Di Febbo also told the judge he was disgusted that investors' money had been used to pay what he characterized as "unscrupulous attorneys" as he referenced attorney Leslie Apple of Albany, who had done work for Bass, and an attorney Di Febbo identified as Jacob S. Frenkel of Maryland.
Apple, of Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, allegedly traveled to Europe to check out Bass' investment projects, records show. Apple did not respond to requests for comment. Some investors have said they were comforted by Apple's involvement with Bass, who had told them their investments had been vetted by lawyers. Frenkel could not be reached for comment.
Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/High-living-con-man-invoked-God-stole-5-3-2239235.php#ixzz1c9stSTte
No more corruption.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
filed an article 78 today
http://wikicoco.com/file/view/art78-pflaum-v-zba-ennis-stuyvesant.pdf/268973564/art78-pflaum-v-zba-ennis-stuyvesant.pdf
Federal court, state court... anywhere else? Did I miss any jurisdictions?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
hi
Cross link to my other blog with a shocking but common display of corruption in New York State municipal corruption.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Keep Stuyvesant, "Stuyvesant"
This post is about the coming election in the town of Stuyvesant, Columbia County and in other local towns.
1. These local elections should be on the EVEN years when turn out is greater. Skip the whole odd year election if you ask me.
2. There should be term limits in Columbia County.
3. Towns should not have the broad powers they have but function as community boards. A town of 2000 people should not have a 1.2 million dollar budget, 17 employees, a court, and millions in assets.
4. Services should be consolidated.
That said, we still have an election. The slogan for the Republicans and supervisor candidate Ron Knott is Keep Stuyvesant, "Stuyvesant" -- with the quote marks.
As opposed to what? Open to outsiders? Are you sure you don't want people to move in and invest in the town? Seems like you've made it pretty clear. Why not make it your slogan for the election?
Oh, you did.
Here were the options for an election slogan that the Stuyvesant Republican Party considered:
1. Keep Stuyvesant, "Stuyvesant"
2. Keep out non-Stuyvesant, "from Stuyvesant"
3. Stuyvesant means "Town of Stuyvesant" not "Stuyvesant Town" or "Bedford Stuyvesant"
4. Simple: Vote for the Right People not the Wrong People
5. We only know Stuyvesant, not what it means.
6. We love to run this town. Don't try to stop us from doing it. Vote right.
7. from elections to lawsuits, bring it on
8. We don't need no stinking badges
9. Vote for Us, or We'll send over Ennis to Knock over your Fence
10. Vote for us. But you'll need a permit first.
I have no doubt that if elected Ron Knott will keep Stuyvesant "Stuyvesant" and no one will mistake the place for a well run town lead by honest officials who care about the taxpayer. Say "Stuyvesant" to someone from say, Ghent, and I'm sure they think, "Gee, I wish our town could have that type of leadership!" Keep Ghent, "Stuyvesant"?
1. These local elections should be on the EVEN years when turn out is greater. Skip the whole odd year election if you ask me.
2. There should be term limits in Columbia County.
3. Towns should not have the broad powers they have but function as community boards. A town of 2000 people should not have a 1.2 million dollar budget, 17 employees, a court, and millions in assets.
4. Services should be consolidated.
That said, we still have an election. The slogan for the Republicans and supervisor candidate Ron Knott is Keep Stuyvesant, "Stuyvesant" -- with the quote marks.
As opposed to what? Open to outsiders? Are you sure you don't want people to move in and invest in the town? Seems like you've made it pretty clear. Why not make it your slogan for the election?
Oh, you did.
Here were the options for an election slogan that the Stuyvesant Republican Party considered:
1. Keep Stuyvesant, "Stuyvesant"
2. Keep out non-Stuyvesant, "from Stuyvesant"
3. Stuyvesant means "Town of Stuyvesant" not "Stuyvesant Town" or "Bedford Stuyvesant"
4. Simple: Vote for the Right People not the Wrong People
5. We only know Stuyvesant, not what it means.
6. We love to run this town. Don't try to stop us from doing it. Vote right.
7. from elections to lawsuits, bring it on
8. We don't need no stinking badges
9. Vote for Us, or We'll send over Ennis to Knock over your Fence
10. Vote for us. But you'll need a permit first.
I have no doubt that if elected Ron Knott will keep Stuyvesant "Stuyvesant" and no one will mistake the place for a well run town lead by honest officials who care about the taxpayer. Say "Stuyvesant" to someone from say, Ghent, and I'm sure they think, "Gee, I wish our town could have that type of leadership!" Keep Ghent, "Stuyvesant"?
Sunday, October 16, 2011
occupy wall street
Saturday, October 15, 2011
well, the executive session will remain secret
Friday, October 14, 2011
last night's executive session: Whiteman Osterman and Hanna suing the town? violating public officer's law again? speculation?
Howl alert: before anyone starts howling: 1) if you didn't go into executive session with little explanation, people would not have to speculate about what you are doing; 2) the conclusion that Whiteman Osterman and Hanna is suing the town is based on logical induction, not inside information.
So at the town board meeting (Stuyvesant) last night, the town transferred $14,000 to zoning and planning to pay for the special counsel and special prosecutors of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna. David R. Everett of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna was there. The board and David R. Everett, attorney and lawyer and partner at Albany's biggest law firm, the largest law firm in the capital district, went into executive session for 30 minutes. The reason was "Pending litigation regarding the Glencadia matter."
The only pending litigation right now is a Federal civil rights lawsuit and Everett would have no role in that case other than perhaps as a witness, so it can't be related to that case. There is no other pending litigation, so it's a bit of a mystery. Maybe Whiteman Osterman and Hanna is going to sue the Town of Stuyvesant for non-payment? That's the only case that would seem to be a legal reason for an executive session involving a lawyer unrelated to ongoing litigation.
So either Whiteman Osterman and Hanna is suing the Town of Stuyvesant or the town board of Stuyvesant violated Public Officer's law again. Anyone see any other possibilities?
I mean maybe they talked about who would represent them in State Court - but that is not pending litigation. They might have said "potential pending litigation" in that case. But why talk about something that may or may not happen before it happens? And they didn't say "potential" litigation. The only actual pending litigation is in Federal Court. There is no activity in town bodies: the planning boards and zoning boards are done.
Wait: I got away out for them! I can save them! They can claim that the ... means that ... is pending... but ... so .... with case law showing... which must exist... Phew!
Or maybe they talked about the Federal lawsuit, but how can they talk to a lawyer about a case he is not handling? Can you talk about pending litigation with a lawyer unrelated to the case and call that conversation privileged? I would think not, but it's certainly a fine issue for judicial review.
Perhaps they went into the session to talk about the handwritten note inserted into the public record by someone in the town, a packet of materials relating to protected First Amendment speech which the town ZBA accepted as evidence, including an anonymous slanderous note, the author of which is known to the town clerk but is not the person who delivered the package of materials to the town.
This matter does relate to pending litigation, as it is a clear violation of civil rights. The attorney in question, David R. Everett, is involved in this incident since he accepted the same packet of protected speech, included anonymous libel, as evidence for ZBA action. The only comment he made about the packet was "excellent" in an email to the town clerk.
I think they could legally go into executive session to talk about this. But they would have to state the reason as "personnel" as the person who wrote the note and the clerk herself, who accepted the note, and the secretary of the zoning board, who passed the note to the members of the board, all work for the town. But they didn't say "personnel" and name the parties.
So, no, I don't think that cuts the mustard. They couldn't have talked about that, not legally.
I will now FOIL the minutes of the executive session and by law the minutes have to be released to the public in 7 days from yesterday. But they certainly have not written the minutes yet. So they have some time to think about what they did and adjust the minutes accordingly.
The minutes will probably be one sentence.
I mean, other than Everett suing Stuyvesant, they cannot go into executive session to discuss pending litigation, not legally, unless they claim that ... means ... which is a stretch.
So at the town board meeting (Stuyvesant) last night, the town transferred $14,000 to zoning and planning to pay for the special counsel and special prosecutors of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna. David R. Everett of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna was there. The board and David R. Everett, attorney and lawyer and partner at Albany's biggest law firm, the largest law firm in the capital district, went into executive session for 30 minutes. The reason was "Pending litigation regarding the Glencadia matter."
The only pending litigation right now is a Federal civil rights lawsuit and Everett would have no role in that case other than perhaps as a witness, so it can't be related to that case. There is no other pending litigation, so it's a bit of a mystery. Maybe Whiteman Osterman and Hanna is going to sue the Town of Stuyvesant for non-payment? That's the only case that would seem to be a legal reason for an executive session involving a lawyer unrelated to ongoing litigation.
So either Whiteman Osterman and Hanna is suing the Town of Stuyvesant or the town board of Stuyvesant violated Public Officer's law again. Anyone see any other possibilities?
I mean maybe they talked about who would represent them in State Court - but that is not pending litigation. They might have said "potential pending litigation" in that case. But why talk about something that may or may not happen before it happens? And they didn't say "potential" litigation. The only actual pending litigation is in Federal Court. There is no activity in town bodies: the planning boards and zoning boards are done.
Wait: I got away out for them! I can save them! They can claim that the ... means that ... is pending... but ... so .... with case law showing... which must exist... Phew!
Or maybe they talked about the Federal lawsuit, but how can they talk to a lawyer about a case he is not handling? Can you talk about pending litigation with a lawyer unrelated to the case and call that conversation privileged? I would think not, but it's certainly a fine issue for judicial review.
Perhaps they went into the session to talk about the handwritten note inserted into the public record by someone in the town, a packet of materials relating to protected First Amendment speech which the town ZBA accepted as evidence, including an anonymous slanderous note, the author of which is known to the town clerk but is not the person who delivered the package of materials to the town.
This matter does relate to pending litigation, as it is a clear violation of civil rights. The attorney in question, David R. Everett, is involved in this incident since he accepted the same packet of protected speech, included anonymous libel, as evidence for ZBA action. The only comment he made about the packet was "excellent" in an email to the town clerk.
I think they could legally go into executive session to talk about this. But they would have to state the reason as "personnel" as the person who wrote the note and the clerk herself, who accepted the note, and the secretary of the zoning board, who passed the note to the members of the board, all work for the town. But they didn't say "personnel" and name the parties.
So, no, I don't think that cuts the mustard. They couldn't have talked about that, not legally.
I will now FOIL the minutes of the executive session and by law the minutes have to be released to the public in 7 days from yesterday. But they certainly have not written the minutes yet. So they have some time to think about what they did and adjust the minutes accordingly.
The minutes will probably be one sentence.
I mean, other than Everett suing Stuyvesant, they cannot go into executive session to discuss pending litigation, not legally, unless they claim that ... means ... which is a stretch.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
here is the resolution against me with comments
Here is the resolution.
I can't believe the town board is passing resolutions against me and the zoning board is hiring lawyers to write 16 rambling lying "resolutions" about me. I was running a small business, minding my own business, doing nothing wrong, when all of a sudden I was attacked by a corrupt town. In the intervening almost 2 years I got a much thicker skin and got used to a lot of crap. But still, sometimes I stop and think about it and am just appalled.
This guy, the lawyer, Everett, he really should have known better. Just look at the resolution he wrote and told the board to pass, which they dutifully did. It's obviously dishonest and unfair. Just read it.
The lawyer in question is of course David R. Everett of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna. I know this PDF is long -- 33 pages -- but by reading what they said and my response you get a fairly interesting dialogue with two parties, one speaking the language called truth, where reality matters, and the other, Everett, speaking the language of malign and lie, manipulating every statement to make me look bad although he does not even allege that I actually violated any rule, then cite the rule.
Like I said at the hearing, can anyone tell me what I did wrong?
It's just an absurd hit job. Read it.
I can't believe the town board is passing resolutions against me and the zoning board is hiring lawyers to write 16 rambling lying "resolutions" about me. I was running a small business, minding my own business, doing nothing wrong, when all of a sudden I was attacked by a corrupt town. In the intervening almost 2 years I got a much thicker skin and got used to a lot of crap. But still, sometimes I stop and think about it and am just appalled.
This guy, the lawyer, Everett, he really should have known better. Just look at the resolution he wrote and told the board to pass, which they dutifully did. It's obviously dishonest and unfair. Just read it.
The lawyer in question is of course David R. Everett of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna. I know this PDF is long -- 33 pages -- but by reading what they said and my response you get a fairly interesting dialogue with two parties, one speaking the language called truth, where reality matters, and the other, Everett, speaking the language of malign and lie, manipulating every statement to make me look bad although he does not even allege that I actually violated any rule, then cite the rule.
Like I said at the hearing, can anyone tell me what I did wrong?
It's just an absurd hit job. Read it.
Friday, October 7, 2011
nice sign
 |
| This guy took the words right out of my mouth. |
 |
| Yeah, they ignored. They laughed. Occupy Wall Street. |
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
summary
"All I heard was 'whereas...whereas...75. whereas... and the next thing I know you were jumping up there Will and saying they screwed you. Which I think they did."
Nice summary from someone who was there who I ran into today...
Same law firm representing the town in this case as in my case in federal court.
This is a sample policy from another carrier... may or may not be similar to Stuyvesant's Public Officer Policy, since my FOIL of same was ignored, I'll just guess that they are similar.
SECTION II—EXCLUSIONS
2. Arising out of the deliberate violation of any federal, state, or local statute, ordinance, rule or regulation committed by or with the knowledge and consent of the insured;
3. Brought about or contributed to by fraud, dishonesty, bad faith or malicious act(s) of an insured
17. For any damages arising out of land use planning or municipal zoning;
Nice summary from someone who was there who I ran into today...
Same law firm representing the town in this case as in my case in federal court.
This is a sample policy from another carrier... may or may not be similar to Stuyvesant's Public Officer Policy, since my FOIL of same was ignored, I'll just guess that they are similar.
SECTION II—EXCLUSIONS
2. Arising out of the deliberate violation of any federal, state, or local statute, ordinance, rule or regulation committed by or with the knowledge and consent of the insured;
3. Brought about or contributed to by fraud, dishonesty, bad faith or malicious act(s) of an insured
17. For any damages arising out of land use planning or municipal zoning;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)