others in the room, I saw the red light on the tape recorder indicating that it was on and recording.
So it is quite disturbing to now hear from your office that a tape recording of that public hearing, which was little more than a farce, does not now exist.
That should be grounds for holding a new public hearing.
***************************************
Another issue of importance raised on that tape was that the Zwack subdivision under consideration by the Planning Board at the 1 October 2013 public hearing was in fact a realty subdivision by definition, so by leaving some lot lines off the map under review, the Planning Board could pull a fast one on the public by claiming that the map didn't show a realty subdivision, even though the subdivision proposal itself made it incandescently clear that what the Planning Board actually had before it for review was a realty subdivision.
Thus, it appears that in that 1 October 2013 public hearing, the Poestenkill Planning Board was up to its old tricks again as outlined in an October 3, 2002 decision of Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield in the Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 204938, wherein Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield wrote of the Poestenkill Planning Board finagling as follows:
Poestenkill's extremely casual approach to determining environmental impact also bears notice.
The administrative record here reflects Poestenkill's complicity with Showers and Valente in using the proposed subdivision as a means of avoiding SEQRA review by reducing the impact of the immediate proposal without inquiring into the possibility of further development at a later date.
Regardless of Showers and Valente's misinformation, Poestenkill's determination of no environmental impact would have to be rejected based on Poestenkill's failure to even give the appearance of complying with SEQRA.
end quote
I of course draw your attention to the word "complicity".
This same complicity is exactly what happened at the 1 October 2013 Pelletier public hearing, and now, you are telling us citizens out here in the Town that somehow, in some mysterious way, the tape recording of that public hearing has now disappeared.
Well, Mr. Supervisor, as a citizen/resident of this town, I find that completely unacceptable, and I would like an explantation as to how that tape came to disappear.
And since that tape has disappeared, and with it the true record of what really did transpire at that public hearing, including Poestenkill Zoning Board member Kevin McGrath screaming at me in a violent manner to "shut my mouth", as if he was going to come over and shut it for me if I did not stop challenging the nature of the proceeding and the fact that the map before the board did not match the subdivision under consideration, there should now be another public hearing held to re-establish that record, especially as there are also still charges pending in the Town that Pelletier is a "protected person" in Poestenkill exempt from having to abide by the law and the Land-Use Code of the Town of Poestenkill.
end quotes
There is the game Poestenkill plays to thwart dissent and to protect corruption, by denying individuals a record upon which to base an Article 78 against the town on, and for the record, the word "complicity" is defined as "the state of being involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing," as in Poestenkill was guilty in that matter of being involved in some underhanded or illegal activity in that matter.
With respect to my exposure of endemic corruption in Poestenkill, and Poestenkill's complicity in crimes, I refer to a transcript decision of Supreme Court Justice Edward Spain dated March 28, 1994, in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Poestenkill Town Board, Jay F. Nish, Paul Sieloff, Nelson Armlin, Mark Dunlea and Kristine Legenbauer, Rensselaer County Index No. 179138, wherein Judge Spain annulled a resolution of the Poestenkill Town Board made on November 10, 1992 based upon facts stated under oath by myself in my pro se petition in that matter.
That happened to be the second confirmed willful violation of New York Penal Law § 175.40, entitled “Issuing a false certificate,” “(A) person is guilty of issuing a false certificate when, being a public servant authorized by law to make or issue official certificates or other official written instruments, and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another person, he issues such an instrument, or makes the same with intent that it be issued, knowing that it contains a false statement or false information,” a class E felony, by the corrupt Town of Poestenkill in a little more than a month, the first willful violation, another class E felony, being found at paragraph 18 of an April 25, 1996 sworn affidavit by myself to the New York State Appellate Court, as follows:
18. Annexed hereto as Exhibit D and made a part hereof is a February 15, 1994 decision of Honorable Edward O. Spain, J.S.C. in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 177914.
Having had two confirmed felonies by the corrupt Town of Poestenkill brought before him by myself caused Judge Spain some consternation because in New York State, a Supreme Court judge can determine that indeed a felony has been committed, but lacks the authority, jurisdiction and discretion to order that the felonies be prosecuted.
And such is Poestenkill's established criminal history that it protects to this day by playing these games with official town records by denying us access to the records we need to seek redress of grievance, which raises the question of why it is so tolerated by the people of Poestenkill.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 5th 2024 Edition
"YOUTUBE VIDEOS OF TOWN BOARD MEETINGS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS"
In response to the YouTube video of the September 14, 2023 Poestenkill Town Board Meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiTSiQs53aw being listed as "This video isn't available anymore," I sent off an inquiry to the New York State Committee On Open Government, something we are sorely lacking here in Poestenkill, asking for a determination as to whether or not those YouTube videos are considered "public records," as opposed to the personal property of the Poestenkill town supervisor and his political cronies on the town board to do with as they please, as if it were they who were the "law" in Poestenkill, instead of what is written in the statutes governing their conduct.
The response I received back is as follows, to wit:
The Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) defines “records” expansively to mean “any information kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced by, with, or for an agency” [FOIL § 86(4)]. As such, a recording of an open meeting by the Town would constitute a record subject to rights of access under the Law.
As to who caused that video to be taken down, in all likelihood we will never know, but the list of suspects is a short one, consisting of Hammond planning board chairman Tom Russell, now the supervisor, Hammond crony, political running mate and zoning board chairman Frank Burzesi, now a councilperson, self-appointed Poestenkill "chief fiscal officer" and councilman David Hass, councilman Eric Wohlleber, and councilperson June Butler, all of whom have been members of the Poestenkill town board since at least January of 2017, and Poestenkill's conflicted town attorney Andy Gilchrist.
Nor is this playing games with town records anything new in this town with its long and well-established record of corruption, as we see in an October 8, 2013 communication from then-supervisor Dominic Jacangelo to myself wherein was stated as follows:
Dear Mr. Plante:
Thank you for your letter of 10-4-2013 regarding various issues that came up during the Town Planning Board meeting at which you spoke.
I sought out the tape that you referred to in your letter.
It appears, although a recorder was in the room, it did not record the meeting.
end quotes
To which absurdity I responded on 1 November 2013, as follows:
RE: Town Planning Board; 1 October 2013 Public Hearing on Pelletier; Discriminatory Town Policy; your email of 8 October 2013
Dear Mr. Supervisor:
First of all, let me apologize for not getting back to you sooner concerning your 8 October 2013 email to me wherein you stated as follows for the record:
"I sought out the tape that you referred to in your letter."
"It appears, although a recorder was in the room, it did not record the meeting."
" I will review the minutes once they are distributed."
end quote
For the record, the tape I referred to in my letter to you of 4 October 2013 was the tape recording of the Pelletier public hearing before the Poestenkill Planning Board on 1 October 2013.
I must say that I find myself perplexed as to how that audio tape could have disappeared as you are implying it did, since I was sitting right there in the front row at the public hearing in Poestenkill Town Hall when Planning Board Chairman David Loucks was setting up the tape recorder to record the public hearing.
Like others in the room, I saw the red light on the tape recorder indicating that it was on and recording.
So it is quite disturbing to now hear from your office that a tape recording of that public hearing, which was little more than a farce, does not now exist.
That should be grounds for holding a new public hearing.
***************************************
Another issue of importance raised on that tape was that the Zwack subdivision under consideration by the Planning Board at the 1 October 2013 public hearing was in fact a realty subdivision by definition, so by leaving some lot lines off the map under review, the Planning Board could pull a fast one on the public by claiming that the map didn't show a realty subdivision, even though the subdivision proposal itself made it incandescently clear that what the Planning Board actually had before it for review was a realty subdivision.
Thus, it appears that in that 1 October 2013 public hearing, the Poestenkill Planning Board was up to its old tricks again as outlined in an October 3, 2002 decision of Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield in the Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 204938, wherein Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield wrote of the Poestenkill Planning Board finagling as follows:
Poestenkill's extremely casual approach to determining environmental impact also bears notice.
The administrative record here reflects Poestenkill's complicity with Showers and Valente in using the proposed subdivision as a means of avoiding SEQRA review by reducing the impact of the immediate proposal without inquiring into the possibility of further development at a later date.
Regardless of Showers and Valente's misinformation, Poestenkill's determination of no environmental impact would have to be rejected based on Poestenkill's failure to even give the appearance of complying with SEQRA.
end quote
I of course draw your attention to the word "complicity".
This same complicity is exactly what happened at the 1 October 2013 Pelletier public hearing, and now, you are telling us citizens out here in the Town that somehow, in some mysterious way, the tape recording of that public hearing has now disappeared.
Well, Mr. Supervisor, as a citizen/resident of this town, I find that completely unacceptable, and I would like an explantation as to how that tape came to disappear.
And since that tape has disappeared, and with it the true record of what really did transpire at that public hearing, including Poestenkill Zoning Board member Kevin McGrath screaming at me in a violent manner to "shut my mouth", as if he was going to come over and shut it for me if I did not stop challenging the nature of the proceeding and the fact that the map before the board did not match the subdivision under consideration, there should now be another public hearing held to re-establish that record, especially as there are also still charges pending in the Town that Pelletier is a "protected person" in Poestenkill exempt from having to abide by the law and the Land-Use Code of the Town of Poestenkill.
end quotes
There is the game Poestenkill plays to thwart dissent and to protect corruption, by denying individuals a record upon which to base an Article 78 against the town on, and for the record, the word "complicity" is defined as "the state of being involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing," as in Poestenkill was guilty in that matter of being involved in some underhanded or illegal activity in that matter.
With respect to my exposure of endemic corruption in Poestenkill, and Poestenkill's complicity in crimes, I refer to a transcript decision of Supreme Court Justice Edward Spain dated March 28, 1994, in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Poestenkill Town Board, Jay F. Nish, Paul Sieloff, Nelson Armlin, Mark Dunlea and Kristine Legenbauer, Rensselaer County Index No. 179138, wherein Judge Spain annulled a resolution of the Poestenkill Town Board made on November 10, 1992 based upon facts stated under oath by myself in my pro se petition in that matter.
That happened to be the second confirmed willful violation of New York Penal Law § 175.40, entitled “Issuing a false certificate,” “(A) person is guilty of issuing a false certificate when, being a public servant authorized by law to make or issue official certificates or other official written instruments, and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another person, he issues such an instrument, or makes the same with intent that it be issued, knowing that it contains a false statement or false information,” a class E felony, by the corrupt Town of Poestenkill in a little more than a month, the first willful violation, another class E felony, being found at paragraph 18 of an April 25, 1996 sworn affidavit by myself to the New York State Appellate Court, as follows:
18. Annexed hereto as Exhibit D and made a part hereof is a February 15, 1994 decision of Honorable Edward O. Spain, J.S.C. in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 177914.
Having had two confirmed felonies by the corrupt Town of Poestenkill brought before him by myself caused Judge Spain some consternation because in New York State, a Supreme Court judge can determine that indeed a felony has been committed, but lacks the authority, jurisdiction and discretion to order that the felonies be prosecuted.
And such is Poestenkill's established criminal history that it protects to this day by playing these games with official town records by denying us access to the records we need to seek redress of grievance, which raises the question of why it is so tolerated by the people of Poestenkill.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
12 JANUARY 2024
TO: Poestenkill Town Clerk
FOR: The record
Please have the town record reflect the fact that at 5:13 AM this morning, 12 JANUARY 2024, as I stepped out of my front door to begin my day, which includes exercising my right pursuant to §8 of Article I, the Bill of Rights, of the New York State Constitution wherein is clearly stated that every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, including continuing to expose endemic corruption in Poestenkill as I have been doing with my series of newsletter article on the subject; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, as Poestenkill is and has been attempting to do with this intimidation and harassment, including Poestenkill code enforcer and civil rights violator Tracy Church enlisting the Sand Lake state police as his political goons and enforcers to come to my office in Sand Lake to intimidate and harass me on 6 February 2021, as was the case again in January of 1990 when the state police acted in a similar capacity to cover up the Gary Horton vehicular assault on myself on 29 December 1989, and as was the case on the morning of August 22, 2001 when a New York State Police BCI named Chris O'Brien covered up an assault ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89m5TEuu3M ) on myself by Jeffrey Pelletier, a "PROTECTED PERSON" in Poestenkill and then acted as a "mule" for Rensselaer County and Poestenkill to get a fraudulent New York State Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.39 and 9.40 incarceration order for myself to VA Police officer Arnold E. Kirkum at the Stratton VA in Albany so that on the morning of August 22, 2001, I was seized by VA personnel at Officer Kirkum's directive and placed into involuntary psychiatric custody on the tenth floor of the VA Hospital, in the custody of a Dr. Cox, to my detriment and harm in further retaliation for my attempt to expose corruption in Poestenkill, it was to see the Nazi concentration camp spotlights of Patricia Gettings come to life as she continues to stalk me and harass me, so that my land to the north of the Gettings compound was once again illuminated up into the treetops for a distance of several hundred yards, as once again, Gettings continues to prove that she is an untouchable in Poestenkill with immunity from the law, and to prove the truth of the promise made to me in 1988 by then-state police BCI captain Jerry Looney, a powerful Republican political figure in Rensselaer County that once labeled a "troublemaker" for going after corruption in Rensselaer County and Poestenkill, that there would be no protection of law for me for the remainder of my life.
Paul R. Plante, NYSPE
TO: Poestenkill Town Clerk
FOR: The record
Please have the town record reflect the fact that at 5:13 AM this morning, 12 JANUARY 2024, as I stepped out of my front door to begin my day, which includes exercising my right pursuant to §8 of Article I, the Bill of Rights, of the New York State Constitution wherein is clearly stated that every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, including continuing to expose endemic corruption in Poestenkill as I have been doing with my series of newsletter article on the subject; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, as Poestenkill is and has been attempting to do with this intimidation and harassment, including Poestenkill code enforcer and civil rights violator Tracy Church enlisting the Sand Lake state police as his political goons and enforcers to come to my office in Sand Lake to intimidate and harass me on 6 February 2021, as was the case again in January of 1990 when the state police acted in a similar capacity to cover up the Gary Horton vehicular assault on myself on 29 December 1989, and as was the case on the morning of August 22, 2001 when a New York State Police BCI named Chris O'Brien covered up an assault ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89m5TEuu3M ) on myself by Jeffrey Pelletier, a "PROTECTED PERSON" in Poestenkill and then acted as a "mule" for Rensselaer County and Poestenkill to get a fraudulent New York State Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.39 and 9.40 incarceration order for myself to VA Police officer Arnold E. Kirkum at the Stratton VA in Albany so that on the morning of August 22, 2001, I was seized by VA personnel at Officer Kirkum's directive and placed into involuntary psychiatric custody on the tenth floor of the VA Hospital, in the custody of a Dr. Cox, to my detriment and harm in further retaliation for my attempt to expose corruption in Poestenkill, it was to see the Nazi concentration camp spotlights of Patricia Gettings come to life as she continues to stalk me and harass me, so that my land to the north of the Gettings compound was once again illuminated up into the treetops for a distance of several hundred yards, as once again, Gettings continues to prove that she is an untouchable in Poestenkill with immunity from the law, and to prove the truth of the promise made to me in 1988 by then-state police BCI captain Jerry Looney, a powerful Republican political figure in Rensselaer County that once labeled a "troublemaker" for going after corruption in Rensselaer County and Poestenkill, that there would be no protection of law for me for the remainder of my life.
Paul R. Plante, NYSPE
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 14th 2024 Edition
"THE CHANGE OF NO CHANGE IN POESTENKILL - CRONYISM AND CORRUPTION TO CONTINUE UNABATED VOWS DEMOCRAT RUSSELL"
Anyone in Poestenkill who thought that replacing the reviled Keith Hammond with his political crony Democrat Tom Russell, Hammond's planning board chairman and fellow member of Keith's Poestenkill Businessman's Protective Association, was going to result in any changes in the manner in which Poestenkill, by definition a "corrupt enterprise," is "governed" is in for a rude awakening, as the newly elected supervisor, who is continuing Poestenkill's policy of crushing dissent through intimidation and retaliation using the code enforcement officer, Church, and the state police, as his goons and enforcers, has made crystal clear to this writer, while those in Poestenkill who knew all along that Russell would be no different than Keith Hammond are giddy with glee with the knowledge that business as usual in Poestenkill will continue unabated with Russell now at the helm in place of Hammond.
Thus, the change of no change at all in terms of how Poestenkill government is run.
This writer's experience with Mr. Russell, who at no time in this writer's knowledge, has ever actually stood for anything, while never standing against anything, specifically, the corrupt manner in which this town is governed, goes back to early October of 2021, when Mr. Russell appeared in my driveway to ask me to support his bid for town supervisor.
Thereafter, in a 6 October 2021 writing to Mr. Russell, I memorialized that visit, as follows, to wit:
As you will recall, on Saturday, 2 October 2021, you came to my home to introduce yourself, and to ask me for my vote for your bid to replace your fellow Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association member Keith Hammond as our next town supervisor.
As you will clearly recall, at the outset, I asked you about your views concerning RULE OF LAW in Poestenkill, asking you, "should we have it," to which question you demurred, as if in your opinion, RULE OF LAW was merely a fool's wish, and wasn't applicable to politics in the real world of Poestenkill, New York today, from the perspective of the Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association.
As you will clearly recall, I told you that if the town of Poestenkill were a person, it would be doing hard time in a prison as a habitual offender, three strikes and you're out, two of them being by the Planning Board of which, as a member of the Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association, a prerequisite to being a planning board member, you are also a member of, consistent with the "BUSINESS FRIENDLY" policy of the Poestenkill town board which has resulted in this contamination of our drinking water over here in what is considered the "WHITE TRASH" section of Poestenkill, and I told you that if this water contamination had stayed here on the wrong side of Rt. 66, you would have never heard a peep about it.
With respect to the CULTURE OF CORRUPTION in Poestenkill I asked you your feelings about, i.e., did you intend to put an end to it, or to continue to protect and nurture it as the next town supervisor, when you asked if I had proof that a CULTURE OF CORRUPTION actually existed in Poestenkill, I gave you a copy of an October 3, 2002 decision of Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield in the Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 204938, where Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield wrote as follows concerning the CULTURE OF CORRUPTION in Poestenkill we talked about in my driveway on 2 October 2021, to wit:
Poestenkill's extremely casual approach to determining environmental impact also bears notice.
end quotes
That is Poestenkill's "HARDLY LOOK" policy to which we owe this contamination in our drinking water.
Getting back to Judge Canfield and ENDEMIC CORRUPTION in Poestenkill, he continues thusly:
The administrative record here reflects Poestenkill's complicity with Showers and Valente in using the proposed subdivision as a means of avoiding SEQRA review by reducing the impact of the immediate proposal without inquiring into the possibility of further development at a later date.
end quotes
Since words used by a judge like Justice Canfield have real-word meanings in a court of criminal law, note the word "complicity," Mr. Russell, as used by Judge Canfield, a former Rensselaer County District Attorney, where "complicity" means "the state of being involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing."
That is CORRUPTION, Mr. Russell, and you actually have come across as being much more its defender than something for corruption to be at all afraid of, which takes us back to Judge Canfield as follows:
Regardless of Showers and Valente's misinformation, Poestenkill's determination of no environmental impact would have to be rejected based on Poestenkill's failure to even give the appearance of complying with SEQRA.
end quote
And that all brings us forward to your recent statement to me as a town official that you disagree with my proposal that Eric Wohlleber thinks we townfolks are stupid, stating instead that you believe that Eric Wohlleber is trying to bring attention to the PFOA situation in an attempt to rapidly accelerate the testing and remediation process to assist impacted Town Residents, and you further believe former Obama-era EPA Administrator Judith Enck is a most valuable resource due to her Environmental experience and ability to get the attention of local media to bring pressure on the respective State & County Agencies to initiate action now, not somewhere in the future, and you realize that I & Bob Brunet have a long history based on my E/mails and articles in the Advertiser but that you talk with Bob approx twice a week to be constantly updated on activity by the RenssCo. DOH and now the State, and to continue to voice my thoughts and concerns because you will listen, leaving open the question of whether or not you will hear anything.
So, then talk about confusion reigning, misinformation flowing, and ignorance on display, that is how the "media circus" and political dog-and-pony show staged by Poestenkill Councilman Eric Wohlleber starring former Obama-era EPA administrator Judy Enck on 27 September 2021 in Poestenkill would have to be described, which is something I recall we both firmly agreed on, on 2 October 2021, when we talked about you dealing with the lies and corruption in this town as supervisor, which frankly, I think you are politically incapable of doing since you are also an active member of the Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association, which Protective sees corruption in this town as a matter of right, it has existed so long, nothing being more worthless in Poestenkill than a book of law and a Supreme Court decision outlining corruption in Poestenkill, as Judge Canfield did in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 204938.
Going back to that farce on 27 September 2021, first off, as you will clearly recall, having been there yourself, we had Poestenkill water manager Bob Brunet telling us, in reference to the PFOA contamination in the groundwater in Poestenkill, "These problems are caused by wells," which has to be one of the most ridiculous statements ever to come out of what passes for "government" in Poestenkill.
Then we had Judy Enck, who was invited to speak by Poestenkill councilman Eric Wohlleber, and who you think very highly of, telling us "I think the state agencies have to be in the lead because they're far more experienced and have more resources than the county, I think they need to drive this process.”
And that was followed by Poestenkill councilman Eric Wohlleber himself undermining his own witness Judy Enck by stating "I have zero confidence in DOH and DEC, I feel like they have not learned their lesson from Hoosick Falls."
So tell us, Mr. Russell, who are we to believe?
Both of them?
And then we had Bob Brunet telling us, after blaming the problems on our wells, "connect to our water from Troy, I've done all sorts of elevation calculation of mileage calculators, fully feasible, can be done," this at the same time we are reading on the town propaganda site as follows: We now have full pressure through MOST of the water district.
Keeping in mind that the present water district only covers a portion of the town and would have to be extended, that is an admission by the Town that the present existing water district already has an inadequate public water supply, and I am hearing complaints from residents in the existing water district about pressure problems in the morning when everyone is up and getting ready for work.
So how does Bob Brunet think it is feasible to extend it?
To date, no answers!
WHY, Mr. Russell?
Which is simply another serious question for you to duck.
end quotes
As The Who once sang, "see the new boss, same as the old boss," and so it is in Poestenkill today.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 14th 2024 Edition
"THE CHANGE OF NO CHANGE IN POESTENKILL - CRONYISM AND CORRUPTION TO CONTINUE UNABATED VOWS DEMOCRAT RUSSELL"
Anyone in Poestenkill who thought that replacing the reviled Keith Hammond with his political crony Democrat Tom Russell, Hammond's planning board chairman and fellow member of Keith's Poestenkill Businessman's Protective Association, was going to result in any changes in the manner in which Poestenkill, by definition a "corrupt enterprise," is "governed" is in for a rude awakening, as the newly elected supervisor, who is continuing Poestenkill's policy of crushing dissent through intimidation and retaliation using the code enforcement officer, Church, and the state police, as his goons and enforcers, has made crystal clear to this writer, while those in Poestenkill who knew all along that Russell would be no different than Keith Hammond are giddy with glee with the knowledge that business as usual in Poestenkill will continue unabated with Russell now at the helm in place of Hammond.
Thus, the change of no change at all in terms of how Poestenkill government is run.
This writer's experience with Mr. Russell, who at no time in this writer's knowledge, has ever actually stood for anything, while never standing against anything, specifically, the corrupt manner in which this town is governed, goes back to early October of 2021, when Mr. Russell appeared in my driveway to ask me to support his bid for town supervisor.
Thereafter, in a 6 October 2021 writing to Mr. Russell, I memorialized that visit, as follows, to wit:
As you will recall, on Saturday, 2 October 2021, you came to my home to introduce yourself, and to ask me for my vote for your bid to replace your fellow Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association member Keith Hammond as our next town supervisor.
As you will clearly recall, at the outset, I asked you about your views concerning RULE OF LAW in Poestenkill, asking you, "should we have it," to which question you demurred, as if in your opinion, RULE OF LAW was merely a fool's wish, and wasn't applicable to politics in the real world of Poestenkill, New York today, from the perspective of the Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association.
As you will clearly recall, I told you that if the town of Poestenkill were a person, it would be doing hard time in a prison as a habitual offender, three strikes and you're out, two of them being by the Planning Board of which, as a member of the Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association, a prerequisite to being a planning board member, you are also a member of, consistent with the "BUSINESS FRIENDLY" policy of the Poestenkill town board which has resulted in this contamination of our drinking water over here in what is considered the "WHITE TRASH" section of Poestenkill, and I told you that if this water contamination had stayed here on the wrong side of Rt. 66, you would have never heard a peep about it.
With respect to the CULTURE OF CORRUPTION in Poestenkill I asked you your feelings about, i.e., did you intend to put an end to it, or to continue to protect and nurture it as the next town supervisor, when you asked if I had proof that a CULTURE OF CORRUPTION actually existed in Poestenkill, I gave you a copy of an October 3, 2002 decision of Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield in the Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 204938, where Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield wrote as follows concerning the CULTURE OF CORRUPTION in Poestenkill we talked about in my driveway on 2 October 2021, to wit:
Poestenkill's extremely casual approach to determining environmental impact also bears notice.
end quotes
That is Poestenkill's "HARDLY LOOK" policy to which we owe this contamination in our drinking water.
Getting back to Judge Canfield and ENDEMIC CORRUPTION in Poestenkill, he continues thusly:
The administrative record here reflects Poestenkill's complicity with Showers and Valente in using the proposed subdivision as a means of avoiding SEQRA review by reducing the impact of the immediate proposal without inquiring into the possibility of further development at a later date.
end quotes
Since words used by a judge like Justice Canfield have real-word meanings in a court of criminal law, note the word "complicity," Mr. Russell, as used by Judge Canfield, a former Rensselaer County District Attorney, where "complicity" means "the state of being involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing."
That is CORRUPTION, Mr. Russell, and you actually have come across as being much more its defender than something for corruption to be at all afraid of, which takes us back to Judge Canfield as follows:
Regardless of Showers and Valente's misinformation, Poestenkill's determination of no environmental impact would have to be rejected based on Poestenkill's failure to even give the appearance of complying with SEQRA.
end quote
And that all brings us forward to your recent statement to me as a town official that you disagree with my proposal that Eric Wohlleber thinks we townfolks are stupid, stating instead that you believe that Eric Wohlleber is trying to bring attention to the PFOA situation in an attempt to rapidly accelerate the testing and remediation process to assist impacted Town Residents, and you further believe former Obama-era EPA Administrator Judith Enck is a most valuable resource due to her Environmental experience and ability to get the attention of local media to bring pressure on the respective State & County Agencies to initiate action now, not somewhere in the future, and you realize that I & Bob Brunet have a long history based on my E/mails and articles in the Advertiser but that you talk with Bob approx twice a week to be constantly updated on activity by the RenssCo. DOH and now the State, and to continue to voice my thoughts and concerns because you will listen, leaving open the question of whether or not you will hear anything.
So, then talk about confusion reigning, misinformation flowing, and ignorance on display, that is how the "media circus" and political dog-and-pony show staged by Poestenkill Councilman Eric Wohlleber starring former Obama-era EPA administrator Judy Enck on 27 September 2021 in Poestenkill would have to be described, which is something I recall we both firmly agreed on, on 2 October 2021, when we talked about you dealing with the lies and corruption in this town as supervisor, which frankly, I think you are politically incapable of doing since you are also an active member of the Poestenkill Businessmen's Protective Association, which Protective sees corruption in this town as a matter of right, it has existed so long, nothing being more worthless in Poestenkill than a book of law and a Supreme Court decision outlining corruption in Poestenkill, as Judge Canfield did in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 204938.
Going back to that farce on 27 September 2021, first off, as you will clearly recall, having been there yourself, we had Poestenkill water manager Bob Brunet telling us, in reference to the PFOA contamination in the groundwater in Poestenkill, "These problems are caused by wells," which has to be one of the most ridiculous statements ever to come out of what passes for "government" in Poestenkill.
Then we had Judy Enck, who was invited to speak by Poestenkill councilman Eric Wohlleber, and who you think very highly of, telling us "I think the state agencies have to be in the lead because they're far more experienced and have more resources than the county, I think they need to drive this process.”
And that was followed by Poestenkill councilman Eric Wohlleber himself undermining his own witness Judy Enck by stating "I have zero confidence in DOH and DEC, I feel like they have not learned their lesson from Hoosick Falls."
So tell us, Mr. Russell, who are we to believe?
Both of them?
And then we had Bob Brunet telling us, after blaming the problems on our wells, "connect to our water from Troy, I've done all sorts of elevation calculation of mileage calculators, fully feasible, can be done," this at the same time we are reading on the town propaganda site as follows: We now have full pressure through MOST of the water district.
Keeping in mind that the present water district only covers a portion of the town and would have to be extended, that is an admission by the Town that the present existing water district already has an inadequate public water supply, and I am hearing complaints from residents in the existing water district about pressure problems in the morning when everyone is up and getting ready for work.
So how does Bob Brunet think it is feasible to extend it?
To date, no answers!
WHY, Mr. Russell?
Which is simply another serious question for you to duck.
end quotes
As The Who once sang, "see the new boss, same as the old boss," and so it is in Poestenkill today.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 15th 2024 Edition
"ON CRONYISM IN POESTENKILL"
The term "cronyism" is a term that can have several different meanings dependent upon the specific circumstances the term is used in.
Basically, "cronyism" is a specific form of in-group favoritism, as in the spoils system practice of partiality in awarding jobs and other advantages to friends or trusted colleagues, especially in politics, or between politicians and supportive organizations like the Poestenkill Businessman's Protective Association.
By way of example, cronyism occurs when appointing "cronies" to positions of authority regardless of their qualifications.
Politically, "cronyism" is derogatorily used to imply buying and selling favors, as well as doing favors to organizations like the Poestenkill Businessman's Protective Association.
Cronyism is self-perpetuating; cronyism then begets a culture of cronyism, such as we clearly have in Poestenkill, and will continue to have, according to newly-elected Democrat supervisor Tom Russell whose code enforcer Church, who was forced to have to plead guilty to violating the civil rights of Poestenkill resident Joseph Hitchcock in Hitchcock v. Town of Poestenkill, New York et al, Case Number: 1:2021cv00758, Filed: July 2, 2021 in US District Court for the Northern District of New York, continues the practice in Poestenkill of refusing to enforce the town code against "protected persons," while at the same time, to protect the corruption, engages in acts of retaliation against those who dare to file code violation complaints, as Church did on 6 February 2021 when he made a FALSE REPORT to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that I was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have me detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for my complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill, for which action Church was never censured by the town of Poestenkill, but instead was allowed to keep his position as code enforcer where he remains to this day, despite his record, or more appropriately, because of his record of being politically reliable.
This practice of "cronyism" that we have and have had in Poestenkill for many years now, going back to at least 1992, when we had two fraudulent DEC permits successfully laundered through the Town of Poestenkill on behalf of "protected persons," one of them the client of then-Poestenkill town attorney Patrick Tomaselli, whose shrine now stands next to Poestenkill town hall on town property as one walks into the building on what is known as Poestenkill's "Walk of Heroes," can only be apprehended by a comprehensive, effective, and enforced legal code, with empowered government agencies which can effect prosecutions in the courts, ALL of which we are sorely lacking in Poestenkill, by intent and by design, with the Article 78 process now being a dead letter here in Rensselaer County, leaving us with no way to hold Poestenkill town officials to account.
For a look at how "cronyism" works in Poestenkill, we have no better example than this excerpt from a 1 January 2014 writing from myself Frank Burzesi, Chairman, Poestenkill Town Zoning Board, with copies to Annette Davidson, Secretary; Kevin McGrath, Board Member; Terry Lantry, Board Member; Harold Van Slyke, Board Member; and Paul Jamison, Board Member, which writing was titled "Appeal of Code Enforcement Officer's Refusal To Enforce the Provisions of the Poestenkill Land Use Code; Due process of law," wherein was stated in relevant part as follows on the subject:
At the conclusion of that 5 July 2013 writing, I stated as follows with respect to that issue of my right to due process in this matter by virtue of having an unbiased tribunal, to wit:
Accordingly, I am requesting that at the time of a public hearing on this matter, that you individually poll each board member as to whether they are a member of the Poestenkill Business Association, and whether they have previously indicated to Pelletier and Code Enforcement Officer Brunet that they would turn their backs on blatant code violations by Pelletier, and if either answer is in the affirmative, that board member should be required to recuse themselves in connection with this matter.
end quote
Well, according to the minutes of the December 10, 2013 Zoning Board meeting, where it states "Chairman Burzesi stated the public comment portion of the hearing has ended", it is now quite apparent the Pelletier public hearing has come and gone, and despite my request of 5 July 2013, never once was the question or issue of membership in the Poestenkill Business Association by your members, or by your attorney, Patrick J. Tomaselli, Esquire, ever raised by yourself at any time during that proceeding, as you took your direction from your attorney Patrick J. Tomaselli, Esquire, who according to my POESTENKILL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION Member Directory, under "Attorneys", is a member, as is Jeffrey Pelletier and I believe, Harold Van Slyke, along with Kevin McGrath, who is listed under "Land Surveyors."
As you well know, the Poestenkill Business Association is a lobbying group in the Town of Poestenkill that represents special interests in the Town whose interests are inimical to mine.
With respect to the Poestenkill Business Association and your attorney Patrick J. Tomaselli, Esquire, who has been directing these Pelletier proceedings despite you having having the title of Chairman, in a 20 June 2005 writing to the Most Hon. Tommy Slavin, a member of the Poestenkill Business Association listed under "Printers" who was at that time also Supervisor of the Town of Poestenkill, I spoke on the record of a Poestenkill Town Board meeting where, in full view of the rest of the Poestenkill Town Board, Supervisor Slavin and the town people in attendance, Poestenkill Business Association founder and Poestenkill Town Councilperson Keith Hammond spoke for supervisor Slavin and the Poestenkill Town Board in denigrating the integrity and intelligence of Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield regarding an October 3, 2002 decision of Hon. James B. Canfield, J.S.C., in Plante v. Planning Board, Renss. Co. Index No. 204938 (Oct. 3, 2002), while at the same time publicly calling me a "RETARD", which was on the record in an official Poestenkill Town Board meeting, where Supervisor Slavin let stand, without objection, that highly discriminatory position as an official response of the Town of Poestenkill, to myself, that in the opinion of the Town of Poestenkill, I was a "retard" or mentally-ill person, a position so obviously taken and being put forth by your Zoning Board members Harold Van Slyke and Paul Jamison in this proceeding, despite being completely without evidence to support such a position.
end quotes
Thus is the deck stacked against us, and thus the deck will remain stacked and the corruption and cronyism of yesterday will persist into tomarrow,
The change of no change in Poestenkill.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 15th 2024 Edition
"ON CRONYISM IN POESTENKILL"
The term "cronyism" is a term that can have several different meanings dependent upon the specific circumstances the term is used in.
Basically, "cronyism" is a specific form of in-group favoritism, as in the spoils system practice of partiality in awarding jobs and other advantages to friends or trusted colleagues, especially in politics, or between politicians and supportive organizations like the Poestenkill Businessman's Protective Association.
By way of example, cronyism occurs when appointing "cronies" to positions of authority regardless of their qualifications.
Politically, "cronyism" is derogatorily used to imply buying and selling favors, as well as doing favors to organizations like the Poestenkill Businessman's Protective Association.
Cronyism is self-perpetuating; cronyism then begets a culture of cronyism, such as we clearly have in Poestenkill, and will continue to have, according to newly-elected Democrat supervisor Tom Russell whose code enforcer Church, who was forced to have to plead guilty to violating the civil rights of Poestenkill resident Joseph Hitchcock in Hitchcock v. Town of Poestenkill, New York et al, Case Number: 1:2021cv00758, Filed: July 2, 2021 in US District Court for the Northern District of New York, continues the practice in Poestenkill of refusing to enforce the town code against "protected persons," while at the same time, to protect the corruption, engages in acts of retaliation against those who dare to file code violation complaints, as Church did on 6 February 2021 when he made a FALSE REPORT to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that I was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have me detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for my complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill, for which action Church was never censured by the town of Poestenkill, but instead was allowed to keep his position as code enforcer where he remains to this day, despite his record, or more appropriately, because of his record of being politically reliable.
This practice of "cronyism" that we have and have had in Poestenkill for many years now, going back to at least 1992, when we had two fraudulent DEC permits successfully laundered through the Town of Poestenkill on behalf of "protected persons," one of them the client of then-Poestenkill town attorney Patrick Tomaselli, whose shrine now stands next to Poestenkill town hall on town property as one walks into the building on what is known as Poestenkill's "Walk of Heroes," can only be apprehended by a comprehensive, effective, and enforced legal code, with empowered government agencies which can effect prosecutions in the courts, ALL of which we are sorely lacking in Poestenkill, by intent and by design, with the Article 78 process now being a dead letter here in Rensselaer County, leaving us with no way to hold Poestenkill town officials to account.
For a look at how "cronyism" works in Poestenkill, we have no better example than this excerpt from a 1 January 2014 writing from myself Frank Burzesi, Chairman, Poestenkill Town Zoning Board, with copies to Annette Davidson, Secretary; Kevin McGrath, Board Member; Terry Lantry, Board Member; Harold Van Slyke, Board Member; and Paul Jamison, Board Member, which writing was titled "Appeal of Code Enforcement Officer's Refusal To Enforce the Provisions of the Poestenkill Land Use Code; Due process of law," wherein was stated in relevant part as follows on the subject:
At the conclusion of that 5 July 2013 writing, I stated as follows with respect to that issue of my right to due process in this matter by virtue of having an unbiased tribunal, to wit:
Accordingly, I am requesting that at the time of a public hearing on this matter, that you individually poll each board member as to whether they are a member of the Poestenkill Business Association, and whether they have previously indicated to Pelletier and Code Enforcement Officer Brunet that they would turn their backs on blatant code violations by Pelletier, and if either answer is in the affirmative, that board member should be required to recuse themselves in connection with this matter.
end quote
Well, according to the minutes of the December 10, 2013 Zoning Board meeting, where it states "Chairman Burzesi stated the public comment portion of the hearing has ended", it is now quite apparent the Pelletier public hearing has come and gone, and despite my request of 5 July 2013, never once was the question or issue of membership in the Poestenkill Business Association by your members, or by your attorney, Patrick J. Tomaselli, Esquire, ever raised by yourself at any time during that proceeding, as you took your direction from your attorney Patrick J. Tomaselli, Esquire, who according to my POESTENKILL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION Member Directory, under "Attorneys", is a member, as is Jeffrey Pelletier and I believe, Harold Van Slyke, along with Kevin McGrath, who is listed under "Land Surveyors."
As you well know, the Poestenkill Business Association is a lobbying group in the Town of Poestenkill that represents special interests in the Town whose interests are inimical to mine.
With respect to the Poestenkill Business Association and your attorney Patrick J. Tomaselli, Esquire, who has been directing these Pelletier proceedings despite you having having the title of Chairman, in a 20 June 2005 writing to the Most Hon. Tommy Slavin, a member of the Poestenkill Business Association listed under "Printers" who was at that time also Supervisor of the Town of Poestenkill, I spoke on the record of a Poestenkill Town Board meeting where, in full view of the rest of the Poestenkill Town Board, Supervisor Slavin and the town people in attendance, Poestenkill Business Association founder and Poestenkill Town Councilperson Keith Hammond spoke for supervisor Slavin and the Poestenkill Town Board in denigrating the integrity and intelligence of Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield regarding an October 3, 2002 decision of Hon. James B. Canfield, J.S.C., in Plante v. Planning Board, Renss. Co. Index No. 204938 (Oct. 3, 2002), while at the same time publicly calling me a "RETARD", which was on the record in an official Poestenkill Town Board meeting, where Supervisor Slavin let stand, without objection, that highly discriminatory position as an official response of the Town of Poestenkill, to myself, that in the opinion of the Town of Poestenkill, I was a "retard" or mentally-ill person, a position so obviously taken and being put forth by your Zoning Board members Harold Van Slyke and Paul Jamison in this proceeding, despite being completely without evidence to support such a position.
end quotes
Thus is the deck stacked against us, and thus the deck will remain stacked and the corruption and cronyism of yesterday will persist into tomarrow,
The change of no change in Poestenkill.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 16th 2024 Edition
"ON CRONYISM IN POESTENKILL", continued ...
While we are on this subject of cronyism in Poestenkill, a practice that goes back at least to the 1970s, with both Algonquin Estates and Heather Ridge being products and examples of cronyism, according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, the term "crony" as it applies to "go along to get along" business as usual politics in Poestenkill, by definition a "corrupt enterprise," by intent, is a friend, or a person who works for someone in authority, especially one who is willing to give and receive dishonest help.
As to the term "public corruption" as it applies to Poestenkill, it involves a breach of public trust and/or abuse of position by local officials and their private sector accomplices.
Public corruption in Poestenkill has been proven in a number of Article 78 proceedings against Poestenkill, at times when it was defended by the best legal counsel it could find, when evidence of public corruption in Poestenkill, i.e. the issuance of fraudulent approvals, was submitted to Supreme Court Justices in Rensselaer County, who are the arbiters of such matters, and none of those cases were ever appealed from, nor could they have been, so compelling was the evidence against the town and its corrupt public officials.
As a further example of cronyism and public corruption in Poestenkill, we need go no further than a writing from myself on 3 October 2015 to Hon. Michael Melkonian, Acting Justice of the Supreme Court Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, 80 Second Street, Troy, NY 12180, RE: Plante v. Poestenkill et al., Rensselaer County Index No. 204938; Conference of 28 September 2015; Due Process of Law; Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard, where we have as follows on the subject:
Clearly that action before Judge Canfield in 2002 which I wish to re-commence was about more than just the issuance of a Mined Land Reclamation Permit and so was a hybrid suit.
It was clearly about endemic lawlessness and regulatory insufficiency at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and in the Town of Poestenkill, as is evidenced by Judge Canfield's words "a series of prior judicial determinations" which are totally worthless, because the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Town of Postenkill are scofflaws who hold judicial decisions against them by Supreme Court Judges in Article 78 proceedings in contempt.
If this is to be merely another Article 78, then in all truth, it is not worth wasting this Court's time, because all I will end up with should I prevail is just another worthless piece of paper called a judicial decision that I can add to the stack Judge Canfield referenced in his 2002 decision in Matter of Plante v. Planning Board of the Town of Poestenkill et al., Rensselaer County Index No. 204938, decided October 3, 2002.
Be that as it now may be, it was my understanding at the conclusion of the conference that I have until 20 October 2015 to submit responsive papers, which I intend to do, despite the threat of a SLAPP suit by attorney Andrew Gilchrist if I charge the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Town of Poestenkill with collusion intended to deny me my rights under the law while conferring a benefit on Mr. Gilchrist's client, Polaro Sand & Gravel, Inc., which brings us to yet another point of confusion at the 28 September 2015 conference, where your law clerk said she did not know what a SLAPP suit is, to which I responded that a SLAPP suit is a "strategic lawsuit against public persons" intended to intimidate and deter them from seeking constitutional redress of grievance, as I am doing in this matter presently before this Court.
A SLAPP suit such as was threatened against myself by Mr. Gilchrist is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
By threatening me with this SLAPP suit, Mr. Gilchrist's goals would be accomplished if he can get me to succumb to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion so that I would abandon my criticism of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Town of Poestenkill.
And that brings us to the question of the appearance of Mr. Gilchrist at the conference on 28 September 2015, where he quite disingenuously informed your law clerk that "it appeared" as if I was challenging a permit issued to his client, Polaro Sand & Gravel, Inc.
Now, first of all, I am not merely challenging the permit.
What I am challenging is the lawless process which produced the Polaro permit, and in the course, of doing so, intentionally denied me rights under the law.
And for the record, Mr. Gilchrist clearly knew what I was challenging at the 28 September 2015 conference he attended despite being without invitation, the proof of which is annexed to a 21 September 2015 letter to Your Honor from myself as Exhibit B, that being a copy of a November 12, 2014 letter to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation from attorney Andrew Gilchrist, Esq, of Tuczinski, Cavalier & Gilchrist, P.C., 54 State St., Suite 803, Albany, New York 12207, wherein was stated on page 1 in relevant part as follows:
"Dear Ms. Baker:"
"The undersigned has been retained by Polaro Sand & Gravel, Inc. regarding the above referenced application to modify the MLRL permit held by Polaro Sand & Gravel, Inc. for its mining operation on State Route 351, Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, New York."
"Enclosed in the Department's October 23, 2014 correspondence were the following public comments received by the Department during the public comment period on this action:"
End quotes
The first document referenced by Mr. Gilchrist in that November 12, 2014 letter to Ms. Baker of the NYSDEC Region IV Office was a letter from Town of Poestenkill Supervisor Dominic Jacangelo to Nancy Baker dated September 10, 2014 wherein was falsely stated there were no complaints with this mine, or mining in Poestenkill, to which Mr. Gilchrist responded to Ms. Baker:
"The letter submitted by the Town of Poestenkill generally supports the present application to amend the Polaro Sand & Gravel MLRL permit."
"We concur with the points raised in the letter of the Town of Poestenkill, and Polaro Sand & Gravel, Inc, appreciates the support of the Town of Poestenkill in this matter."
End quotes
Clearly, from November 12, 2014 letter of Mr. Gilchrist to Nancy Baker of the NYSDEC, it is readily apparent not only that the willful false statements of Poestenkill Town Supervisor Dominic Jacangelo in his September 10, 2014 letter to Ms. Baker of the NYSDEC Region IV Office benefitted Mr. Gilchrist's client Polaro Sand & Gravel, Inc., but that on November 12, 2014, nearly a year before the September 28, 2015 conference in Your Honor's chambers where Mr. Gilchrist disingenuously tried to appear confused as to what my complaint in the above matter is about, which is duplicity and collusion on the part of the NYSDEC and Town of Poestenkill which had benefitted Mr. Gilchrist's client Polaro Sand & Gravel, Inc., Mr. Gilchrist was well aware of the benefit to his client from that duplicitous conduct by Poestenkill Town Supervisor Jacangelo, and aware of the further fact that Mr. Gilchrist's client Polaro Sand & Gravel, Inc. was thankful and grateful for that duplicity on the part of Supervisor Jacangelo which intentionally denied me rights in this above matter.
The third letter referenced by Mr. Gilchrist in his November 12, 2014 letter to Ms. Baker was a letter from myself to Poestenkill Town Supervisor Dominic Jacangelo dated 8 October 2014 wherein was stated:
"In the official files and records of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in connection with this above application on Rt. 351 in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, which I understand from Nancy M. Baker of the NYSDEC Region IV Office you have been asked to comment on as Poestenkill Town Supervisor, there is a two-volume document of 877 pages in length entitled Record on Appeal in Matter of Lascari et al. v. DEC et al. which was filed with the State of New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department on December 15, 1995 by NYSDEC's counsel of record in that matter, New York State Attorney General Dennis C. Vacco, Esq."
"In paragraph 5 at page one of that 877-page document, NYSDEC's attorney, New York State Attorney General Dennis C. Vacco, Esq., stated to the Appellate Court as follows:
In this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, respondent-appellant (NYSDEC) seeks reversal of the order and judgment of Special Term which annulled a permit (MLRP) issued by respondent-appellant (NYSDEC), and a declaration that such permit was validly issued."
end quote
That October 8, 2014 letter to Supervisor Jacangelo referenced by Mr. Gilchrist went on to say as follows:
"That permit which was annulled was for this same project on this same site which you have been asked to comment on as Poestenkill Town Supervisor."
"In the official records and files of the NYSDEC concerning this matter, there is also an Appellate Court decision making it incandescently clear that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation failed to prevail in that matter."
End quote
The October 8, 2014 letter to Supervisor Jacangelo from myself continued as follows:
"The Town of Poestenkill was also a party to this series of actions, so that the 877 pages of documents are also in your own official files and records in the Town of Poestenkill."
"With respect to this above application, at page 265 of Volume I of that Record on Appeal, there is a copy of the decision of Special Term in that matter dated November 18, 1993, which was unsuccessfully appealed from by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, wherein is stated in relevant part as follows:
"Premised upon Judge Williams' previous determination that the site at issue may not be mined without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, the issuance of Permit Number 2, for a segmented parcel of the original site may not be permitted, absent completion of an EIS which encompasses the entire parcel of land available to the project sponsor."
end quote
The October 8, 2014 letter from myself to Supervisor Jacangelo, which was clearly in the possession of Mr. Gilchrist on November 12, 2014, almost a year before the 28 September 2015 conference in Your Honor's Chambers, went on to say:
"Of direct relevance to this above project and your comments as Poestenkill Town Supervisor, given that the Town of Poestenkill was a party to that same decision, the relevant language in that November 18, 1993 Decision is 'site at issue,' which is this same site."
"In other words, no matter who the applicant is, this decision applies to the site, not the applicant, and binds the NYSDEC to a certain course of action should it have a Mined Land Reclamation Permit for this site."
"Of further relevance to this application and your response to the NYSDEC Region IV is this following language of Special Term concerning the same lawless and duplicitous conduct of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation that is being employed yet again in connection with this above application, to wit:"
"On May 18, 1993, The Honorable Robert C. Williams issued an exhaustive and thorough opinion which annulled a permit issued to R.J. Valente, Inc. to mine a total of 27.5 acres off Route 351 in Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, without preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)."
"The above-captioned Article 78 proceedings both challenge yet another determination by the Department of Environmental Conservation which found that no EIS would be required prior to the issuance of a mining permit to Valente to mine a total of 8.4 acres of land at the identical site, again, without preparation of an EIS."
"To the extent that the present litigation is identical to the Article 78 proceeding before Judge Williams, his findings must be deemed conclusive and binding in these proceedings."
"It is readily apparent that the application to mine a smaller portion of the land is a rather transparent attempt to remove the project from consideration as a 'Type I' activity."
"As Judge Williams recognized, any activity which involves the physical alteration of ten or more acres is labeled a Type I activity and presumed to significantly affect the environment with resultant requirement to complete an EIS."
"It is also without doubt that the 8.4 acre parcel and the 27 acres covered by the previous permit are part of a still larger parcel, all of which is susceptible to incremental applications designed to avoid the requirement that the cumulative impact of mining at this site be considered prior to the issuance of any permit."
"The total acreage owned or controlled by the project sponsor is approximately 115 acres."
"The application for the Mined Land Reclamation Permit indicates that the future uses of the site include pasture, residential, wildlife habitat and "other applicable uses dependent upon future conditions and local laws."
"At minimum, this artful language leaves little doubt that the project sponsor has reserved the option to continue to utilize the site as a gravel mine on an ever-increasing scale."
"Such a segmented approach has been specifically rejected (Matter of Save The Pine Bush v. City of Albany, 70 NY2d 193, 205-206)."
end quote
With respect to Mr. Gilchrist's threatened SLAPP suit, my 8 October 2014 letter to Supervisor Jacangelo continued by stating:
"Notwithstanding, once again, the Department of Environmental Conservation has knowingly and willfully chosen to turn its back on the New York State Constitution and the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and to resort once again to duplicity, collusion, unlawful segmentation and artful language to evade the requirements of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, in the course of doing so, stripping myself and the other Lascari petitioners of our rights to equal protection of law and due process of law as citizens of this state, this after we had gone to court several times, including the Appellate Division, to establish our rights in the first place in connection with this site."
"Thus, by putting this application out for review without an EIS, the NYSDEC Region IV Office has clearly failed to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law."
"Further, by putting this application out for review without an EIS, the NYSDEC Region IV Office has proceeded and is proceeding without and in excess of its jurisdiction."
"Beyond that, the determination by the NYSDEC Region IV office to put this application out for review without an EIS was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or is arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion."
"So what you are being asked to approve as Poestenkill Town Supervisor in connection with this above application is further lawless conduct on the part of the NYSDEC Region IV Office, which now has a long and well-documented history of lawlessness and regulatory insufficiency."
"Therefore, as a resident of this Town, I am requesting that you as Poestenkill Town Supervisor defend the position of the Town of Poestenkill as established by the Appellate Division, Third Department in Matter of Lascari et al. v. DEC et al., that there must be an EIS prepared for this site before there will be any consideration given to the issuance of a Mined Land Reclamation Permit for this site."
End quote
Thus it can readily be seen that on 28 September 2015, Mr. Gilchrist was being exceedingly disingenuous when he told your law clerk that he had no idea what my complaints were, as he had them in black and white almost a year earlier, courtesy of Ms. Nancy Baker at the DEC.
Beyond that, in his November 12, 2014 letter to Ms. Baker, Mr. Gilchrist also acknowledged being in possession of a letter from myself to Nancy Baker dated October 4, 2014 wherein was stated in relevant part as follows:
"In your official files and records in connection with this above application on Rt. 351 in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, you have a two-volume document of 877 pages in length entitled Record on Appeal in Matter of Lascari et al. v. DEC et al. which was filed with the State of New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department on December 15, 1995 by your counsel of record in that matter, New York State Attorney General Dennis C. Vacco, Esq."
"With respect to this present application for this same parcel of land that is out for public review, at page 20 of Volume I of the 877-page Record on Appeal which is a part of your official files and records concerning this matter, there is a fifteen (15) page affidavit from myself as a New York State licensed professional engineer which details the background of this matter in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, beginning in 1986, when, as a New York State licensed professional engineer, I was detailed by then-New York State Health Commissioner Dr. David Axelrod to, among other things, conduct an investigation of improper permitting practices in the Town of Poestenkill that were threatening human life, health and property."
"In paragraph 2 of that March 17, 1994 affidavit, which was never challenged or refuted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, I stated as follows:"
"In the course of that investigation, I came across several cases where improper permits had been issued in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, by the Region IV Office of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and in accordance with my instructions from the New York State Health Department, I began to thoroughly document the circumstance in those cases where improper permits had been issued by DEC in Rensselaer County, generally, and in the Town of Poestenkill, specifically."
"Beginning in paragraph 3 of that March 17, 1994 affidavit, I documented for the Court the specific history of this same project."
"Again, none of that history was ever challenged or refuted by either the Town of Poestenkill, or the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and thus, that March 17, 1994 affidavit and all of its exhibits are a part of the Record of Review that you must consider today in your review of this permit application, and I am formally requesting that it, and the remainder of this 877-page Record on Review be made a part of the record for this project review."
"With respect to that 877-page Record on Review that is a part of your official files and records in connection with this instant matter, at page 58 of Volume I, there is an eighteen (18) page affidavit from myself to the Court dated March 24, 1994, where I expose for the Court duplicity on the part of NYSDEC Region IV staff in connection with this same application, which again, was never refuted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation."
"I am formally requesting that that March 24, 1994 affidavit and all of its exhibits be made a part of the record you are reviewing in connection with this application."
"At page 140 of Volume I, there is a copy of the amended petition dated July 13, 1992 submitted to Special Term by myself and the other petitioners in the matter."
"For the record, I would note that the respondents included not only the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, but also Commissioner Thomas C. Jorling, Region IV Permit Administrator William Clarke, Region IV Deputy Permit Administrator John H. Feltman, and Region IV Senior Environmental Analyst Louise King, all of whom are losing parties at the Appellate level in this matter, and thus, are bound by the decision of the Appellate Court, as is the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, as well as yourself, as an employee or officer or agent of the Department."
"That amended petition and its exhibits makes it patently clear that this application under review today is the same application rejected by Special Term in 1994, and I am formally requesting that that amended petition dated July 13, 1992 be made a part of the record you are reviewing in connection with this above application."
"At page 175 of Volume I of that Record on Review, there is a copy of a forty-six (46) page affidavit from myself to Special Term dated April 2, 1993 wherein my concerns with regard to this same application were stated in plain language, as was the procedural history of the matter."
"I am formally requesting that this forty-six (46) page affidavit from myself to Special Term dated April 2, 1993 be made a part of the record that you are reviewing in connection with this present application, since my concerns not only remain the same, but were upheld as valid not only by Special Term, but by the Appellate Court, as well."
"At page 223 of Volume I of that Record on Appeal, there is a nine (9) page affidavit from myself to Special Term dated April 5, 1994 wherein I detail duplicitous and lawless conduct on the part of NYSDEC Region IV staff for the Court."
"Once again, that affidavit was never refuted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, nor could it have been."
"Accordingly, I am formally requesting that that 9 page affidavit from myself to Special Term dated April 5, 1994 and all of its exhibits be made a part of the record that you are reviewing in connection with this above application."
"With respect to those exhibits, at page 265 of Volume I of that Record on Appeal, there is a copy of the decision of Special Term in that matter dated November 18, 1993, which was unsuccessfully appealed from by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, herein is stated in relevant part as follows:"
"Premised upon Judge Williams' previous determination that the site at issue may not be mined without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, the issuance of Permit Number 2, for a segmented parcel of the original site may not be permitted, absent completion of an EIS which encompasses the entire parcel of land available to the project sponsor."
"Of direct relevance to this above project, the relevant language in that November 18, 1993 Decision is 'site at issue,' which is this same site."
"Of further relevance to this application is this following language of Special Term concerning the same lawless and duplicitous conduct of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation that is being employed yet again in connection with this above application, to wit:"
"On May 18, 1993, The Honorable Robert C. Williams issued an exhaustive and thorough opinion which anulled a permit issued to R.J. Valente, Inc. to mine a total of 27.5 acres off Route 351 in Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, without preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)."
"The above-captioned Article 78 proceedings both challenge yet another determination by the Department of Environmental Conservation which found that no EIS would be required prior to the issuance of a mining permit to Valente to mine a total of 8.4 acres of land at the identical site, again, without preparation of an EIS."
"To the extent that the present litigation is identical to the Article 78 proceeding before Judge Williams, his findings must be deemed conclusive and binding in these proceedings."
"It is readily apparent that the application to mine a smaller portion of the land is a rather transparent attempt to remove the project from consideration as a 'Type I' activity."
"As Judge Williams recognized, any activity which involves the physical alteration of ten or more acres is labeled a Type I activity and presumed to significantly affect the environment with resultant requirement to complete an EIS."
"It is also without doubt that the 8.4 acre parcel and the 27 acres covered by the previous permit are part of a still larger parcel, all of which is susceptible to incremental applications designed to avoid the requirement that the cumulative impact of mining at this site be considered prior to the issuance of any permit."
"The total acreage owned or controlled by the project sponsor is approximately 115 acres."
"The application for the Mined Land Reclamation Permit indicates that the future uses of the site include pasture, residential, wildlife habitat and 'other applicable uses dependent upon future conditions and local laws.'"
"At minimum, this artful language leaves little doubt that the project sponsor has reserved the option to continue to utilize the site as a gravel mine on an ever-increasing scale."
"Such a segmented approach has been specifically rejected (Matter of Save The Pine Bush v. City of Albany, 70 NY2d 193, 205-206).
"Notwithstanding, once again, the Department of Environmental Conservation has knowingly and willfully chosen to turn its back on the New York State Constitution and the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and to resort once again to duplicity, collusion, unlawful segmentation and artful language to evade the requirements of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, in the course of doing so, stripping me of my rights to equal protection of law and due process of law as a citizen of this state, this after I had gone to court several times, including the Appellate Division, to establish my rights in the first place in connection with this site."
"With respect to the exhaustive and thorough opinion issued on May 18, 1993 by The Honorable Robert C. Williams which annulled a permit issued to R.J. Valente, Inc. to mine a total of 27.5 acres off Route 351 in Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, without preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), that decision is to be found at page 313 of Volume I of the Record on Appeal which is a part of your official records and files in connection with this above application."
"I am formally requesting that it be made a part of the record that you are reviewing in connection with this above matter, as it outlines my concerns with this project."
"At page 338 of Volume I of the Record on Appeal which is part of your official records and files in connection with this site, and this present application, is to be found a copy of the Petition submitted to Judge Williams by myself and the other petitioners, wherein all of our concerns with the application were clearly stated."
"I am formally requesting that that Petition and all of its exhibits be made a part of the record that you are reviewing in connection with this segmented application, as my concerns have not changed."
"With respect to my concerns with this site and with this segmented project, at page 581 of Volume II of the Record on Appeal, they are listed in a September 16, 1992 writing that was stamped received by the NYS Department of Law on September 17, 1992."
"I am formally requesting that that writing be made a part of the record that you are reviewing in connection with this above application."
"At page 643 of Volume II of that Record on Appeal submitted to Appellate Division, Third Department by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation on December 15, 1995, there is a December 28, 1992 writing from myself to DEC Region IV concerning this same site, wherein are listed my concerns with the duplicitous process employed by the Region IV Office of the NYSDEC with respect to this site."
"I am formally requesting that that December 28, 1992 writing from myself to the DEC Region IV Office in connection with this site be made a part of the record in this above matter."
"At page 648 of Volume II of that Record on Appeal, there is a January 26, 1993 writing from myself to the NYSDEC SEQRA Counsel concerning the duplicitous conduct of the NYSDEC Region IV Office concerning the review of Mined Land Reclamation Permits for this same site in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, said duplicitous conduct by NYSDEC Region IV staff intended to strip me of equal protection of law and procedural due process of law as a citizen of the State of New York."
"I am formally requesting that that January 26, 1993 writing be made a part of the record you are reviewing in connection with this above matter."
"At page 665 of Volume II of the Record on Appeal which is a part of your official records and files in connection with this above matter, there is a February 8, 1993 writing from myself to Senior Environmental Analyst Louise Inglis King of DEC Region IV concerning this same site."
"I am formally requesting that that February 8, 1993 writing be made a part of the record you are reviewing in connection with this above matter."
"At page 713 of Volume II of the Record on Appeal, there is a February 24, 1993 writing from myself to Associate Environmental Analyst John Feltman of NYSDEC Region IV concerning this site."
"I am formally requesting that a copy of that February 24, 1993 writing be made a part of the record that you are reviewing in connection with this matter."
"At page 860 of Volume II of the Record on Appeal which is part of your official files and records in connection with this above application, there is an eleven (11) page affidavit from myself to Special Term dated October 18, 1993 concerning this same site."
"I am formally requesting that that October 18, 1993 affidavit be made a part of the record you are reviewing in connection with this above application."
"This writing constitutes my public comments in connection with this above Mined Land Reclamation Permit application."
End quotes
All of that was simply blown off by Nancy Baker as follows:
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
DEC #4-3838-00066/00003
FACILITY: Polaro Sand and Gravel
Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County
1. Letter from Town of Poestenkill
The Town of Poestenkill submitted a September 10, 2014 letter indicating they had not received any complaints about current operations at the mine site, and they suppoorted issuance of a permit for the applied expansion.
Response:
The letter supports the issuance of the permit and no further comment is required.
End quotes
And thus is how the game is played in corrupt Poestenkill, where public corruption and cronyism reign supreme!
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 16th 2024 Edition
"ON CRONYISM IN POESTENKILL", continued ...
While we are on this subject of cronyism in Poestenkill, a practice that goes back at least to the 1970s, with both Algonquin Estates and Heather Ridge being products and examples of cronyism, according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, the term "crony" as it applies to "go along to get along" business as usual politics in Poestenkill, by definition a "corrupt enterprise," by intent, is a friend, or a person who works for someone in authority, especially one who is willing to give and receive dishonest help.
As to the term "public corruption" as it applies to Poestenkill, it involves a breach of public trust and/or abuse of position by local officials and their private sector accomplices.
Public corruption in Poestenkill has been proven in a number of Article 78 proceedings against Poestenkill, at times when it was defended by the best legal counsel it could find, when evidence of public corruption in Poestenkill, i.e. the issuance of fraudulent approvals, was submitted to Supreme Court Justices in Rensselaer County, who are the arbiters of such matters, and none of those cases were ever appealed from, nor could they have been, so compelling was the evidence against the town and its corrupt public officials.
As a further example of cronyism and public corruption in Poestenkill, we need go no further than a writing from myself on 3 October 2015 to Hon. Michael Melkonian, Acting Justice of the Supreme Court Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, 80 Second Street, Troy, NY 12180, RE: Plante v. Poestenkill et al., Rensselaer County Index No. 204938; Conference of 28 September 2015; Due Process of Law; Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard, where we have as follows on the subject:
Clearly that action before Judge Canfield in 2002 which I wish to re-commence was about more than just the issuance of a Mined Land Reclamation Permit and so was a hybrid suit.
It was clearly about endemic lawlessness and regulatory insufficiency at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and in the Town of Poestenkill, as is evidenced by Judge Canfield's words "a series of prior judicial determinations" which are totally worthless, because the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Town of Postenkill are scofflaws who hold judicial decisions against them by Supreme Court Judges in Article 78 proceedings in contempt.
If this is to be merely another Article 78, then in all truth, it is not worth wasting this Court's time, because all I will end up with should I prevail is just another worthless piece of paper called a judicial decision that I can add to the stack Judge Canfield referenced in his 2002 decision in Matter of Plante v. Planning Board of the Town of Poestenkill et al., Rensselaer County Index No. 204938, decided October 3, 2002.
Be that as it now may be, it was my understanding at the conclusion of the conference that I have until 20 October 2015 to submit responsive papers, which I intend to do, despite the threat of a SLAPP suit by attorney Andrew Gilchrist if I charge the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Town of Poestenkill with collusion intended to deny me my rights under the law while conferring a benefit on Mr. Gilchrist's client, Polaro Sand & Gravel, Inc., which brings us to yet another point of confusion at the 28 September 2015 conference, where your law clerk said she did not know what a SLAPP suit is, to which I responded that a SLAPP suit is a "strategic lawsuit against public persons" intended to intimidate and deter them from seeking constitutional redress of grievance, as I am doing in this matter presently before this Court.
A SLAPP suit such as was threatened against myself by Mr. Gilchrist is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
By threatening me with this SLAPP suit, Mr. Gilchrist's goals would be accomplished if he can get me to succumb to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion so that I would abandon my criticism of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Town of Poestenkill.
And that brings us to the question of the appearance of Mr. Gilchrist at the conference on 28 September 2015, where he quite disingenuously informed your law clerk that "it appeared" as if I was challenging a permit issued to his client, Polaro Sand & Gravel, Inc.
Now, first of all, I am not merely challenging the permit.
What I am challenging is the lawless process which produced the Polaro permit, and in the course, of doing so, intentionally denied me rights under the law.
And for the record, Mr. Gilchrist clearly knew what I was challenging at the 28 September 2015 conference he attended despite being without invitation, the proof of which is annexed to a 21 September 2015 letter to Your Honor from myself as Exhibit B, that being a copy of a November 12, 2014 letter to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation from attorney Andrew Gilchrist, Esq, of Tuczinski, Cavalier & Gilchrist, P.C., 54 State St., Suite 803, Albany, New York 12207, wherein was stated on page 1 in relevant part as follows:
"Dear Ms. Baker:"
"The undersigned has been retained by Polaro Sand & Gravel, Inc. regarding the above referenced application to modify the MLRL permit held by Polaro Sand & Gravel, Inc. for its mining operation on State Route 351, Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, New York."
"Enclosed in the Department's October 23, 2014 correspondence were the following public comments received by the Department during the public comment period on this action:"
End quotes
The first document referenced by Mr. Gilchrist in that November 12, 2014 letter to Ms. Baker of the NYSDEC Region IV Office was a letter from Town of Poestenkill Supervisor Dominic Jacangelo to Nancy Baker dated September 10, 2014 wherein was falsely stated there were no complaints with this mine, or mining in Poestenkill, to which Mr. Gilchrist responded to Ms. Baker:
"The letter submitted by the Town of Poestenkill generally supports the present application to amend the Polaro Sand & Gravel MLRL permit."
"We concur with the points raised in the letter of the Town of Poestenkill, and Polaro Sand & Gravel, Inc, appreciates the support of the Town of Poestenkill in this matter."
End quotes
Clearly, from November 12, 2014 letter of Mr. Gilchrist to Nancy Baker of the NYSDEC, it is readily apparent not only that the willful false statements of Poestenkill Town Supervisor Dominic Jacangelo in his September 10, 2014 letter to Ms. Baker of the NYSDEC Region IV Office benefitted Mr. Gilchrist's client Polaro Sand & Gravel, Inc., but that on November 12, 2014, nearly a year before the September 28, 2015 conference in Your Honor's chambers where Mr. Gilchrist disingenuously tried to appear confused as to what my complaint in the above matter is about, which is duplicity and collusion on the part of the NYSDEC and Town of Poestenkill which had benefitted Mr. Gilchrist's client Polaro Sand & Gravel, Inc., Mr. Gilchrist was well aware of the benefit to his client from that duplicitous conduct by Poestenkill Town Supervisor Jacangelo, and aware of the further fact that Mr. Gilchrist's client Polaro Sand & Gravel, Inc. was thankful and grateful for that duplicity on the part of Supervisor Jacangelo which intentionally denied me rights in this above matter.
The third letter referenced by Mr. Gilchrist in his November 12, 2014 letter to Ms. Baker was a letter from myself to Poestenkill Town Supervisor Dominic Jacangelo dated 8 October 2014 wherein was stated:
"In the official files and records of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in connection with this above application on Rt. 351 in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, which I understand from Nancy M. Baker of the NYSDEC Region IV Office you have been asked to comment on as Poestenkill Town Supervisor, there is a two-volume document of 877 pages in length entitled Record on Appeal in Matter of Lascari et al. v. DEC et al. which was filed with the State of New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department on December 15, 1995 by NYSDEC's counsel of record in that matter, New York State Attorney General Dennis C. Vacco, Esq."
"In paragraph 5 at page one of that 877-page document, NYSDEC's attorney, New York State Attorney General Dennis C. Vacco, Esq., stated to the Appellate Court as follows:
In this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, respondent-appellant (NYSDEC) seeks reversal of the order and judgment of Special Term which annulled a permit (MLRP) issued by respondent-appellant (NYSDEC), and a declaration that such permit was validly issued."
end quote
That October 8, 2014 letter to Supervisor Jacangelo referenced by Mr. Gilchrist went on to say as follows:
"That permit which was annulled was for this same project on this same site which you have been asked to comment on as Poestenkill Town Supervisor."
"In the official records and files of the NYSDEC concerning this matter, there is also an Appellate Court decision making it incandescently clear that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation failed to prevail in that matter."
End quote
The October 8, 2014 letter to Supervisor Jacangelo from myself continued as follows:
"The Town of Poestenkill was also a party to this series of actions, so that the 877 pages of documents are also in your own official files and records in the Town of Poestenkill."
"With respect to this above application, at page 265 of Volume I of that Record on Appeal, there is a copy of the decision of Special Term in that matter dated November 18, 1993, which was unsuccessfully appealed from by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, wherein is stated in relevant part as follows:
"Premised upon Judge Williams' previous determination that the site at issue may not be mined without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, the issuance of Permit Number 2, for a segmented parcel of the original site may not be permitted, absent completion of an EIS which encompasses the entire parcel of land available to the project sponsor."
end quote
The October 8, 2014 letter from myself to Supervisor Jacangelo, which was clearly in the possession of Mr. Gilchrist on November 12, 2014, almost a year before the 28 September 2015 conference in Your Honor's Chambers, went on to say:
"Of direct relevance to this above project and your comments as Poestenkill Town Supervisor, given that the Town of Poestenkill was a party to that same decision, the relevant language in that November 18, 1993 Decision is 'site at issue,' which is this same site."
"In other words, no matter who the applicant is, this decision applies to the site, not the applicant, and binds the NYSDEC to a certain course of action should it have a Mined Land Reclamation Permit for this site."
"Of further relevance to this application and your response to the NYSDEC Region IV is this following language of Special Term concerning the same lawless and duplicitous conduct of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation that is being employed yet again in connection with this above application, to wit:"
"On May 18, 1993, The Honorable Robert C. Williams issued an exhaustive and thorough opinion which annulled a permit issued to R.J. Valente, Inc. to mine a total of 27.5 acres off Route 351 in Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, without preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)."
"The above-captioned Article 78 proceedings both challenge yet another determination by the Department of Environmental Conservation which found that no EIS would be required prior to the issuance of a mining permit to Valente to mine a total of 8.4 acres of land at the identical site, again, without preparation of an EIS."
"To the extent that the present litigation is identical to the Article 78 proceeding before Judge Williams, his findings must be deemed conclusive and binding in these proceedings."
"It is readily apparent that the application to mine a smaller portion of the land is a rather transparent attempt to remove the project from consideration as a 'Type I' activity."
"As Judge Williams recognized, any activity which involves the physical alteration of ten or more acres is labeled a Type I activity and presumed to significantly affect the environment with resultant requirement to complete an EIS."
"It is also without doubt that the 8.4 acre parcel and the 27 acres covered by the previous permit are part of a still larger parcel, all of which is susceptible to incremental applications designed to avoid the requirement that the cumulative impact of mining at this site be considered prior to the issuance of any permit."
"The total acreage owned or controlled by the project sponsor is approximately 115 acres."
"The application for the Mined Land Reclamation Permit indicates that the future uses of the site include pasture, residential, wildlife habitat and "other applicable uses dependent upon future conditions and local laws."
"At minimum, this artful language leaves little doubt that the project sponsor has reserved the option to continue to utilize the site as a gravel mine on an ever-increasing scale."
"Such a segmented approach has been specifically rejected (Matter of Save The Pine Bush v. City of Albany, 70 NY2d 193, 205-206)."
end quote
With respect to Mr. Gilchrist's threatened SLAPP suit, my 8 October 2014 letter to Supervisor Jacangelo continued by stating:
"Notwithstanding, once again, the Department of Environmental Conservation has knowingly and willfully chosen to turn its back on the New York State Constitution and the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and to resort once again to duplicity, collusion, unlawful segmentation and artful language to evade the requirements of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, in the course of doing so, stripping myself and the other Lascari petitioners of our rights to equal protection of law and due process of law as citizens of this state, this after we had gone to court several times, including the Appellate Division, to establish our rights in the first place in connection with this site."
"Thus, by putting this application out for review without an EIS, the NYSDEC Region IV Office has clearly failed to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law."
"Further, by putting this application out for review without an EIS, the NYSDEC Region IV Office has proceeded and is proceeding without and in excess of its jurisdiction."
"Beyond that, the determination by the NYSDEC Region IV office to put this application out for review without an EIS was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or is arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion."
"So what you are being asked to approve as Poestenkill Town Supervisor in connection with this above application is further lawless conduct on the part of the NYSDEC Region IV Office, which now has a long and well-documented history of lawlessness and regulatory insufficiency."
"Therefore, as a resident of this Town, I am requesting that you as Poestenkill Town Supervisor defend the position of the Town of Poestenkill as established by the Appellate Division, Third Department in Matter of Lascari et al. v. DEC et al., that there must be an EIS prepared for this site before there will be any consideration given to the issuance of a Mined Land Reclamation Permit for this site."
End quote
Thus it can readily be seen that on 28 September 2015, Mr. Gilchrist was being exceedingly disingenuous when he told your law clerk that he had no idea what my complaints were, as he had them in black and white almost a year earlier, courtesy of Ms. Nancy Baker at the DEC.
Beyond that, in his November 12, 2014 letter to Ms. Baker, Mr. Gilchrist also acknowledged being in possession of a letter from myself to Nancy Baker dated October 4, 2014 wherein was stated in relevant part as follows:
"In your official files and records in connection with this above application on Rt. 351 in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, you have a two-volume document of 877 pages in length entitled Record on Appeal in Matter of Lascari et al. v. DEC et al. which was filed with the State of New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department on December 15, 1995 by your counsel of record in that matter, New York State Attorney General Dennis C. Vacco, Esq."
"With respect to this present application for this same parcel of land that is out for public review, at page 20 of Volume I of the 877-page Record on Appeal which is a part of your official files and records concerning this matter, there is a fifteen (15) page affidavit from myself as a New York State licensed professional engineer which details the background of this matter in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, beginning in 1986, when, as a New York State licensed professional engineer, I was detailed by then-New York State Health Commissioner Dr. David Axelrod to, among other things, conduct an investigation of improper permitting practices in the Town of Poestenkill that were threatening human life, health and property."
"In paragraph 2 of that March 17, 1994 affidavit, which was never challenged or refuted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, I stated as follows:"
"In the course of that investigation, I came across several cases where improper permits had been issued in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, by the Region IV Office of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and in accordance with my instructions from the New York State Health Department, I began to thoroughly document the circumstance in those cases where improper permits had been issued by DEC in Rensselaer County, generally, and in the Town of Poestenkill, specifically."
"Beginning in paragraph 3 of that March 17, 1994 affidavit, I documented for the Court the specific history of this same project."
"Again, none of that history was ever challenged or refuted by either the Town of Poestenkill, or the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and thus, that March 17, 1994 affidavit and all of its exhibits are a part of the Record of Review that you must consider today in your review of this permit application, and I am formally requesting that it, and the remainder of this 877-page Record on Review be made a part of the record for this project review."
"With respect to that 877-page Record on Review that is a part of your official files and records in connection with this instant matter, at page 58 of Volume I, there is an eighteen (18) page affidavit from myself to the Court dated March 24, 1994, where I expose for the Court duplicity on the part of NYSDEC Region IV staff in connection with this same application, which again, was never refuted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation."
"I am formally requesting that that March 24, 1994 affidavit and all of its exhibits be made a part of the record you are reviewing in connection with this application."
"At page 140 of Volume I, there is a copy of the amended petition dated July 13, 1992 submitted to Special Term by myself and the other petitioners in the matter."
"For the record, I would note that the respondents included not only the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, but also Commissioner Thomas C. Jorling, Region IV Permit Administrator William Clarke, Region IV Deputy Permit Administrator John H. Feltman, and Region IV Senior Environmental Analyst Louise King, all of whom are losing parties at the Appellate level in this matter, and thus, are bound by the decision of the Appellate Court, as is the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, as well as yourself, as an employee or officer or agent of the Department."
"That amended petition and its exhibits makes it patently clear that this application under review today is the same application rejected by Special Term in 1994, and I am formally requesting that that amended petition dated July 13, 1992 be made a part of the record you are reviewing in connection with this above application."
"At page 175 of Volume I of that Record on Review, there is a copy of a forty-six (46) page affidavit from myself to Special Term dated April 2, 1993 wherein my concerns with regard to this same application were stated in plain language, as was the procedural history of the matter."
"I am formally requesting that this forty-six (46) page affidavit from myself to Special Term dated April 2, 1993 be made a part of the record that you are reviewing in connection with this present application, since my concerns not only remain the same, but were upheld as valid not only by Special Term, but by the Appellate Court, as well."
"At page 223 of Volume I of that Record on Appeal, there is a nine (9) page affidavit from myself to Special Term dated April 5, 1994 wherein I detail duplicitous and lawless conduct on the part of NYSDEC Region IV staff for the Court."
"Once again, that affidavit was never refuted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, nor could it have been."
"Accordingly, I am formally requesting that that 9 page affidavit from myself to Special Term dated April 5, 1994 and all of its exhibits be made a part of the record that you are reviewing in connection with this above application."
"With respect to those exhibits, at page 265 of Volume I of that Record on Appeal, there is a copy of the decision of Special Term in that matter dated November 18, 1993, which was unsuccessfully appealed from by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, herein is stated in relevant part as follows:"
"Premised upon Judge Williams' previous determination that the site at issue may not be mined without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, the issuance of Permit Number 2, for a segmented parcel of the original site may not be permitted, absent completion of an EIS which encompasses the entire parcel of land available to the project sponsor."
"Of direct relevance to this above project, the relevant language in that November 18, 1993 Decision is 'site at issue,' which is this same site."
"Of further relevance to this application is this following language of Special Term concerning the same lawless and duplicitous conduct of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation that is being employed yet again in connection with this above application, to wit:"
"On May 18, 1993, The Honorable Robert C. Williams issued an exhaustive and thorough opinion which anulled a permit issued to R.J. Valente, Inc. to mine a total of 27.5 acres off Route 351 in Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, without preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)."
"The above-captioned Article 78 proceedings both challenge yet another determination by the Department of Environmental Conservation which found that no EIS would be required prior to the issuance of a mining permit to Valente to mine a total of 8.4 acres of land at the identical site, again, without preparation of an EIS."
"To the extent that the present litigation is identical to the Article 78 proceeding before Judge Williams, his findings must be deemed conclusive and binding in these proceedings."
"It is readily apparent that the application to mine a smaller portion of the land is a rather transparent attempt to remove the project from consideration as a 'Type I' activity."
"As Judge Williams recognized, any activity which involves the physical alteration of ten or more acres is labeled a Type I activity and presumed to significantly affect the environment with resultant requirement to complete an EIS."
"It is also without doubt that the 8.4 acre parcel and the 27 acres covered by the previous permit are part of a still larger parcel, all of which is susceptible to incremental applications designed to avoid the requirement that the cumulative impact of mining at this site be considered prior to the issuance of any permit."
"The total acreage owned or controlled by the project sponsor is approximately 115 acres."
"The application for the Mined Land Reclamation Permit indicates that the future uses of the site include pasture, residential, wildlife habitat and 'other applicable uses dependent upon future conditions and local laws.'"
"At minimum, this artful language leaves little doubt that the project sponsor has reserved the option to continue to utilize the site as a gravel mine on an ever-increasing scale."
"Such a segmented approach has been specifically rejected (Matter of Save The Pine Bush v. City of Albany, 70 NY2d 193, 205-206).
"Notwithstanding, once again, the Department of Environmental Conservation has knowingly and willfully chosen to turn its back on the New York State Constitution and the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and to resort once again to duplicity, collusion, unlawful segmentation and artful language to evade the requirements of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, in the course of doing so, stripping me of my rights to equal protection of law and due process of law as a citizen of this state, this after I had gone to court several times, including the Appellate Division, to establish my rights in the first place in connection with this site."
"With respect to the exhaustive and thorough opinion issued on May 18, 1993 by The Honorable Robert C. Williams which annulled a permit issued to R.J. Valente, Inc. to mine a total of 27.5 acres off Route 351 in Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, without preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), that decision is to be found at page 313 of Volume I of the Record on Appeal which is a part of your official records and files in connection with this above application."
"I am formally requesting that it be made a part of the record that you are reviewing in connection with this above matter, as it outlines my concerns with this project."
"At page 338 of Volume I of the Record on Appeal which is part of your official records and files in connection with this site, and this present application, is to be found a copy of the Petition submitted to Judge Williams by myself and the other petitioners, wherein all of our concerns with the application were clearly stated."
"I am formally requesting that that Petition and all of its exhibits be made a part of the record that you are reviewing in connection with this segmented application, as my concerns have not changed."
"With respect to my concerns with this site and with this segmented project, at page 581 of Volume II of the Record on Appeal, they are listed in a September 16, 1992 writing that was stamped received by the NYS Department of Law on September 17, 1992."
"I am formally requesting that that writing be made a part of the record that you are reviewing in connection with this above application."
"At page 643 of Volume II of that Record on Appeal submitted to Appellate Division, Third Department by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation on December 15, 1995, there is a December 28, 1992 writing from myself to DEC Region IV concerning this same site, wherein are listed my concerns with the duplicitous process employed by the Region IV Office of the NYSDEC with respect to this site."
"I am formally requesting that that December 28, 1992 writing from myself to the DEC Region IV Office in connection with this site be made a part of the record in this above matter."
"At page 648 of Volume II of that Record on Appeal, there is a January 26, 1993 writing from myself to the NYSDEC SEQRA Counsel concerning the duplicitous conduct of the NYSDEC Region IV Office concerning the review of Mined Land Reclamation Permits for this same site in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, said duplicitous conduct by NYSDEC Region IV staff intended to strip me of equal protection of law and procedural due process of law as a citizen of the State of New York."
"I am formally requesting that that January 26, 1993 writing be made a part of the record you are reviewing in connection with this above matter."
"At page 665 of Volume II of the Record on Appeal which is a part of your official records and files in connection with this above matter, there is a February 8, 1993 writing from myself to Senior Environmental Analyst Louise Inglis King of DEC Region IV concerning this same site."
"I am formally requesting that that February 8, 1993 writing be made a part of the record you are reviewing in connection with this above matter."
"At page 713 of Volume II of the Record on Appeal, there is a February 24, 1993 writing from myself to Associate Environmental Analyst John Feltman of NYSDEC Region IV concerning this site."
"I am formally requesting that a copy of that February 24, 1993 writing be made a part of the record that you are reviewing in connection with this matter."
"At page 860 of Volume II of the Record on Appeal which is part of your official files and records in connection with this above application, there is an eleven (11) page affidavit from myself to Special Term dated October 18, 1993 concerning this same site."
"I am formally requesting that that October 18, 1993 affidavit be made a part of the record you are reviewing in connection with this above application."
"This writing constitutes my public comments in connection with this above Mined Land Reclamation Permit application."
End quotes
All of that was simply blown off by Nancy Baker as follows:
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
DEC #4-3838-00066/00003
FACILITY: Polaro Sand and Gravel
Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County
1. Letter from Town of Poestenkill
The Town of Poestenkill submitted a September 10, 2014 letter indicating they had not received any complaints about current operations at the mine site, and they suppoorted issuance of a permit for the applied expansion.
Response:
The letter supports the issuance of the permit and no further comment is required.
End quotes
And thus is how the game is played in corrupt Poestenkill, where public corruption and cronyism reign supreme!
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 20th 2024 Edition
"WHY DO WE BOTHER HAVING REGULATIONS IN POESTENKILL WHEN WE HAVE NO LAW IN POESTENKILL?"
Clearly, as we saw in the last edition of the Poestenkill Clarion, Chronicle & Gazette, where former town supervisor Dominic Jacangelo was able to simply blow off a series of Supreme Court decisions and an appellate court decision as if they were nothing more than meaningless gibberish not binding on him or the town of Poestenkill in order to confer a benefit on Polaro Mining and its lawyer Andy Gilchrist, now the town attorney, which itself was a corrupt act, that despite the statutory language of New York Town Law § 2 which defines a town as a municipal corporation comprising the inhabitants within its boundaries, and formed for the purpose of exercising such powers and discharging such duties of local government and administration of public affairs as have been, or, may be conferred or imposed upon it by law, we have no law in this town, nor despite the language of §11 of Article I, the Bill of Rights of the New York State Constitution, a dead letter in Poestenkill, wherein is clearly stated "no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof," we have no protection of law, which raises the question of why do we bother having a town code full of empty regulations that are ignored by the town board, the planning board, the zoning board and Church, the so-called town code enforcer officer?
As one perceptive and astute town resident has said, Poestenkill should scrap its worthless code, stop lying to people telling them Poestenkill is safe, and post on the website that there is no law in Poestenkill, it is the wild west, so come and take your chances.
As to those statutes that are totally ignored by public officials in Poestenkill with immunity and impunity, New York State Constitution Article III, §13 states as follows:
The enacting clause of all bills shall be “The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows.”
We, the people of the town of Poestenkill who comprise the inhabitants of this town, who get absolutely no benefit or protection from those worthless laws happen to be also "The People of the State of New York" for whom those laws are supposedly enacted.
As to the outright contempt for the law and our rights as citizens of the state of New York and inhabitants of the town of Poestenkill by town supervisors who believe they are lawless autocrats who can dispose of our lives as they please, as if they were Lords of the Manor and we mere serfs and chattel, we have a perfect example of their contempt for the law in an April 25, 1996 sworn affidavit filed by myself with the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme court in Albany, New York, in response to a libelous rant or screed then-Poestenkill town attorney Patrick Tomaselli, whose shrine now stands next to Poestenkill town hall on town property as one walks into the building on what is known as Poestenkill's "Walk of Heroes," had filed with the same court as Poestenkill Town Attorney in a vain attempt to turn the judges of that Court against me with respect to litigation I was involved in as a plaintiff against endemic public corruption involving lawless Poestenkill and the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, where we have as follows:
20. Now, according to Mr. Tomaselli’s operative theory at page one of his April 22, 1996 letter annexed to Mr. Zweig’s (former town supervisor) affidavit as Exhibit D, and according to the averments at paragraph 17 of Mr. Zweig’s April 22, 1996 sworn affidavit, I am supposed to have allegedly “targeted” the Poestenkill Planning Board with “untruthful, unwarranted, and downright vicious personal invectives” allegedly “launched” like so many Scud missiles to serve some particular agenda or cause of mine, which in reality is First Amendment redress of grievance, and I am further alleged by Messrs. Zweig and Tomaselli to have ignored or distorted facts and/or law, concentrating instead on “personal insults and name-calling” against the members of the Poestenkill Planning Board in order to induce Judge Spain, a very respected jurist who now sits on this Court, to annul the permit in question and award me costs in that matter, and according to that operative theory of Tomaselli and Zweig, Judge Spain is supposed to have fallen like a ton of bricks for such bunkum and twaddle in annulling the permit.
21. Such a theory by Messrs. Zweig and Tomaselli of course requires this Court to assume that Judge Spain is a fool, and I personally will have no part in such gratuitous “judge-bashing,” which conduct I extremely revolting and repugnant.
22. In applying the Tomaselli/Zweig “theory” of how the law allegedly works in the County of Rensselaer, where according to Mr. Tomaselli, respected Judges like Justice Spain allegedly annul Town of Poestenkill special permits based on nothing more than distorted facts and/or law and personal insults, I would ask this Court to take note of the fact that costs against planning boards in the State of New York are awarded only when the Court has before it evidence that the planning board acted with gross negligence, or in bad faith or with malice in making the decision appealed from, as was the case in that matter.
23. Apparently, according to the Tomaselli/Zweig theory, my alleged distortions of fact and/or law and personal insults and name-calling in that matter before Judge Spain would have “buffaloed” this Court, and so an appeal would not have succeeded, so “silver a tongue” am I alleged to have.
24. Based upon these two decisions alone, it becomes readily apparent that there is no merit whatsoever to the averments of Mr. Zweig based upon the assertions of Mr. Tomaselli that I am a “liar,” and based upon these two decisions alone, the contempt that these two gentlemen have for the judges who serve the public in the County of Rensselaer becomes readily apparent.
25. It does not end there, however, unfortunately.
26. Annexed hereto as Exhibit E and made a part of is a transcript decision of Judge Spain dated March 28, 1994, in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Poestenkill Town Board, Jay F. Nish, Paul Sieloff, Nelson Armlin, Mark Dunlea and Kristine Legenbauer, Rensselaer County Index No. 179138, wherein Judge Spain annulled a resolution of the Poestenkill Town Board made on November 10, 1992 based upon facts stated under oath by myself in my pro se petition in that matter.
27. It is respectfully submitted that nowhere in that decision is there any mention made of distortion of fact, and/or law by myself, nor is there mention made by the Court of alleged personal insults or name-calling by myself, as Messrs. Zweig and Tomaselli would have this Court believe is my “style,” nor was Plante v. Town Board ever appealed from.
28. I would also ask the Court to note that defendant Kristine Legenbauer in that action remains on the Poestenkill Town Board to this date.
29. As above, if what Messrs. Tomaselli and Zweig say is true in their respective submissions to this Court, they would require that this Court treat Judge Spain as nothing more than a “fool” who is easily duped by someone like myself who according to Mr. Tomaselli, allegedly engages in deception and outright lies to the courts of Rensselaer and Albany Counties to further some alleged “agenda” or “cause” I am alleged by Mr. Tomaselli to have.
30. As before, I refuse to countenance such assertions by these two gentlemen, and I ask this Court to find such assertions to be both unprofessional and unwarranted, especially by an attorney like Mr. Tomaselli who himself is allegedly in charge of the ethics of other attorneys in Rensselaer County.
32. Annexed hereto as Exhibit F and made a part hereof is a September 18, 1995 decision of Honorable James B. Canfield in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 183977, wherein Judge Canfield annulled a local law passed by the Poestenkill Town Board in July of 1994 because the Town Board failed to comply with the law as it is written in the State of New York.
33. In that decision at pages two and three, this Court will note that I moved the Court below to intervene in that matter and that I was successful in that motion.
34. At pages four and five of that decision, and based upon my affidavit testimony in that proceeding, Judge Canfield found that Poestenkill Town Councilman Keith Hammond had an insurmountable appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest.
35. Councilman Hammond remains on the Poestenkill Town Board at the time of this writing.
36. At pages six and seven, the Court found based upon my affidavit testimony that the Poestenkill Town Board had “completely” failed to comply with the requirements of SEQRA when it passed Local Law No. 2 of 1994.
37. According to the operative theory of Messrs. Tomaselli and Zweig, Judge Canfield must also be a “fool” who is easily misled by someone like myself who allegedly distorts facts and/or law and allegedly engages in insults and name-calling.
38. If what Mr. Tomaselli says at page one of his April 22, 1996 letter annexed hereto as Exhibit B is taken at face value and is assumed to be true, then we now have three judges who do not know the law, but instead simply hand out rulings against my alleged “adversaries” based upon nothing more than distortions of fact and outright lies.
39. Quite frankly, however, such an assertion by Mr. Tomaselli is ludicrous and beneath the dignity of this Court.
40. Annexed hereto as Exhibit G and made a part of is an affirmation of Assistant New York State Attorney General Kathleen Liston Morrison dated October 14, 1993, in Matter of the Application of Paul R. Plante v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany County Index No. 4840-93.
41. In that particular matter, Assistant Attorney General Morrison conceded to Judge Robert C. Williams, J.S.C., based upon the averments in my petition alone that in fact, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation was in error when it issued the permit in question.
42. Specifically, in paragraph 2 of Exhibit G, Assistant Attorney General Morrison can be seen stating that based on the averments in my petition in that matter, DEC was in error in part because it had not complied with the New York State Uniform Procedures Act, the New York State Solid Waste Management Act, and SEQRA.
43. Thereafter, in a November 19, 1993 decision annexed hereto as Exhibit H and made a part hereof, Justice Williams annulled that permit, based on nothing more than the averments in my petition in that matter.
44. Matter of Plante v. DEC, Albany County Index No. 4840-93 was never appealed from.
45. According the Messrs. Tomaselli and Zweig, of course, Assistant Attorney General Morrison must also be a fool who is easily duped by distortions of law and fact and mere name-calling, because in that action, she conceded that the State of New York was wrong without any other proof than my word alone.
46. At this point, based upon the evidence which I have annexed hereto, I believe that it is readily apparent that Mr. Tomaselli and Mr. Zweig never really had anything of substance to say to this Court concerning my conduct as a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York, and so I will end my demonstration of that fact at this juncture.
47. Based upon Exhibits C through H, I submit that I am not a “liar” as Mr. Zweig alleges in his April 22, 1996 affidavit, and I do not engage in such deceitful and deceptive tactics as Mr. Tomaselli alleges in his April 22, 1996 letter.
48. To the contrary, as a New York State licensed professional engineer and qualified associate public health engineer, I have a great deal of real assistance to offer the Courts of this state, and I take that responsibility to the citizens of this State very seriously.
49. Accordingly, Mr. Tomaselli’s statements to the contrary in his April 22, 1996 letter must be dismissed out of hand by this Court as being nothing more than pure unsupported and unsubstantiated bunkum and twaddle, and being based upon nothing more than pure bunkum and twaddle, the averments of Mr. John E. Zweig in paragraph 16 of his April 22, 1996 affidavit that I am a “liar” can be seen to be both unsupported and false.
DATED: Poestenkill, New York
April 25, 1996
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 20th 2024 Edition
"WHY DO WE BOTHER HAVING REGULATIONS IN POESTENKILL WHEN WE HAVE NO LAW IN POESTENKILL?"
Clearly, as we saw in the last edition of the Poestenkill Clarion, Chronicle & Gazette, where former town supervisor Dominic Jacangelo was able to simply blow off a series of Supreme Court decisions and an appellate court decision as if they were nothing more than meaningless gibberish not binding on him or the town of Poestenkill in order to confer a benefit on Polaro Mining and its lawyer Andy Gilchrist, now the town attorney, which itself was a corrupt act, that despite the statutory language of New York Town Law § 2 which defines a town as a municipal corporation comprising the inhabitants within its boundaries, and formed for the purpose of exercising such powers and discharging such duties of local government and administration of public affairs as have been, or, may be conferred or imposed upon it by law, we have no law in this town, nor despite the language of §11 of Article I, the Bill of Rights of the New York State Constitution, a dead letter in Poestenkill, wherein is clearly stated "no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof," we have no protection of law, which raises the question of why do we bother having a town code full of empty regulations that are ignored by the town board, the planning board, the zoning board and Church, the so-called town code enforcer officer?
As one perceptive and astute town resident has said, Poestenkill should scrap its worthless code, stop lying to people telling them Poestenkill is safe, and post on the website that there is no law in Poestenkill, it is the wild west, so come and take your chances.
As to those statutes that are totally ignored by public officials in Poestenkill with immunity and impunity, New York State Constitution Article III, §13 states as follows:
The enacting clause of all bills shall be “The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows.”
We, the people of the town of Poestenkill who comprise the inhabitants of this town, who get absolutely no benefit or protection from those worthless laws happen to be also "The People of the State of New York" for whom those laws are supposedly enacted.
As to the outright contempt for the law and our rights as citizens of the state of New York and inhabitants of the town of Poestenkill by town supervisors who believe they are lawless autocrats who can dispose of our lives as they please, as if they were Lords of the Manor and we mere serfs and chattel, we have a perfect example of their contempt for the law in an April 25, 1996 sworn affidavit filed by myself with the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme court in Albany, New York, in response to a libelous rant or screed then-Poestenkill town attorney Patrick Tomaselli, whose shrine now stands next to Poestenkill town hall on town property as one walks into the building on what is known as Poestenkill's "Walk of Heroes," had filed with the same court as Poestenkill Town Attorney in a vain attempt to turn the judges of that Court against me with respect to litigation I was involved in as a plaintiff against endemic public corruption involving lawless Poestenkill and the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, where we have as follows:
20. Now, according to Mr. Tomaselli’s operative theory at page one of his April 22, 1996 letter annexed to Mr. Zweig’s (former town supervisor) affidavit as Exhibit D, and according to the averments at paragraph 17 of Mr. Zweig’s April 22, 1996 sworn affidavit, I am supposed to have allegedly “targeted” the Poestenkill Planning Board with “untruthful, unwarranted, and downright vicious personal invectives” allegedly “launched” like so many Scud missiles to serve some particular agenda or cause of mine, which in reality is First Amendment redress of grievance, and I am further alleged by Messrs. Zweig and Tomaselli to have ignored or distorted facts and/or law, concentrating instead on “personal insults and name-calling” against the members of the Poestenkill Planning Board in order to induce Judge Spain, a very respected jurist who now sits on this Court, to annul the permit in question and award me costs in that matter, and according to that operative theory of Tomaselli and Zweig, Judge Spain is supposed to have fallen like a ton of bricks for such bunkum and twaddle in annulling the permit.
21. Such a theory by Messrs. Zweig and Tomaselli of course requires this Court to assume that Judge Spain is a fool, and I personally will have no part in such gratuitous “judge-bashing,” which conduct I extremely revolting and repugnant.
22. In applying the Tomaselli/Zweig “theory” of how the law allegedly works in the County of Rensselaer, where according to Mr. Tomaselli, respected Judges like Justice Spain allegedly annul Town of Poestenkill special permits based on nothing more than distorted facts and/or law and personal insults, I would ask this Court to take note of the fact that costs against planning boards in the State of New York are awarded only when the Court has before it evidence that the planning board acted with gross negligence, or in bad faith or with malice in making the decision appealed from, as was the case in that matter.
23. Apparently, according to the Tomaselli/Zweig theory, my alleged distortions of fact and/or law and personal insults and name-calling in that matter before Judge Spain would have “buffaloed” this Court, and so an appeal would not have succeeded, so “silver a tongue” am I alleged to have.
24. Based upon these two decisions alone, it becomes readily apparent that there is no merit whatsoever to the averments of Mr. Zweig based upon the assertions of Mr. Tomaselli that I am a “liar,” and based upon these two decisions alone, the contempt that these two gentlemen have for the judges who serve the public in the County of Rensselaer becomes readily apparent.
25. It does not end there, however, unfortunately.
26. Annexed hereto as Exhibit E and made a part of is a transcript decision of Judge Spain dated March 28, 1994, in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Poestenkill Town Board, Jay F. Nish, Paul Sieloff, Nelson Armlin, Mark Dunlea and Kristine Legenbauer, Rensselaer County Index No. 179138, wherein Judge Spain annulled a resolution of the Poestenkill Town Board made on November 10, 1992 based upon facts stated under oath by myself in my pro se petition in that matter.
27. It is respectfully submitted that nowhere in that decision is there any mention made of distortion of fact, and/or law by myself, nor is there mention made by the Court of alleged personal insults or name-calling by myself, as Messrs. Zweig and Tomaselli would have this Court believe is my “style,” nor was Plante v. Town Board ever appealed from.
28. I would also ask the Court to note that defendant Kristine Legenbauer in that action remains on the Poestenkill Town Board to this date.
29. As above, if what Messrs. Tomaselli and Zweig say is true in their respective submissions to this Court, they would require that this Court treat Judge Spain as nothing more than a “fool” who is easily duped by someone like myself who according to Mr. Tomaselli, allegedly engages in deception and outright lies to the courts of Rensselaer and Albany Counties to further some alleged “agenda” or “cause” I am alleged by Mr. Tomaselli to have.
30. As before, I refuse to countenance such assertions by these two gentlemen, and I ask this Court to find such assertions to be both unprofessional and unwarranted, especially by an attorney like Mr. Tomaselli who himself is allegedly in charge of the ethics of other attorneys in Rensselaer County.
32. Annexed hereto as Exhibit F and made a part hereof is a September 18, 1995 decision of Honorable James B. Canfield in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 183977, wherein Judge Canfield annulled a local law passed by the Poestenkill Town Board in July of 1994 because the Town Board failed to comply with the law as it is written in the State of New York.
33. In that decision at pages two and three, this Court will note that I moved the Court below to intervene in that matter and that I was successful in that motion.
34. At pages four and five of that decision, and based upon my affidavit testimony in that proceeding, Judge Canfield found that Poestenkill Town Councilman Keith Hammond had an insurmountable appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest.
35. Councilman Hammond remains on the Poestenkill Town Board at the time of this writing.
36. At pages six and seven, the Court found based upon my affidavit testimony that the Poestenkill Town Board had “completely” failed to comply with the requirements of SEQRA when it passed Local Law No. 2 of 1994.
37. According to the operative theory of Messrs. Tomaselli and Zweig, Judge Canfield must also be a “fool” who is easily misled by someone like myself who allegedly distorts facts and/or law and allegedly engages in insults and name-calling.
38. If what Mr. Tomaselli says at page one of his April 22, 1996 letter annexed hereto as Exhibit B is taken at face value and is assumed to be true, then we now have three judges who do not know the law, but instead simply hand out rulings against my alleged “adversaries” based upon nothing more than distortions of fact and outright lies.
39. Quite frankly, however, such an assertion by Mr. Tomaselli is ludicrous and beneath the dignity of this Court.
40. Annexed hereto as Exhibit G and made a part of is an affirmation of Assistant New York State Attorney General Kathleen Liston Morrison dated October 14, 1993, in Matter of the Application of Paul R. Plante v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany County Index No. 4840-93.
41. In that particular matter, Assistant Attorney General Morrison conceded to Judge Robert C. Williams, J.S.C., based upon the averments in my petition alone that in fact, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation was in error when it issued the permit in question.
42. Specifically, in paragraph 2 of Exhibit G, Assistant Attorney General Morrison can be seen stating that based on the averments in my petition in that matter, DEC was in error in part because it had not complied with the New York State Uniform Procedures Act, the New York State Solid Waste Management Act, and SEQRA.
43. Thereafter, in a November 19, 1993 decision annexed hereto as Exhibit H and made a part hereof, Justice Williams annulled that permit, based on nothing more than the averments in my petition in that matter.
44. Matter of Plante v. DEC, Albany County Index No. 4840-93 was never appealed from.
45. According the Messrs. Tomaselli and Zweig, of course, Assistant Attorney General Morrison must also be a fool who is easily duped by distortions of law and fact and mere name-calling, because in that action, she conceded that the State of New York was wrong without any other proof than my word alone.
46. At this point, based upon the evidence which I have annexed hereto, I believe that it is readily apparent that Mr. Tomaselli and Mr. Zweig never really had anything of substance to say to this Court concerning my conduct as a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York, and so I will end my demonstration of that fact at this juncture.
47. Based upon Exhibits C through H, I submit that I am not a “liar” as Mr. Zweig alleges in his April 22, 1996 affidavit, and I do not engage in such deceitful and deceptive tactics as Mr. Tomaselli alleges in his April 22, 1996 letter.
48. To the contrary, as a New York State licensed professional engineer and qualified associate public health engineer, I have a great deal of real assistance to offer the Courts of this state, and I take that responsibility to the citizens of this State very seriously.
49. Accordingly, Mr. Tomaselli’s statements to the contrary in his April 22, 1996 letter must be dismissed out of hand by this Court as being nothing more than pure unsupported and unsubstantiated bunkum and twaddle, and being based upon nothing more than pure bunkum and twaddle, the averments of Mr. John E. Zweig in paragraph 16 of his April 22, 1996 affidavit that I am a “liar” can be seen to be both unsupported and false.
DATED: Poestenkill, New York
April 25, 1996
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 21st 2024 Edition
"ON POESTENKILL'S FRIVOLOUS PFAS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE AVERILL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT"
As was stated in a previous edition of the Poestenkill Clarion, Chronicle & Gazette, dedicated not only to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill, which is our right to think for ourselves without fear of retaliation from the town board of Poestenkill, which liberty allows people like us to form their own ideas and opinions by questioning the world around them, but also to rooting out the endemic corruption in what passes for government in this unsafe town where we pay an exorbitant amount of property taxes for the no protection of law we receive in return, it was stated that one of the issues confronting us New York state citizens who comprise the inhabitants of the town of Poestenkill as this new year begins with a new supervisor replacing the reviled Keith Hammond is the Notice of Claim the town of Poestenkill has filed against the Averill Park School District, which as property owners we all pay school taxes to, even if we get no benefit from those taxes.
With respect to that Notice of Claim, by way of review, on Monday, July 17, 2023, @ 8:48 AM, Poestenkill Town Councilmember Eric Wohlleber sent out a notice to town resident titled Subject: Poestenkill PFOA Update, wherein was stated as follows:
Neighbors,
I have received several calls/emails recently on the Town Board's action on Thursday night, so I thought I would provide an update to this group.
On Thursday, July 13th the Poestenkill Town Board approved a resolution to authorize a notice of claim in relation to the PFOA/PFOS contamination to be served to the Averill Park Central School District.
I voted for this resolution because it is an important step in protecting the property rights, property values and the health of Poestenkill residents.
By serving the school district this notice of claim, the Town is taking a necessary step in protecting the rights of the town on behalf of its residents who have been negatively impacted by the PFOA/PFOS contamination.
This notice of claim provides the Town of Poestenkill one-year to file any potential action in relation to the contamination.
As per the resolution - "The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued a Final Assessment Area Report on April 20, 2023 - concluding the Algonquin Middle School is the significant source area for PFOA and PFOS contamination found in groundwater in such location..." and "the Town of Poestenkill confirms it authorization to cause the preparation of a notice of claim on behalf of the Town of Poestenkill to the Averill Park Central School District.... with respect to all legal and/or equitable rights and remedies that the Town of Poestenkill may have against the Averill Park Central School District with respect to groundwater contamination and costs incurred by the Town of Poestenkill..."
The Town had, by law, 90 days after the filing of the final report (by NYSDEC) to file the notice of claim to reserve the town's rights for any potential future action, if the Town Board chooses that route.
I hope this update helps to clarify, please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions - my cell is 518-857-0645.
end quotes
As was stated previously, what we need to focus on, and have made an agenda item as soon as possible is councilman Wohlleber's statement above that The Town had, by law, 90 days after the filing of the final report (by NYSDEC) to file the notice of claim to reserve the town's rights for any potential future action, IF the Town Board chooses that route, which, now that we have a new supervisor in place and a new councilmember, as well, is an answer we need to know sooner than later, to wit:
DOES THE NEWLY CONSTITUTED POESTENKILL TOWN BOARD, INCLUDING THE NEW SUPERVISOR, CHOOSE TO GO THAT ROUTE, OR NOT?
Now, of note, councilmember Wohlleber tells us that he voted for that resolution because he wants us to believe that it is an important step in protecting the property rights, property values and the health of Poestenkill residents, which happens to be us.
He then goes further by telling us that by serving the school district the notice of claim, which conflicted Poestenkill attorney Andy Gilchrist confirmed had been done at the September 14, 2023 Poestenkill Town Board Meeting
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiTSiQs53aw at 13:48), the Town was taking a necessary step in protecting the rights of the town on behalf of its residents who have been negatively impacted by the PFOA/PFOS contamination.
But neither of those statements are in fact true.
This Notice of Claim, which will result in what is known as a frivolous lawsuit should the new town board vote to proceed with the prosecution of it, does absolutely nothing to protect OUR property rights, OUR property values and OUR health.
To the contrary, filing a frivolous lawsuit against the school district will adversely impact on OUR property rights, OUR property values and OUR health for the reason that a frivolous lawsuit, such as this is one against the Averill Park School District will be if newly elected supervisor Democrat Tom Russell, along with Hammond crony and running mate Frank Burzesi, "WHITEWASHER" Eric Wohlleber, head of the CCCDW along with Judy Enck, Dave Hass, the self-proclaimed "CHIEF FISCAL OFFICER" of the town of Poestenkill, and June Butler do decide to take it to court, is one that due to lack of legal merit, has no chance of succeeding, which is why we need to know sooner than later which direction this new town board is going to choose to go in.
Frivolous litigation is the use of legal processes with apparent disregard for the merit of one's own arguments and it includes presenting an argument with reason to know that it would certainly fail, as will be the case here, or acting without a basic level of diligence in researching the relevant law and facts, as clearly is the case here.
Frivolous litigation, such as this will be if the town board votes to proceed, may be based on absurd legal theories as is the case here, given that Poestenkill's claims against the school district have no underlying justification in fact, where to prevail, Poestenkill would have to prove in court to a jury of people like ourselves that the school district in fact has harmed Poestenkill through negligence, which Poestenkill can't do, because Poestenkill has no evidence to support the claim, and this is not some silly political game, prosecuting a lawsuit like this.
To the contrary, it is a serious business that we, the beleaguered inhabitants of Poestenkill will being presented the bill for when Poestenkill loses a suit it can't win, because it has no evidence that the school district caused any harm, and more importantly, Poestenkill has no expert witnesses to support its case, where an expert witness in court is a person with specialized knowledge, skills, education, or experience in a particular field who is called upon to provide their expertise in legal proceedings to assist the court with understanding complex technical or scientific issues.
For someone to be an expert witness, they must be qualified as an expert witness by disclosing their curriculum vitae, a brief account of a person's education, qualifications, and previous experience, and then undergoing a process known as voir dire, which is a preliminary examination of a witness by opposing counsel before that person can be deemed an expert witness as opposed to a fraud or quack.
Once disclosed in what is known as discovery, a mandatory part of the pre-trial proceedings, where opposing counsel gathers the evidence needed to defeat the plaintiff's case as a defendant, finding out such things as what the other side, in this case, Poestenkill, plans to say about an issue in their case, and what facts or witnesses support their side, that supposed expert witness can then be deposed by the opposing counsel, and based upon that deposition, opposing counsel can then make a motion to the Court to dismiss the suit for lack of merit.
And you can believe that in this case, attorneys for the school district, or more likely, its insurance carrier, will, be scouring the record, leaving no stone unturned, and here is where Poestenkill will be the loser, because the record does not support the case of Poestenkill.
Why, for example, if the town believes the school district negligent, did WAMC Midday Magazine post an article titled "Residents Of Poestenkill Discuss PFOA-Contaminated Drinking Water" by Dave Lucas on September 28, 2021, where we had as follows:
Residents of the Rensselaer County town of Poestenkill gathered at Monday night to discuss the recent discovery of PFOA in drinking water.
Averill Park Central School District water supplies tested in January showed levels of PFOA above 10 parts per trillion at the Algonquin Middle School.
Since then the district says it has worked closely with the county, the state Education Department and Town of Poestenkill to develop a plan to address the contamination.
end quotes
If the district was in fact working closely with Poestenkill to develop a plan to address the contamination in January or so of 2021, when did Poestenkill subsequently decide the school district was negligent and the cause of harm?
And WHY?
Based on what?
Certainly not on any testimony from Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer Rich Elder, NYSPE, given that the town previously accepted without comment his statement in an Albany, New York Times Union article titled "Rensselaer County expands PFOA testing in Poestenkill" by Kenneth C. Crowe II on September 22, 2021 that the second round of testing that was being done was to determine the potential exposure in drinking water rather than identifying a source of the PFOA contamination.
In a deposition, opposing counsel would lead Elder right to that statement and then with a flurry of questions aimed at Elder, such as when he then did any investigation to determine the source, if he did do it, and when, records he can't produce, and questions he can't answer because he never did an investigation, which is something he would be forced to have to admit because he would be left with no other choice but to have to, and then chaos would ensue and there would go Poestenkill's frivolous litigation against the school district up in smoke, while we would be paying an exorbitant amount PER HOUR in legal fees to fund a farce the lawyers will still be paid for, even though they lost.
And given that Poestenkill has previously accepted without comment or question an assertion by Barton and Loguidice, D.P.C., consulting geologists, on June 20, 2022, in a writing to Mr. Warren Harris, Waste Management – Poestenkill Transfer Station, 9002 NY-66, Poestenkill, New York 12018, Re: Poestenkill Transfer Station – Response to NYSDEC Request for Information, File: 1242.079.006 that based on the bedrock groundwater elevations measured by B&L at the WMNY Poestenkill Transfer Station on March 10 and May 26, 2022, the estimated groundwater flow direction appears to be generally toward the north and east, and this flow direction is from the intersection of NY 66 (Averill Park Rd) and NY 351 (White Church Rd), and away from Algonquin Middle School.
Given that Poestenkill has already accepted without comment or question an expert opinion that the groundwater flow is to the north-east, or from the Algonquin School to the transfer station at the intersection of Rtes 66 and 351 and from thence down into some swamp land, it can't turn around and try to prove that somehow, PFAS was able to overcome the effect of that groundwater flow on itself and actually swim upgradient into Algonquin Estates to pollute their wells, when the expert witness opinion about groundwater flow makes it quite apparent to anyone of even modest intelligence, such a person as is likely to sit on a jury in this matter, that the source of the contamination of the school's well came from Algonquin Estates, which will trigger an investigation of Algonquin Estates by defendant's counsel's experts looking for evidence of failed septic systems and fracking of residential wells.
And that is what makes this proposed litigation frivolous and a farce - the actual bending and twisting of the fabric of reality by Poestenkill for Poestenkill to be able to make its weird story of PFAS being able to swim upstream like a spawning salmon somehow credible!
They'll be laughed out of court, and we will be stuck with a huge legal bill for the farce, so the time to put this matter to bed is right now, before the damage can be done.
DEMAND THAT THIS IS MADE AN AGENDA ITEM NOW AND POLL EACH MEMBER OF THE BOARD AND THE SUPERVISOR SEPARATELY TO HAVE EACH OF THEM EXPLICITLY STATE THEIR POSITION ON THE ISSUE ON THE RECORD, AND THEN TAKE A FINAL VOTE ON THE MATTER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AFTER FIRST HAVING GIVEN THEIR OPINIONS ON THE RECORD SO AS TO HAVE A RECORD IN THE EVENT OF FUTURE LITIGATION IN THE MATTER INVOLVING THE TOWN OF POESTENKILL.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 21st 2024 Edition
"ON POESTENKILL'S FRIVOLOUS PFAS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE AVERILL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT"
As was stated in a previous edition of the Poestenkill Clarion, Chronicle & Gazette, dedicated not only to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill, which is our right to think for ourselves without fear of retaliation from the town board of Poestenkill, which liberty allows people like us to form their own ideas and opinions by questioning the world around them, but also to rooting out the endemic corruption in what passes for government in this unsafe town where we pay an exorbitant amount of property taxes for the no protection of law we receive in return, it was stated that one of the issues confronting us New York state citizens who comprise the inhabitants of the town of Poestenkill as this new year begins with a new supervisor replacing the reviled Keith Hammond is the Notice of Claim the town of Poestenkill has filed against the Averill Park School District, which as property owners we all pay school taxes to, even if we get no benefit from those taxes.
With respect to that Notice of Claim, by way of review, on Monday, July 17, 2023, @ 8:48 AM, Poestenkill Town Councilmember Eric Wohlleber sent out a notice to town resident titled Subject: Poestenkill PFOA Update, wherein was stated as follows:
Neighbors,
I have received several calls/emails recently on the Town Board's action on Thursday night, so I thought I would provide an update to this group.
On Thursday, July 13th the Poestenkill Town Board approved a resolution to authorize a notice of claim in relation to the PFOA/PFOS contamination to be served to the Averill Park Central School District.
I voted for this resolution because it is an important step in protecting the property rights, property values and the health of Poestenkill residents.
By serving the school district this notice of claim, the Town is taking a necessary step in protecting the rights of the town on behalf of its residents who have been negatively impacted by the PFOA/PFOS contamination.
This notice of claim provides the Town of Poestenkill one-year to file any potential action in relation to the contamination.
As per the resolution - "The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued a Final Assessment Area Report on April 20, 2023 - concluding the Algonquin Middle School is the significant source area for PFOA and PFOS contamination found in groundwater in such location..." and "the Town of Poestenkill confirms it authorization to cause the preparation of a notice of claim on behalf of the Town of Poestenkill to the Averill Park Central School District.... with respect to all legal and/or equitable rights and remedies that the Town of Poestenkill may have against the Averill Park Central School District with respect to groundwater contamination and costs incurred by the Town of Poestenkill..."
The Town had, by law, 90 days after the filing of the final report (by NYSDEC) to file the notice of claim to reserve the town's rights for any potential future action, if the Town Board chooses that route.
I hope this update helps to clarify, please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions - my cell is 518-857-0645.
end quotes
As was stated previously, what we need to focus on, and have made an agenda item as soon as possible is councilman Wohlleber's statement above that The Town had, by law, 90 days after the filing of the final report (by NYSDEC) to file the notice of claim to reserve the town's rights for any potential future action, IF the Town Board chooses that route, which, now that we have a new supervisor in place and a new councilmember, as well, is an answer we need to know sooner than later, to wit:
DOES THE NEWLY CONSTITUTED POESTENKILL TOWN BOARD, INCLUDING THE NEW SUPERVISOR, CHOOSE TO GO THAT ROUTE, OR NOT?
Now, of note, councilmember Wohlleber tells us that he voted for that resolution because he wants us to believe that it is an important step in protecting the property rights, property values and the health of Poestenkill residents, which happens to be us.
He then goes further by telling us that by serving the school district the notice of claim, which conflicted Poestenkill attorney Andy Gilchrist confirmed had been done at the September 14, 2023 Poestenkill Town Board Meeting
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiTSiQs53aw at 13:48), the Town was taking a necessary step in protecting the rights of the town on behalf of its residents who have been negatively impacted by the PFOA/PFOS contamination.
But neither of those statements are in fact true.
This Notice of Claim, which will result in what is known as a frivolous lawsuit should the new town board vote to proceed with the prosecution of it, does absolutely nothing to protect OUR property rights, OUR property values and OUR health.
To the contrary, filing a frivolous lawsuit against the school district will adversely impact on OUR property rights, OUR property values and OUR health for the reason that a frivolous lawsuit, such as this is one against the Averill Park School District will be if newly elected supervisor Democrat Tom Russell, along with Hammond crony and running mate Frank Burzesi, "WHITEWASHER" Eric Wohlleber, head of the CCCDW along with Judy Enck, Dave Hass, the self-proclaimed "CHIEF FISCAL OFFICER" of the town of Poestenkill, and June Butler do decide to take it to court, is one that due to lack of legal merit, has no chance of succeeding, which is why we need to know sooner than later which direction this new town board is going to choose to go in.
Frivolous litigation is the use of legal processes with apparent disregard for the merit of one's own arguments and it includes presenting an argument with reason to know that it would certainly fail, as will be the case here, or acting without a basic level of diligence in researching the relevant law and facts, as clearly is the case here.
Frivolous litigation, such as this will be if the town board votes to proceed, may be based on absurd legal theories as is the case here, given that Poestenkill's claims against the school district have no underlying justification in fact, where to prevail, Poestenkill would have to prove in court to a jury of people like ourselves that the school district in fact has harmed Poestenkill through negligence, which Poestenkill can't do, because Poestenkill has no evidence to support the claim, and this is not some silly political game, prosecuting a lawsuit like this.
To the contrary, it is a serious business that we, the beleaguered inhabitants of Poestenkill will being presented the bill for when Poestenkill loses a suit it can't win, because it has no evidence that the school district caused any harm, and more importantly, Poestenkill has no expert witnesses to support its case, where an expert witness in court is a person with specialized knowledge, skills, education, or experience in a particular field who is called upon to provide their expertise in legal proceedings to assist the court with understanding complex technical or scientific issues.
For someone to be an expert witness, they must be qualified as an expert witness by disclosing their curriculum vitae, a brief account of a person's education, qualifications, and previous experience, and then undergoing a process known as voir dire, which is a preliminary examination of a witness by opposing counsel before that person can be deemed an expert witness as opposed to a fraud or quack.
Once disclosed in what is known as discovery, a mandatory part of the pre-trial proceedings, where opposing counsel gathers the evidence needed to defeat the plaintiff's case as a defendant, finding out such things as what the other side, in this case, Poestenkill, plans to say about an issue in their case, and what facts or witnesses support their side, that supposed expert witness can then be deposed by the opposing counsel, and based upon that deposition, opposing counsel can then make a motion to the Court to dismiss the suit for lack of merit.
And you can believe that in this case, attorneys for the school district, or more likely, its insurance carrier, will, be scouring the record, leaving no stone unturned, and here is where Poestenkill will be the loser, because the record does not support the case of Poestenkill.
Why, for example, if the town believes the school district negligent, did WAMC Midday Magazine post an article titled "Residents Of Poestenkill Discuss PFOA-Contaminated Drinking Water" by Dave Lucas on September 28, 2021, where we had as follows:
Residents of the Rensselaer County town of Poestenkill gathered at Monday night to discuss the recent discovery of PFOA in drinking water.
Averill Park Central School District water supplies tested in January showed levels of PFOA above 10 parts per trillion at the Algonquin Middle School.
Since then the district says it has worked closely with the county, the state Education Department and Town of Poestenkill to develop a plan to address the contamination.
end quotes
If the district was in fact working closely with Poestenkill to develop a plan to address the contamination in January or so of 2021, when did Poestenkill subsequently decide the school district was negligent and the cause of harm?
And WHY?
Based on what?
Certainly not on any testimony from Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer Rich Elder, NYSPE, given that the town previously accepted without comment his statement in an Albany, New York Times Union article titled "Rensselaer County expands PFOA testing in Poestenkill" by Kenneth C. Crowe II on September 22, 2021 that the second round of testing that was being done was to determine the potential exposure in drinking water rather than identifying a source of the PFOA contamination.
In a deposition, opposing counsel would lead Elder right to that statement and then with a flurry of questions aimed at Elder, such as when he then did any investigation to determine the source, if he did do it, and when, records he can't produce, and questions he can't answer because he never did an investigation, which is something he would be forced to have to admit because he would be left with no other choice but to have to, and then chaos would ensue and there would go Poestenkill's frivolous litigation against the school district up in smoke, while we would be paying an exorbitant amount PER HOUR in legal fees to fund a farce the lawyers will still be paid for, even though they lost.
And given that Poestenkill has previously accepted without comment or question an assertion by Barton and Loguidice, D.P.C., consulting geologists, on June 20, 2022, in a writing to Mr. Warren Harris, Waste Management – Poestenkill Transfer Station, 9002 NY-66, Poestenkill, New York 12018, Re: Poestenkill Transfer Station – Response to NYSDEC Request for Information, File: 1242.079.006 that based on the bedrock groundwater elevations measured by B&L at the WMNY Poestenkill Transfer Station on March 10 and May 26, 2022, the estimated groundwater flow direction appears to be generally toward the north and east, and this flow direction is from the intersection of NY 66 (Averill Park Rd) and NY 351 (White Church Rd), and away from Algonquin Middle School.
Given that Poestenkill has already accepted without comment or question an expert opinion that the groundwater flow is to the north-east, or from the Algonquin School to the transfer station at the intersection of Rtes 66 and 351 and from thence down into some swamp land, it can't turn around and try to prove that somehow, PFAS was able to overcome the effect of that groundwater flow on itself and actually swim upgradient into Algonquin Estates to pollute their wells, when the expert witness opinion about groundwater flow makes it quite apparent to anyone of even modest intelligence, such a person as is likely to sit on a jury in this matter, that the source of the contamination of the school's well came from Algonquin Estates, which will trigger an investigation of Algonquin Estates by defendant's counsel's experts looking for evidence of failed septic systems and fracking of residential wells.
And that is what makes this proposed litigation frivolous and a farce - the actual bending and twisting of the fabric of reality by Poestenkill for Poestenkill to be able to make its weird story of PFAS being able to swim upstream like a spawning salmon somehow credible!
They'll be laughed out of court, and we will be stuck with a huge legal bill for the farce, so the time to put this matter to bed is right now, before the damage can be done.
DEMAND THAT THIS IS MADE AN AGENDA ITEM NOW AND POLL EACH MEMBER OF THE BOARD AND THE SUPERVISOR SEPARATELY TO HAVE EACH OF THEM EXPLICITLY STATE THEIR POSITION ON THE ISSUE ON THE RECORD, AND THEN TAKE A FINAL VOTE ON THE MATTER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AFTER FIRST HAVING GIVEN THEIR OPINIONS ON THE RECORD SO AS TO HAVE A RECORD IN THE EVENT OF FUTURE LITIGATION IN THE MATTER INVOLVING THE TOWN OF POESTENKILL.