THE LIVYJR FILES

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 30, 2018 at 7:15 pm

Paul Plante says:

This, Don Green, is how that same game is played up here where I am:

POESTENKILL CITIZENS NEWS

“JACANGELO GANG APPROVES CREATION OF POSTENKILL GARBAGE ZONE”

According to the Poestenkill Town Board meeting minutes for August 16, 2018, Poestenkill Town Councilman Eric Wohlleber made a motion at that meeting entitled “Consider for approval Waste Management Host Agreement,” with a second by Poestenkill Town Councilperson June Butler, to “authorize” Poestenkill Town Supervisor Dominic Jacangelo to sign a litany of lies, deceit and deception termed a “Community Benefit Agreement” between the Town of Poestenkill and giant waste hauler Waste Management of NY, LLC, which agreement benefits the “community” of the “Jacangelo Gang” and Waste Management of NY, LLC by creating the area around the intersection of Rts 66 and 351 in Poestenkill into a “Garbage Zone” under the exclusive control of Waste Management of NY, LLC, with protection coming to them from the Poestenkill Town Board, which in the agreement has created for Waste Management of NY, LLC a protected zone in Poestenkill devoted to the importation of regional garbage into Poestenkill, at the expense of what used to be a residentially-zoned part of the Town of Poestenkill, but is no more.

Thus, through the highly-skilled use of lies, deceit and deception, and outright thug-like behavior, the Jacangelo Gang in Poestenkill has managed to successfully rezone the Town of Poestenkill for the benefit of Waste Management of NY, LLC, while completely circumventing all the laws, rules or regulations pertaining to rezonings in Poestenkill, including citizen involvement, as the dictatorial Jacangelo Gang sweeps rule of law in Poestenkill aside to create a laissez-faire business climate in Poestenkill for the benefit of Waste Management of NY, LLC, at the expense of the people of the Town whose homes are now included in this Garbage Zone, by decree of “Boss” Dominic Jacangelo, the self-styled Caesar Augustus of the empire of Poestenkill which he as dictator reigns over.

According to the minutes, votes approving the creation of the “Poestenkill Garbage Zone” for Waste Management of NY, LLC, came from Dominic Jacangelo, the head of the Jacangelo Gang, and gang members Harold Van Slyke and June Butler, with former Jacangelo Gang member Eric Wohlleber sitting this one out, and Councilman Hass voting no.

Respectfully submitted,

Paul R. Plante

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ment-68567

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 1, 2018 at 8:41 pm

Paul Plante says :

The “poor woman,” Don Green, made her own bed, and now she doesn’t like lying in it.

Good for her.

Was she really so stupid as to think the chicken industry was going to turn Accomack County into a cultural oasis where only the best of people would be drawn?

Getting back to this theme of corrupt town or county officials selling out the residents of their towns or counties to polluting industries or industries with criminal records looking for some laissez-faire public officials willing to turn their backs and look off in some other direction while the residents of their towns or counties get screwed to the wall, here is more on that situation up here near me.

Notice the violations that occurred in Virginia:

According to the POESTENKILL TOWN BOARD MEETING MINUTES posted by Conservative Republican Poestenkill Councilman Eric Wohlleber at p.8 of the19 July 2018 Advertiser, on Thursday, June 28, 2018, under “Waste Management Host Community Agreement,” a motion was made by Poestenkill Town Councilperson Harold Van Slyke and seconded by Supervisor Jacangelo to accept the Waste Management Host Benefit Proposal.

The motion passed 4-1 with Councilman Hass voting no.

The essential provisions of this document are as followe:

COMMUNITY BENEFIT AGREEMENT between the TOWN OF POESTENKILL and WASTE MANAGEMENT of NEW YORK, LLC

This agreement made this __ day of ___, 2018, by and between Waste Management of New York, LLC, a limited liability company of the State of Delaware, (hereinafter referred to as “Waste Management”), and the Town of Poestenkill, a municipal corporation of the State of New York (hereinafter referred to as “Poestenkill” and/or “Town”).

WITNESSETH

WHEREAS, Waste Management owns and operates a solid waste transfer station located at Routes 66 and 351, Poestenkill, New York (hereinafter, the Transfer Station); and

WHEREAS, Waste Management operates the Transfer Station pursuant to a solid waste facility permit issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (hereinafter referred to as “NYSDEC”), and receives and transfers Solid Waste (as defined in 6 NYCRR Part 360); and

WHEREAS, Poestenkill is familiar with the current and past operation of Waste Management’s Transfer Station and has confidence in the ability of Waste Management to continue to operate same in compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations; further Waste Management agrees that Poestenkill will enforce applicable rules and regulations of the Town; and

WHEREAS, Poestenkill recognizes that a Planned Development District was established for the operation of the transfer station in 1993 which allows for the continued or future use of the Transfer Station by Waste Management to service solid waste generators other than those within Poestenkill, and

WHEREAS, Poestenkill and Waste Management have agreed that the community benefits to be provided to the Town shall be defined by the terms and conditions of this agreement.

*****

7. The provisions of this Agreement shall (a) constitute the entire agreement between the parties, superseding all prior agreements, and negotiations and (b) be modified only by written agreement duly executed by Poestenkill and Waste Management.

end quotes

Note the third WHEREAS, as follows: Poestenkill is familiar with the current and past operation of Waste Management’s Transfer Station and has confidence in the ability of Waste Management to continue to operate same in compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations.

First of all, according to the history of the transfer station posted by Councilman Hass at p.5 of the 17 May 2018 Advertiser, Waste Management “suspended” operations at the transfer station nine years ago in 2009, so there have not been any operations for the last nine years for the Town of Poestenkill to be familiar with.

As to the past operations, they were a subject of an Albany Times Union article entitled “Residents denounce DEC’s trash deal – Waste Management’s fine fails to satisfy townspeople, who vow further action in state court” by Michelle Morgan Bolton, staff writer, on March 25, 1999, as follows:

While Waste Management has agreed to pay the State Department of Environmental Conservation $20,000 for alleged infractions of its operating permit, neighbors of the routes 66 and 351 transfer station claim the DEC has sold them out and plan to sue.

Waste Management signed a $25,000 consent order March 19 after months of negotiations – but the DEC suspended $5,000 as long as the company remains in compliance.

Neighbors have complained all along that their homes and lawns have been deluged with dust, trash, rodents and huge black blowflies, along with ear-splitting noise at all hours of the day and night.

“They’ve given the company a get-out-of-jail-free card,” said Paul Plante, one of the residents who claims the company is violating its permit.

“For $20,000, the DEC will keep its back turned.”

“We have been severed from any protection of the law whatsoever.”

Waste Management denied the violations named in the consent order, yet signed it and paid the fine.

All pending action against the company, including citations issued by the town’s code enforcement officer, along with the DEC’s criminal and administrative actions, are now null and void, the order states.

According to the document, 15 of the hauler’s trucks idled for more than five consecutive minutes on July 15, 1998, and July 30, 1998, and the business was open before its regulated 7 a.m. start time.

Waste Management was also cited for dumping trash on the floor, a direct violation of its operating permit.

end quotes

So where then, besides from thin air, does Poestenkill get this “confidence in the ability of Waste Management to continue to operate same in compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations” from, given Waste Management’s proven track record of not operating this facility in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations?

That statement by the Town of Poestenkill is a solid indication that Poestenkill intends to do as it did before, which is to turn the blind eye to how this transfer station is operated, especially as Poestenkill Town Supervisor and Waste Management booster Dominic Jacangelo has already put into writing that he considers any Poestenkill town codes applying to the transfer station to be mere suggestions.

As to Waste Management’s track record, it was the subject of a NYSDEC hearing on the application of Waste Management of New York to operate a solid waste management facility in New York State (Towpath), on December 31, 1999, as follows:

Ruling, December 31, 1999

STATE OF NEW YORK : DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

In the Matter of the Application of WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW YORK, LLC for permits to operate a solid waste management facility, the Towpath Environmental & Recycling Center, in the Town of Albion, Orleans County.

(DEC Application No. 8-3420-00019/00005)

RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ON PARTY STATUS AND ISSUES

– WMNY Record of Compliance

As a required supplement to its application, WMNY (then known as Waste Management of New York, Inc.) completed a record of compliance form identifying other permits it had been issued under the ECL as well as various administrative law violations committed within the last 10 years.

Because the list of violations had not been updated since August, 1997, I directed that the Applicant furnish a supplement, which it did on July 30, 1999.

In addition, DEC Staff, in a submission of November 2, 1999, identified two more Region 8 consent orders which for some reason had not been referenced in WMNY’s disclosure.

All combined, the identified violations of the ECL and Department regulations, permits and consent orders raise enough doubt about the Applicant’s fitness that a reasonable person would inquire further into the circumstances of those that appear most significant.

The information already available indicates various violations the circumstances of which need to be explored.

For instance, according to DEC Staff, WMNY’s compliance record in Region 8 includes a 1991 order (modified in 1992) assessing a $71,000 penalty for placing waste at a not yet permitted location at the High Acres Landfill in Fairport, as well as a 1991 order assessing a $4,500 penalty for installing gas recovery wells at the Monroe Livingston Landfill prior to receiving a DEC permit to do so.

Apparently neither of these orders was mentioned by WMNY as part of its record of compliance disclosure, which raises a second ground for inquiry under the EGM: whether the Applicant made materially false or inaccurate statements in the permit application. (EGM, page 5.)

Also requiring further scrutiny are various more recent DEC violations related to waste handling by WMNY and its former subsidiary Waste Management of New York City, which is now part of the parent company.

Acknowledged by the Applicant, many of these violations resulted in substantial penalties:

$50,000 for 1999 violations including operating over permitted tonnage limits and beyond authorized hours, at a Goshen recycling facility (Northern Recycling);

$50,000 for 1998 violations including exceeding operating hours, at an Averill Park transfer station (Poestenkill);

$20,000 for 1999 violations including acceptance of unauthorized materials, at a Brooklyn transfer station (NYC Hauling);

$20,000 for 1998 violations including alterations to the physical plant and facility operations beyond those authorized by permit, at another Brooklyn transfer station (Varick 1);

$20,000 for 1998 violations involving physical plant modifications which resulted in changes to plans, at a third Brooklyn transfer station (BQE);

$40,000 for a 1998 violation of operating beyond the borders of the permitted area, at a fourth Brooklyn transfer station (Woodyard).

end quotes

Note the $50,000 for 1998 violations including exceeding operating hours at this same Poestenkill transfer station, and ask yourself why it is that Poestenkill Supervisor Dominic Jacangelo along with Poestenkill Councilpersons Eric Wohlleber, Harold Van Slyke and June Butler are shoving these violations under the rug and are openly lying to us about the ability of Waste Management yo operate this transfer station in accordance with the law when the history proves otherwise?

Getting back to that history from the DEC official records:

Finally, it appears from WMNY’s disclosure that it and Waste Management of Virginia, a sister corporation, were penalized $150,000 by a Virginia Court in 1999, and enjoined from transporting or receiving loads of solid waste that include regulated medical waste.

Also, Virginia imposed a $125,000 penalty after blood, bloody fluids and “sharps” were found in waste bales from a WMNY facility in East Rochester, which were to be disposed of at a Virginia solid waste management facility.

end quotes

Note that before this facility in Poestenkill was closed, eye-witnesses observed bloody fluids and “sharps” in the mountains of garbage that were being piled up on the ground outside the transfer station.

Getting back to the official DEC records:

– – Waste Management, Inc. Record of Compliance

The fitness issue in this case shall encompass a review of the compliance history not only of WMNY, but also its parent company, Waste Management, Inc. (“WMI”).

This is necessary to conform with the EGM, which provides that its guidelines should be applicable not only to the “immediate entity” (WMNY) but to any corporation which “holds a substantial interest” in the permittee or applicant.

WMI holds a substantial interest in WMNY because it owns it; WMNY is its subsidiary.

The compliance record of WMI is the principal concern of SPOC, as is clear from its filing for party status (Exhibit No. 9 A -D).

By a letter of November 12, 1999, Mr. Bernstein responded to the comments on behalf of the Applicant.

According to the Applicant’s disclosure, WMI is a large company in the waste management business, with over 70,000 employees and 292 landfills, 295 transfer stations, 104 material recycling facilities, and 615 collection companies in the United States.

Consistent with my directive, the 16-page disclosure summarizes 37 incidents resulting in criminal convictions or civil penalties of $25,000 or more.

Among the most serious is a 1991 incident in which Waste Management of Pennsylvania, a WMI subsidiary, paid a $3.8 million civil penalty for its employees’ creating inaccurate records about the volume of waste received at the Lake View Landfill in Erie, which resulted in the acceptance of waste in excess of the permitted maximum and average daily tonnages.

According to the disclosure, Chemical Waste Management, Inc., another WMI subsidiary, has also been the subject of substantial assessments: $10.1 million in penalties, costs, restitution and contributions for a 1992 guilty plea in a federal case involving failure to report hazardous waste spills during the clean-up of a Pennsylvania Superfund site, and a $1.9 million civil penalty for unspecified 1991 “permit interpretation issues and alleged violations of Illinois Environmental Law.”

The incidents described in the preceding paragraph are of sufficient gravity that the underlying documentation must be brought into the hearing record.

end quotes

This all serves to make an absolute mockery out of the statements of Supervisor Jacangelo and Councilpersons Wohlleber, Van Slyke and Butler that they have “confidence in the ability of Waste Management to continue to operate same in compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations.”

And then there is the falsehood in the fourth WHEREAS, to wit: Poestenkill recognizes that a Planned Development District was established for the operation of the transfer station in 1993 which allows for the continued or future use of the Transfer Station by Waste Management to service solid waste generators other than those within Poestenkill.

That is a willfully false statement because the PDD, according to official Town records, was created for the exclusive use of Benson Brothers Disposal, Inc., not Waste Management.

Why are we being lied to by Dominic Jacangelo, Eric Wohlleber, Harold Van Slyke and June Butler?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ment-68567

THE POESTENKILL CITIZEN NEWS

6 SEPTEMBER 2018

JACANGELO GARBAGE PLAN PUTS SCHOOLCHILDREN LIVES IN JEOPARDY

This morning, at about 7:10 A.M., I was proceeding west on New York State Rt. 66, approaching the intersection of NY 66 and NY 351 from the east, which intersection is controlled by a traffic light which at that moment was red for traffic on 66, allowing traffic to flow on 351.

As I approached the intersection at that time, I observed in what would be considered by an engineer the "middle" lane of 66, or the left- hand lane of the west-bound lanes of 66 east of the 66/351 intersection the same long line of cars heading west on 66 approaching the intersection from the east that I observe each morning at that same time when Algonquin Middle School is in session.

In the right-hand lane of the west bound lane of 66 east of the light, there was also the usual long line of traffic waiting to turn north on 351 towards Poestenkill.

Thus, access to the Dominic Jacangelo Regional Garbage Storage Site and Transfer Station from the east bound lanes of 66 was blocked by the traffic in the west bound lanes which was stopped for the traffic light at the intersection of 66 and 351.

Here it must be noted that the Town of Poestenkill is very well aware of this traffic pattern, having had its planning board study traffic patterns at that same intersection extensively, along with the town board and its attorney, as is the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, which has had its licensed professional engineers extensively study those same traffic patterns as a result of prior litigation against the NYSDEC for gross negligence and callous and depraved indifference to human life in its permitting processes in Poestenkill, which are laissez-faire in the extreme, and as is Waste Management of NY, LLC, which also has engaged licensed professional engineers to study traffic at that intersection in connection with the plan of Poestenkill Town Supervisor Dominic Jacangelo to create a garbage zone at the intersection of 66 and 31 for receipt and storage of the garbage of the Capital District Region and beyond in anticipation of replacing the Colonie landfill with a Poestenkill landfill.

As I was sitting in traffic in the right-hand lane of westbound 66 east of the intersection, I observed a red-cabbed truck hauling a scabrous-looking garbage trailer that was heading south on 351, coming from the direction of Poestenkill, enter the intersection at some speed and then make a left-hand turn onto 66, where it was then forced to come to a dead-stop in traffic on 66 heading east-bound, because traffic in the west-bound lanes of 66 stopped for the light prevented it from cutting across the west-bound lanes of 66 to enter the Jacangelo Regional Garbage Storage Site and Garbage Zone at that intersection.

A car that was following the truck through the intersection then had to make a sudden stop, as did a third car heading north on 351 entering the intersection from the south so as to be able to turn right and go east on 66.

Shortly thereafter, a large dump truck on 351 heading south, went barreling through that same intersection at the speed limit on 351.

Thus, was a series of accidents which would likely involve Algonquin Middle School students on their way to school narrowly averted this morning.

The weather this morning was clear, and the pavement was dry.

Soon, while the same traffic patterns will persist, the weather and visibility will decrease, along with the road surface conditions.

Thus, the probability of a serious, life-threatening incident at that intersection directly attributable to gross negligence and depraved indifference on the Part of the Poestenkill Town Board and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in approving the creation of this dangerous traffic pattern at that busy intersection by their combined acts of creating the Regional Garbage Storage Site operated by Waste Management of NY, LLC on the northeast corner of the intersection of 66 and 351 in Poestenkill now increases on a daily basis as we head into fall and winter.

If you care about your children who go to Algonquin Middle School, please take heed of these words.

The life you save may well be that of your own children.

Respectfully submitted,

Paul Plante, NYSPE

1 JANUARY 2018

Poestenkill Town Board
Town of Poestenkill
Poestenkill Town Hall
38 Davis Drive
Poestenkill, NY 12140

RE: PDD/Transfer station Records; Duplicity, Deceit, Endemic Corruption

Dear Councilman Wohlleber:

Please consider this a response to your Poestenkill Town Board Meeting Minutes in the December 14, 2017 Advertiser, where you stated as follows:

"There was discussion on information that Waste Management was once again going to reopen their doors to the garbage industry and this site has been closed for many years on Route 66."

"Supervisor Jacangelo stated that he would have to do some research on this issue regarding permits/etc."

End quotes

My question to you, Councilman Wohlleber, is what game is the Poestenkill Town Board playing here?

What "research" could Poestenkill Town Supervisor Dominic Jacangelo possibly have to do here?

Research on exactly what?

And that in turn raises the question of why the members of the Town Council don't know these answers themselves when all the answers you would need are in your own files, starting with the verified petition in Matter of Paul R. Plante, Petitioner for a Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules against Poestenkill Town Board, Jay F. Nish in his capacity as Poestenkill Town Supervisor, and Paul Sieloff, Nelson Armlin, Mark Dunlea, and Kristine Legenbauer, in their capacity as Town Councilmen, Rensselaer County Index No. 179138.

That petition, which was heard by and decided in my favor by Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice Edward O. Spain, J.S.C., was filed with the Town Clerk of the Town of Poestenkill, and all relevant records relating to the creation of the PDD are annexed thereto as exhibits, including Exhibit J, which is a copy of the Poestenkill Town Board meeting minutes for November 10. 1992.

Exhibit J states thusly as to what was actually approved as the PDD:

Motion by Armlin, seconded by Legenbauer to grant the Benson Brothers PDD application BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE BOARD AND TO INCLUDE ONLY THE SCOPE AS SET FORTH IN THE APPLICATION AND MAPS.

End quotes

That is what was approved by the Town Board as to what the PDD would be, as to scope, so what possible "research" is there for Dominic Jacangelo to do on that subject?

As to that "application," which each of you as town officers should be aware of, but obviously are not, if you have to rely on Dominic Jacangelo educating you, Exhibit A of that verified petition is Resolution 92-14 of the Poestenkill Town Board relating to the PDD, and it clearly states as follows:

WHEREAS, on or about May 13, 1992 Benson Brothers Disposal, Inc. filed an application for the establishment of a Planned Development District encompassing a 13.27 acre parcel of land located at the corner of Routes 351 and 66 in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, New York.

End quotes

In a document headed by "FROM THE DESK OF KATHLEEN LISTON MORRISON ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL" to Art Hennigson of DEC dated September 3, 1993, and entitled "Chronology in Benson Brothers Transfer Station Permit Application, As Best As I Can Figure," we find as follows concerning the scope of the project to be housed in the PDD:

September 22, 1992: Newspaper article discusses public hearing at Town Hall regarding Benson Plan to convert 13 acres into a PDD.

Bensons indicated transfer station would contain truck which could hold 3 to 4 truckloads of garbage, allowing Benson to make 1 run a day to a disposal site.

End quotes

That is the scope approved.

Meanwhile, on June 6, 2017, the corrupt DEC handed Waste Management a permit that allows them to import two hundred (200) tons of garbage into what would be a regional transfer station in Poestenkill, as the approved DEC plan allows private garbage haulers to use that site as well as members of the public, and the Town Board is acting like they know nothing about it, and are resorting to that time-tested dodge of telling the citizens "we need to research this more," which is an outright prevarication.

Note that the 200 tons of garbage a day for 6 days a week presently permitted by the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation equals 1200 tons of garbage per week or 62,400 tons per year, which exceeds by 12,400 tons the alleged design capacity of this transfer station that was alleged by Ronald Benson on June 3, 1992 at a Poestenkill Town Planning Board meeting, so this is another environmental disaster for the residents of Poestenkill in the making, and the indifference of the Town Board to our plight is quite disturbing.

The application to the Town Board from Bensons for the PDD is annexed to that verified petition as Exhibit B.

Of direct relevance to the proposed use of the PDD today, the Bensons application to the Town Board on May 13, 1992 states as follows at page 3 with respect to Intended Use of P.D.D.:

The proposed transfer station is, quite simply, a place where small trucks dump into a larger trailer for economical purposes.

It will not create more solid waste.

It is not a site for disposing of solid waste.

It will not increase the traffic already existing at this site.

It will not create more solid waste, nor will solid waste be stored on the site.

It will not effect the current procedures which are employed to dispose of solid waste.

It is merely a cost-effective means of minimizing the applicants' transportation costs associated with solid waste removal, thus allowing Benson Brothers Disposal, Inc. to maintain its competitiveness and provide a long term service to the residents of the Town of Poestenkill.

End quotes

This present DEC permit puts the lie to all of that.

As to the "Objective" of the P.D.D., at page 4, the Bensons applications states as follows:

The purpose of the P.D.D. and specifically the solid waste transfer station is to provide safe, efficient and inexpensive waste removal services to the Town of Poestenkill.

At a time when solid waste removal is an ever-present issue for surrounding cities and states, and the costs of accomplishing removal and disposal is skyrocketing, the current application serves as part of a long-term solid waste plan for the Town of Poestenkill and its residents.

State approved disposal facilities in surrounding locations are being ordered to close.

If the people of Poestenkill, including customers of Benson Brothers Disposal, Inc. are forced to send their solid waste to a distant disposal site, the cost of transportation, which will be passed along to the customer, will increase dramatically.

The proposed P.D.D. will cut disposal costs by providing a safe, cost effective means of transportation.

The P.D.D., in whole, will allow Benson Brothers Disposal, Inc. to keep pace with the dynamic and increasingly regulated field of solid waste management.

As a result, customers of Benson Brothers Disposal, Inc. will be insured stability in solid waste removal rates regardless of future developments in disposal sites.

End quotes

That application concludes as follows:

For the foregoing reasons, the applicants respectfully request that their application for a P.D.D. be granted, signed Ronald P. Benson, Donald M. Benson, Sharon M. Benson, Marshall E. Benson, and Ann M. Benson.

End quotes

Notice that there was nothing in that application that Waste Management was to take over the Benson Brothers Disposal, Inc. P.D.D., which was to be for the benefit of the people of the town of Poestenkill, to turn it into a freefire zone, where 200 tons of garbage per day, or 20 tons of garbage per hour, are now to be imported into Poestenkill six days a week, Monday through Saturday, which is an nightmare, not a benefit.

On June 3, 1992, Ronald Benson appeared before the Poestenkill Town Planning Board in connection with the P.D.D., and this is what he had to say on the subject of who the P.D.D. would be for:

Their plan is to construct a building that would allow them to transfer waste from garbage packers to a large tractor trailer so that they can haul waste to faraway locations in a cost effective manner.

They (Benson Brothers) currently dump approximately 5,000 tons per year.

This facility would be built only for their trucks and other haulers would not be using it.

End quotes

Today, the position of the Town of Poestenkill is that that was all a ruse, a scam, a bunch of lies intended to hide what Benson Brothers and the Town of Poestenkill actually had planned for the property, which was the regional transfer station we are seeing permitted today, so this project began with duplicity and deceit and collusion between the Town of Poestenkill and Benson Brothers, according to the official position of the Town of Poestenkill, so what further "research" does Dominic Jacangelo have to do on that subject, which is a matter of record in Poestenkill?

In exhibit D annexed to the verified petition, there was this following discussion at the Poestenkill Planning Board concerning the P.D.D.:

Mr. McGrath asked if the Bensons had explored the possibility of commercial zoning.

Don Benson replied that they felt that the PDD was the best proposal for both the Town and themselves.

They feel that commercial zoning offers less control for the Town and that the Town would have to rezone a larger area than just their property otherwise it would be considered spot zoning.

End quotes

Today, the Town of Poestenkill has no control whatsoever over that parcel, having ceded all control of the P.D.D. and the neighborhood to Waste Management, an out-of-state corporation that in the past has demonstrated that in Poestenkill, it doesn't give a damn about the residents of Poestenkill or the law, or the regulations, as was made patently clear in the Times Union article "Residents denounce DEC's trash deal - Waste Management's fine fails to satisfy townspeople, who vow further action in state court" by Michelle Morgan Bolton, staff writer, on March 25, 1999:

While Waste Management has agreed to pay the State Department of Environmental Conservation $20,000 for alleged infractions of its operating permit, neighbors of the routes 66 and 351 transfer station claim the DEC has sold them out and plan to sue.

Waste Management signed a $25,000 consent order March 19 after months of negotiations - but the DEC suspended $5,000 as long as the company remains in compliance.

End quotes

The company that Poestenkill has ceded control of the PDD to, Waste Management, was in wilfull violation of the laws that are supposed to protect and safeguard our life, health and property, and instead of being concerned about our health and safety, the Town of Poestenkill took a dive, along with the corrupt DEC, and buried the evidence of those violations of the law and our town codes, as follows from that same article:

Neighbors have complained all along that their homes and lawns have been deluged with dust, trash, rodents and huge black blowflies, along with ear-splitting noise at all hours of the day and night.

"They've given the company a get-out-of-jail-free card," said Paul Plante, one of the residents who claims the company is violating its permit.

"For $20,000, the DEC will keep its back turned."

"We have been severed from any protection of the law whatsoever."

DEC Enforcement Officer Matt Jacoby, who issued most of the tickets, said the consent order actually goes beyond what the department had hoped to achieve, despite neighbors' criticisms.

Waste Management denied the violations named in the consent order, yet signed it and paid the fine.

All pending action against the company, including citations issued by the town's code enforcement officer, along with the DEC's criminal and administrative actions, are now null and void, the order states.

End quotes

Read that last sentence carefully, Mr. Councilman, and then, ask yourself where the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has any authority, jurisdiction or discretion to make citations issued by the town's code enforcement officer go away as if they never were?

And yet that is exactly what did happen, along with the DEC's criminal charges against that same company, which DEC and the Town of Poestenkill now treat as a "good neighbor."

And focus in on this sentence from that article which states Waste Management denied the violations named in the consent order, yet signed it and paid the fine.

That was no fine.

That was a bribe solicited by the corrupt DEC and the equally corrupt Town of Poestenkill to turn their collective backs on that operation, which both did, and make all those violations go away, which we observed happen in Poestenkill Town Court when the DEC officer Matt Jacoby took a dive and made $360,000 worth of violations by Waste Management disappear right before our eyes, an event I took pains to memorialize in a writing to Rensselaer County Court.

Then we see that same DEC officer Jacoby, carrying Waste Management's water for it in that same Times Union article, to wit:

"This company wants to please the people out there and the DEC," Jacoby said.

"They're willing to do what it takes to satisfy any legitimate complaints."

"Maybe the neighbors involved won't be satisfied until they see the place shut down," said Jacoby.

End quotes

That last sentence was especially egregious, and serves as a demonstration of the pro-business/anti-citizen bias of the business-friendly New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which itself violated every law, rule and regulation on its books when it originally permitted this same facility.

And now, there are no "legitimate" complaints by the residents, because of that bribe to the DEC and the Town of Poestenkill.

So what "research" does Dominic Jacangelo, himself with a pro-business/anti-regulation bias, have to do on that subject?

Getting back to the exhibits annexed to the verified complaint, exhibit H is a copy of the Town of Postenkill Town Board minutes for September 9, 1992 where Ron Benson was present at a public hearing on the PDD.

"The main objective of this plan is to stay current with the changing times in the solid waste industry and to maintain the company's existence," is what he told the residents of the Town at that public hearing.

According to the official position of the Town of Poestenkill thereafter, that was just one more lie, part of the ruse, as Benson Brothers is no longer in existence.

"In regards to the rodent question, Mr. Benson explained that there will be direct dumping into trailers and will be no loose garbage."

That is another lie we were told at the public hearing.

As to restrictions on the PDD, this is what was discussed on that subject at that public hearing:

The question was also raised as to what restrictions the town could be put on this PDD, if in fact it was approved?

Supervisor Nish stated that he would investigate the matter and let the public be aware of his findings.

John Scott, town attorney, explained that the PDD is a zoning change and is allowable under the Town Code.

The difference between a PDD zone and a Commercial zone was also discussed.

When a PDD zone is created, it can be used for only the use that was applied for and if anything is changed from the original application, it has to go back to the Town Board; whereas in a commercial zone, any use that is listed in the Town code can be applied.

End quotes

The Town got around that restriction by the simple expedient of getting a different lawyer to spin the code a different way.

As to all the lies and deceits and duplicitous conduct in the record of this PDD, I also refer you to a sworn affidavit of Donald Benson dated 15 March 1996 in Rensselaer County Supreme Court, Rensselaer County Index No. 187512, where in paragraph #3, Donald Benson swore as follows:

3. Finally, in paragraph 8 of my previous affidavit I indicated that United Waste Systems, Inc. and Benson Brothers "merged" in March of 1995.

This transaction was actually a purchase of Benson Brothers Disposal, Inc.'s stock by United Waste Systems, Inc.

End quotes

So there is one more lie in a whole chain of lies in connection with the approval of this facility by the Town of Poestenkill.

So there is some more of the background on this PDD for you.

Respectfully,

Paul R. Plante, NYSPE

Public corruption

Public corruption involves a breach of public trust and/or abuse of position by federal, state, or local officials and their private sector accomplices.

By broad definition, a government official, whether elected, appointed or hired, may violate federal law when he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_corruption

PROSECUTING PUBLIC OFFICIALS/FIGURES FOR CORRUPTION: THE APPROACH IN THE UNITED STATES

By Michael J. Hutter

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Overview

1) Public corruption in any form is the misuse of a public or government office for private gain.

Its existence is an indication that something has gone wrong in the management of the government office, whether it be federal, state, or local.

In that regard, it is a basic tenet that government is not to be used for personal enrichment and the extending of benefits to the corrupt.

2) The prevention of corruption is essential not only to make government work for its intended purpose, e.g., ensure that public officials are using their office to further the public interest and not to enrich themselves or others, but also to preserve public confidence in the democratic process.

As to the latter, the United States Supreme Court has observed: “

(A) democracy is effective only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of malfeasance and corruption.” (United States v. Miss. Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 562 [1961]).

B. The Anti-Corruption Legacy of the United States

Constitution

1) The United States Constitution reflects its framers’' intent to deal with corruption which led to the adoption of a number of provisions in the Constitution itself limiting the opportunities for self-enrichment.

As one commentator has observed: “The Constitution reflects a significant concern with preventing corruption in all levels of the government.” (Henning, 92 Kentucky L.J. 75, 84 [2003]).

2) Thus, the Constitution permits impeachment of any officer of the United States, including the President and Vice President, for “Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and Misdemeanors.” (U.S. Const., art. II, §4).

It also prohibits anyone holding “any Office of Profit or Trust . . . . without the consent of the Congress, [from accepting] any present, Emolument Office, or Title of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” (U.S. Const., art. I, §9, cl. 8).

Members of Congress are prohibited from taking any public office created during their tenure or any public office whose compensation has been increased during their tenure. (U.S. Const., art. I, §6, cl. 2).

The Constitution’'s Appropriations Clause requires authorization from Congress before any funds could be spent by a federal officer. (U.S. Const., art. I, §9, cl. 7).

3) With respect to the possibility of corruption in the states, no specific provisions were included.

However, certain structural protections were enacted, such as trial by jury to protect against corrupt judges, and the ability of state legislatures to enact legislation to combat corruption.

II. PROSECUTING FEDERAL CORRUPTION

A. Introduction

1) The United States Constitution through its grant of enumerated powers to Congress, including the postal power, the commerce clause power, the necessary and proper clause, and the spending power, provides the sources for Congress to enact specific legislation designed to combat corruption at the federal level.

Notably, the anti-corruption legacy did not lead to a specific grant of power in the Constitution to Congress to enact anti-corruption legislation to cover areas beyond those specified in the Constitution.

2) As derived from these enumerated powers, the three basic approaches for combating corruption at the federal level are: criminal statutes, impeachment, and ethical proscriptions.

B. Criminal Statutes

1) Bribery of Public Officials - 18 USC §201

(a) This provision criminalizes both the offer and receipt of bribes and illegal gratuities by federal officials.

It applies to every federal employee irrespective of whether they occupy a supervisory position or exercise discretionary authority.

(b) This provision at its basic core recognizes that a bribe is any inducement intending to improperly influence the performance of a public function meant to be gratuitously exercised.

It prohibits the giving of a “thing of value”, the definition of which is very broad, encompassing anything that has subjective value to the recipient.

(c) The crime of bribery is completed when there is shown that something of value was promised or offered, not that a bribe actually be paid.

(d) Significantly, where the prosecution has difficulty proving an express bribery, i.e., specific intent to give or receive something of value in return for an official act, the prosecution may then merely charge a gratuities violation, i.e., receipt of anything of value.

2) Other Statutes

(a) 18 USC §666 outlaws theft, fraud or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds. (See generally, Sabri v. United States, 124 S. Ct. 1941 [2004]).

(b) There are numerous statutes which condemn specific conduct in specific areas, e.g., bankruptcy, procurement, taxation.

C. Impeachment

1) Although it is not entirely clear, it would appear that the impeachment clause of the United States Constitution covers misuse of office that constitutes a “political crime,” even if it does not constitute a violation of any specific criminal statute.

D. Ethical Proscriptions

1) There is an extensive amount of regulations which governs the behavior of federal officials. (see, United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers, 304 U.S. 255 [1992]).

These regulations state ethical proscriptions, and are not necessarily criminal in nature.

However, their violation can lead to removal from office.

III. PROSECUTING STATE AND LOCAL CORRUPTION

A. Introduction

1) All of the states and most local governments have criminal statutes or codes which criminalize various aspects of corruption.

2) While there is no federal statute which is aimed specifically at state and local corruption, there are three statutes which have been generally utilized by federal prosecutors to prosecute state and local officials for acts of corruption.

They are the mail and wire fraud statute, the Hobbs Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).

B. Hobbs Act – 18 USC §1951

1) The Hobbs Act by its express language makes it a crime to obstruct, delay, or affect commerce by robbery or extortion.

2) However, the statute by a series of judicial decisions, including a United States Supreme Court decision (See, United States v. Evans, 504 U.S. 255 [1992]), has been extended to cover practices best characterized as bribery.

In that regard, all that has to be shown is that a public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts.

This results in making the Hobbs Act similar to 18 USC §201 insofar as it covers bribery of a federal official.

However, the statute would not cover mere receipt of gratuities, as under 18 USC §201, which is covered by the mail and wire fraud statutes.

3) While the Hobbs Act is limited to conduct that “obstructs, delays or affects interstate commerce [commerce between two or more states],” this requirement is hardly any requirement at all since all that is needed is a small or practically negligible effect.

4) A Hobbs Act violation may serve as the foundation for RICO offenses.

C. Mail and Wire Fraud – 18 USC §§1341 (Mail), 1343 (Wire)

1) The mail and wire fraud statutes were enacted as anti-fraud statutes, designed to combat as criminal the common law crime of larceny by trick.

Even though the statutes’ terms do not specifically embrace corruption, they are extensively used to prosecute acts of public corruption.

2) For mail fraud, the prosecutor must prove only (a) a scheme to defraud, and (b) the mailing of a letter for the purpose of executing the scheme; and for wire fraud, the prosecutor must prove only (a) a scheme to defraud, and (b) the use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of the scheme.

For purposes of the statute, the requisite mailing can be done through the postal service or a private carrier, and the requisite wire communications include radio transmissions, telephone calls and e-mails.

Significantly, the requisite mailing or wiring need not itself contain any fraudulent information and may be entirely innocent.

However, they must be shown to be at least a “step” in the scheme. (Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 712 [1989]).

3) With respect to the statute's’ use in public corruption cases, a fraudulent scheme includes “a scheme . . . to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” (18 USC §1346).

It is this definition which makes the statutes a flexible tool for prosecutors to prosecute public corruption at the state or local level.

4) A typical “honest services” corruption case arises in two situations.

First, “bribery” where the public official was paid for a particular decision or action, which includes a pattern of gratuities over a period of time to obtain favorable action.

Secondly, “failure to disclose” a conflict of interest, resulting in personal enrichment, which encompasses circumstances where the official has an express or implied duty to inform others of the official'’s personal relationship to the matter at hand even though no public harm occurred or there was no misuse of office.

As to the “conflict of interest” situation, the basis for its condemnation is that “when an official fails to disclose a personal interest in a matter over which he has decision-making power, the public is deprived of its right either to disinterested decision making itself or, as the case may be, to full disclosure as to the official’s potential motivation behind an official act.

(United States v. Sawyer, 85 F3d 713, 724 [1st Cir. 1966]).

Notably, a person who holds no public office but participates substantially in the operation of government, e.g., a political party leader, may be subject to prosecution under an “honest services” theory. (See, United States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108 [2d Cir. 1982]).

5) While there is the need to show in a bribery case an intent to give or receive something of value in return for an official act, in a failure to disclose case, the failure is itself sufficient to show the requisite intent.

Moreover, there is no need to show the scheme came to fruition or caused harm.

6) A public official may be charged with a separate count for each mailing or wiring in furtherance of the charged scheme.

7) In 2002, Congress amended the statutes to allow for a maximum sentence of up to 20 years imprisonment for each violation of the statutes.

8) A violation of the statute serves as the foundation for RICO offenses.

D. Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)– 18 USC §1962

1) In 1970, Congress passed the RICO statute as part of the Organized Crime Control Act.

It was designed “to seek the eradication of organized crime by . . . establishing new penal prohibitions, and by providing enhanced sanctions and new remedies to deal with the unlawful activities of those engaged in organized crime.” (United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 589 [1981]).

2) §1962 has four subdivisions.

Subdivisions (a) and (b) have been invoked to combat the infiltration of legitimate business by organized crime, and subdivisions (c) and (d), also designed for that organized crime purpose, have been used as a tool against corrupt public officials.

3) §1962(c) makes it unlawful for any person, which includes a public official, “employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate . . . in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity”; and §1962(d) makes it unlawful for a person to conspire to violate subdivision (c) as well as subdivisions (a) and (b).

4) The elements of a RICO violation as charged against a public official are that the official:

(a) through the commission of two or more chargeable or indictable or punishable predicate offenses,

(i) The requisite offenses include mail or wire fraud and Hobbs Acts offenses;

(b) constituting a “pattern of racketeering”,

(i) The statute requires that a pattern include at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of the statute (October 15, 1970), and the last of which occurred within ten years of a prior act of racketeering activity.

The Supreme Court has held that a pattern “requires the showing of a relationship between the predicates, . . . and of the threat of, continuing activity . . .”

“Criminal conduct,” the Court explained, “forms a pattern if it embraces criminal acts that have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events.” (H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239-240 [1989]).

(ii) “Racketeering activity” includes conduct that is “indictable,” “chargeable” or “punishable” under various state and federal criminal laws.

The acts of racketeering activity are also referred to as predicate offenses, and the list incorporated into the statute covers a wide array of illegal activity, including mail and wire fraud, and Hobbs Act offenses.

(c) directly or indirectly invests in, maintains an interest in, participates in, conducts the affairs of, or acquires income used to acquire an interest in,

(d) an enterprise,

(i) An enterprise includes any individual partnership, corporation, other legal entities or group of individuals or entities associated in fact, which encompasses a government office through which the official(s) conducted the racketeering activities.

(e) The activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce,

(i) This provision has been liberally construed so that nearly any interstate involvement would satisfy the statute.

(ii) It is difficult to conceive of a government office in the United States whose activities would not be construed as affecting interstate commerce.

5) When RICO is charged together with the crimes alleged to be the “racketeering activity” upon which the RICO charge is predicated, such as mail and wire fraud and Hobbs Act offenses, the public official faces much higher statutory penalties and the possibility of consecutive sentences.

6) RICO also provides for criminal forfeiture of any interest acquired or maintained in violation of §1962, any interest in any enterprise operated in violation of §1962, and any property constituting, or derived form, the proceeds of racketeering activity in violation of §1962.

The prosecutor may also secure pre-trial orders barring the public official from using available assets to obtain legal representation.

7) It must also be noted that it is well recognized that charging a public official with a RICO violation carries with it an adverse stigma that casts the official in a worse light than being a mere corrupt official, i.e., the official is involved in organized crime.

IV. CONCLUSION

Federal prosecutors are given broad weapons to prosecute public corruption, especially with respect to state and local corruption, where the pertinent statutes empowers them to challenge almost any unlawful, questionable or unethical conduct of a public official, subject to the prosecutor'’s exercise of sound discretion.

RICO prosecutions give prosecutors even more discretionary prosecution power.

https://www.americanbar.org/.../asia_ra ... eckdam.pdf

THE ADVERTISER September 20, 2018 p.25

“DOMINIC JACANGELO’S LITANY OF LIES IN POESTENKILL ANALYZED”

On August 16, 2018, Poestenkill Supervisor Dominic Jacangelo voted to give himself authority to sign a litany of lies, deceit and deception termed a “Community Benefit Agreement” so that giant waste hauler Waste Management of NY, LLC, LLC, can operate a regional garbage transfer station and storage site at the Rt 66/351 intersection in Poesternkill.

The third WHEREAS clause states that Poestenkill is familiar with the current and past operation of Waste Management’s Transfer Station and has confidence in the ability of Waste Management to continue to operate same in compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations.

However, the history posted by Councilman Hass at p.5 of the 17 May 2018 Advertiser states that Waste Management “suspended” operations at the transfer station nine years ago in 2009, while the past operations were the subject of a Times Union article entitled “Residents denounce DEC’s trash deal” by Michelle Morgan Bolton, on March 25, 1999, wherein was stated that Waste Management agreed to pay the State Department of Environmental Conservation $20,000 for alleged infractions of its operating permit in Poestenkill.

Meanwhile, Waste Management’s track record was the subject of a NYSDEC hearing on DEC Application No. 8-3420-00019/00005 by Waste Management on December 31, 1999, as follows:

All combined, the identified violations of the ECL and Department regulations, permits and consent orders raise enough doubt about the Applicant’s fitness that a reasonable person would inquire further into the circumstances of those that appear most significant.

End quotes

Among the list of violations acknowledged by Waste Management was the following:

$50,000 for 1998 violations including exceeding operating hours, at an Averill Park transfer station (Poestenkill).

End quotes

So much for Dominic Jacangelo’s “confidence in the ability of Waste Management to continue to operate same in compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations.”

The fourth WHEREAS then falsely states that Poestenkill recognizes that a Planned Development District was established for the operation of the transfer station in 1993 which allows for the continued or future use of the Transfer Station by Waste Management to service solid waste generators other than those within Poestenkill.

Respectfully submitted,

Paul R. Plante

THE ADVERTISER October 4, 2018 p.22

“JACANGELO DECEIT FURTHER DETAILED”

As has been previously established in this series on the litany of lies, deceit and deceptions termed a “Community Benefit Agreement” between the Town of Poestenkill and giant waste hauler Waste Management of NY, LLC Poestenkill Supervisor Dominic Jacangelo authorized himself to sign on August 16, 2018, it is a blatant and intentional falsehood in the “Fourth Whereas” clause on the part of Dominic Jacangelo that a Planned Development District was established for the operation of the transfer station in 1993 which allows for the continued or future use of the Transfer Station by Waste Management to service solid waste generators other than those within Poestenkill.

Thus, contrary to the blatant intentional lie in the Fourth Whereas Clause Jacangelo authorized himself to tell to the people of Poestenkill on August 16, 2018 in order to confer a benefit on Waste Management in exchange for some $13,000 per year, that, “WHEREAS, Poestenkill recognizes that a Planned Development District was established for the operation of the transfer station in 1993 which allows for the continued or future use of the Transfer Station by Waste Management to service solid waste generators other than those within Poestenkill,” there is no way the Town of Poestenkill could lawfully recognize the existence of such a PDD, since such a PDD never had a legal existence in the Town of Poestenkill, a fact Jacangelo was very well aware of when he voted on August 16, 2018 to withhold his honest services to the people of Poestenkill by his determination to make that false statement in the Fourth Whereas Clause.

The proof of Jacangelo’s willful false statement in the Fourth Whereas Clause is found in the record of the proceedings in Rensselaer County Supreme Court 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, which case was decided in my favor by Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice Edward O. Spain, J.S.C. on March 28, 1994, the record of which refutes all of Jacangelo’s patently false claims concerning the PDD.

Respectfully submitted,

Paul R. Plante

THE ADVERTISER October 11, 2018 p.24

“THE POESTENKILL PDD DEFINED”

Contrary to the willful false statement in the 4th Wheras Clause of the litany of lies, deceit and deception Poestenkill Supervisor Dominic Jacangelo voted to give himself authority to sign on August 16, 2018 to benefit Waste Management, the only Planned Development District that legally exists in Poestenkill is the PDD SO ORDERED by then-Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice Edward O. Spain on May 19, 1994 wherein was clearly stated, "The record of the Town Board regarding the establishment of the Planned Development District is hereby supplemented by these presence [sic] and the establishment of the Planned Development District by the Town Board Resolution is hereby ratified."

Exhibit J of that Article 78 was a copy of the Poestenkill Town Board meeting minutes for November 10, 1992 wherein was clearly stated concerning the Benson Brothers Planned Development District as follows:

“Motion by Armlin, seconded by Legenbauer to grant the Benson Brothers PDD application based on the information provided to the Board and to include only the scope as set forth in the application and maps.”

The application to the Town Board from Bensons for the PDD on May 13, 1992 states as follows at page 3 with respect to “Intended Use of P.D.D.:

“The proposed transfer station is, quite simply, a place where small trucks dump into a larger trailer for economical purposes.”

“It is merely a cost-effective means of minimizing the applicants’ transportation costs associated with solid waste removal, thus allowing Benson Brothers Disposal, Inc. to maintain its competitiveness and provide a long-term service to the residents of the Town of Poestenkill.”

As to the “Objective” of the P.D.D., at page 4, the Bensons' applications stated as follows:

“The P.D.D., in whole, will allow Benson Brothers Disposal, Inc. to keep pace with the dynamic and increasingly regulated field of solid waste management.”

“As a result, customers of Benson Brothers Disposal, Inc. will be insured stability in solid waste removal rates regardless of future developments in disposal sites.”

That is what the Benson Brothers Planned Development District in Poestenkill was established for, not for Waste Management.

Why did Dominic lie?

Respectfully submitted,

Paul Plante

NEW YORK STATE PENAL LAW S 460.00

Legislative findings.

The legislature finds and determines as follows:

Organized crime in New York state involves highly sophisticated, complex and widespread forms of criminal activity.

The diversified illegal conduct engaged in by organized crime, rooted in the illegal use of force, fraud, and corruption, constitutes a major drain upon the state's economy, costs citizens and businesses of the state billions of dollars each year, and threatens the peace, security and general welfare of the people of the state.

Organized crime continues to expand its corrosive influence in the state through illegal enterprises engaged in such criminal endeavors as the theft and fencing of property, the importation and distribution of narcotics and other dangerous drugs, arson for profit, hijacking, labor racketeering, loansharking, extortion and bribery, the illegal disposal of hazardous wastes, syndicated gambling, trafficking in stolen securities, insurance and investment frauds, and other forms of economic and social exploitation.

The money and power derived by organized crime through its illegal enterprises and endeavors is increasingly being used to infiltrate and corrupt businesses, unions and other legitimate enterprises and to corrupt our democratic processes.

This infiltration takes several forms with legitimate enterprises being employed as instrumentalities, injured as victims, or taken as prizes.

Through such infiltration the power of an enterprise can be diverted to criminal ends, its resources looted, or it can be taken over entirely, either on paper or de facto.

Thus, for purposes of making both criminal and civil remedies available to deal with the corruption of such enterprises, the concept of criminal enterprise should not be limited to traditional criminal syndicates or crime families, and may include persons who join together in a criminal enterprise, as defined by subdivision three of section 460.10 of this article, for the purpose of corrupting such legitimate enterprises or infiltrating and illicitly influencing industries.

One major cause of the continuing growth of organized criminal activities within the state is the inadequacy and limited nature of sanctions and remedies available to state and local law enforcement officials to deal with this intricate and varied criminal conduct.

Existing penal law provisions are primarily concerned with the commission of specific and limited criminal acts without regard to the relationships of particular criminal acts or the illegal profits derived therefrom, to legitimate or illicit enterprises operated or controlled by organized crime.

Further, traditional penal law provisions only provide for the imposition of conventional criminal penalties, including imprisonment, fines and probation, for entrenched organized crime enterprises.

Such penalties are not adequate to enable the state to effectively fight organized crime.

Instead, new penal prohibitions and enhanced sanctions, and new civil and criminal remedies are necessary to deal with the unlawful activities of persons and enterprises engaged in organized crime.

Comprehensive statutes enacted at the federal level and in a number of other states with significant organized crime problems, have provided law enforcement agencies with an effective tool to fight organized crime.

Such laws permit law enforcement authorities (i) to charge and prove patterns of criminal activity and their connection to ongoing enterprises, legitimate or illegal, that are controlled or operated by organized crime, and (ii) to apply criminal and civil penalties designed to prevent and eliminate organized crime's involvement with such enterprises.

The organized crime control act is a statute of comparable purpose but tempered by reasonable limitations on its applicability, and by due regard for the rights of innocent persons.

Because of its more rigorous definitions, this act will not apply to some situations encompassed within comparable statutes in other jurisdictions.

This act is vital to the peace, security and general welfare of the state.

In part because of its highly diverse nature, it is impossible to precisely define what organized crime is.

This article, however, does attempt to define and criminalize what organized crime does.

This article focuses upon criminal enterprises because their sophistication and organization make them more effective at their criminal purposes and because their structure and insulation protect their leadership from detection and prosecution.

At the same time, this article is not intended to be employed to prosecute relatively minor or isolated acts of criminality which, while related to an enterprise and arguably part of a pattern as defined in this article, can be adequately and more fairly prosecuted as separate offenses.

Similarly, particular defendants may play so minor a role in a criminal enterprise that their culpability would be unfairly distorted by prosecution and punishment for participation in the enterprise.

The balance intended to be struck by this act cannot readily be codified in the form of restrictive definitions or a categorical list of exceptions.

General, yet carefully drawn definitions of the terms "pattern of criminal activity" and "criminal enterprise" have been employed.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 5.00 of this chapter these definitions should be given their plain meaning, and should not be construed either liberally or strictly, but in the context of the legislative purposes set forth in these findings.

Within the confines of these and other applicable definitions, discretion ought still be exercised.

Once the letter of the law is complied with, including the essential showing that there is a pattern of conduct which is criminal under existing statutes, the question whether to prosecute under those statutes or for the pattern itself is essentially one of fairness.

The answer will depend on the particular situation, and is best addressed by those institutions of government which have traditionally exercised that function: the grand jury, the public prosecutor, and an independent judiciary.

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article460.htm#p460.20