Here we go again. The ZBA does something stupid, as they never give up. Then the Register Star asks for a comment and writes some kind of hit piece. I suspect the Register Star may quote me. In this blog post I'm trying to do some pre-damage control, before the quote runs. I kind of did mean what I said, even if I emailed and said I withdrew the quote.
After 18 hearings on a charge that is impossible, criminal dog barking charges based on perjury, more than $300,000 on a false dog barking charge that no one really ever complained about, except a racist vigilante, well, "X" strikes me as the PG version. If I can't tell them to buzz off after 18 hearings, when can I?
Kind of frustrating, considering all I'm doing is running a small business and saying no to corruption. The government of town of Stuyvesant serves no purpose: corrupt, wasteful, busy bodies, incompetent, stupid.
But we need to have more hearings on dog barking. Got it.
The town attorney Tal Rappleyea embezzled $10,000 and extorted money, $437 on June 21, 2009, from me, which I paid. The town zoning officer Gerry Ennis stalked my house before dawn 25 times. Town board member threatened violence. Board member and town employee says to get out of town. The town, lead by Tal Rappleyea, encouraged perjury to put me in jail on false charges. And again.
But we need to have more hearings on dog barking. Right.
The county attorney, Robert Fitzsimmons and assistant county attorney, Andrew Howard, allow and participate with his colleagues in stealing and continue to steal millions of dollars. There are multiple felonies out of the Columbia County Attorney Office every day. But there is no hearing on stealing, massive corruption. The DA knows all about it. The sheriff knows. The chair of the county board of supervisors knows.
But we need to have more hearings on dog barking. I see.
The town assessor made a fraudulent assessment of the Hook Boat Club, costing the town $500,000.
The town of Stuyvesant spent $200,000 on a dog barking complaint, violated Public Officer's Law by hiring Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna in an illegal secret meeting to get me in criminal court on false charges. (David R. Everett of Chatham New York)
But we need to have more hearings on dog barking. Check.
The town ZEO Gerry Ennis said on the record that he gave me the ticket because he does not like my blog. The town clerk Melissa Naegeli passed around an anonymous note calling me a bad father for making a song she doesn't like.
Dog barking. Right. Got to get our priorities straight.
The only town resident who complained about dog barking lives so far away, 1800 feet, Mary Kline, that she cannot hear any dog barking at all. Her neighbors on all sides say they hear nothing. Mary Kline made racially weird comments online and thinks violence is the solution (online post). This is the town's only complaint, on which they are basing the $200,000 in tax money.
Dog barking, got it?
The town Supervisor, Ron Knott, took $40,000 from the town government in an illegal contract for his own business, violating General Municipal Law § 805-a (1)(c) to help himself. It's against the law.
Here is my position, if you are not sick of this by now, you can read it. I'm saying the same over and over... two years of bullshit.
The stupidest town government in the world.
Here is what I said to the board about 50 times:
In September 2010, I appealed the August 9, 2010 notice of violation still before this board. In November 2010 I submitted a paper by physics professor Dr. Markku Jaaskelainen demonstrating that the charge of loud noise was impossible based on calculations. Later, in April 2011, I submitted a paper by Dr. Ken Andria of Acoustic Dimensions based on measurements on site reaching the same conclusion, that the idea that dogs barking can be loud 1000 feet away is impossible. The results of these papers were endorsed by Dr. Ning Xiang, associate editor of the world's leading peer review acoustical architecture journal and Dr. Ernst Warsits, an acoustical engineering professor in Germany.
The fact that Ennis' notice of violation of August 9, 2010 accuses me of a violation which is entirely impossible is further established by subsequent sound tests, including in August 2011 with ZBA members Jensen, Keller, and Vick in attendance. Videos, signed testimony and audio recordings of these tests, along with science reports, were part of the record of the Article 78 proceeding in New York Supreme Court. There is no doubt that the charge in the notice of violation is false, indeed impossible.
The ZBA knows
that the charge of loud dog barking is false
. Look at those videos
They don't need another public hearing. I did not kidnap Santa's elves.
Our position is that the board should vote to dismiss the
notice of violation of August 9, 2010 either because Gerry Ennis did not have a
written complaint at the time he issued the notice of violation, as required by
town zoning law, or because he did not offer any evidence to substantiate the
charge of loud dog barking.
1. I inquired as to whether we should we write to the judge for clarification
on the issues below without a response from the ZBA:
A) Does the ZBA need to or can the ZBA hold a second public
hearing if it wants to, even though the decision references August 9, 2011 and
the notice of the hearing referencing the very issue under consideration now,
as above? Is one public hearing enough?
B) Do you need to gather more evidence or are 17 hearings
and $200,000 in costs enough to allow the board to vote up or down on the
notice of violation?
judge’s decision refers explicitly to the public hearing of August 9, 2011. No need for another one.
is no complaint of any kind behind this notice of violation.
charge that my dog boarding facility produces "unusual noise... that
exceeds that produced by a normal residence" is clearly not true. The
notice of violation is false and defies the laws of physics.
Ennis is welcome to send a new notice of violation if a violation is ongoing.
notice was not based on a written complaint as required by the Town Zoning
of the two people who made the verbal complaint no longer lives in town. The
remaining complaint, Mary Kline, is based on racial bias, as evidenced by her
internet posts promoting violence and suggesting racial motivation, not dog
have been 17 hearings on this issue in town hall, including a ZBA public
hearing. More than 2000 pages and many gigabytes of digital documents are on
file with state court pertaining to this matter. Your lawyer has all the
documents and we would the entire record considered if any piece of the record
is to be considered.
notice alleges a noise violation more than two years ago.
is no evidence of any violation, not even a written complaint, prior to the
issuance of the notice of violation. No decibel readings, no sound tests, no
coherent written complaint, nothing to indicate a violation existed on August
9, 2010 or exists now in 2012.
ZEO has explicitly, clearly and on the record linked his decision to issue a
notice of violation to the publication of evidence of criminal activity by town
employees on my blog. He said, "Mr. Pflaum thinks he can hide behind his
computer and write whatever he wants." Correct. That is exactly what I
think. The link between the notice of violation and free speech is on the
record, recorded and part of the set of documents submitted to the Supreme
Court as part of the Article 78 proceedings.
one who lives or works within 1500 feet of my barn has complained of dog
barking. There is not one single complaint from anyone who lives or works
within 1500 feet and letters of support indicating no dog barking problem from
people who do live and work with 1500 feet.
ZBA includes town employees/spouses.
anonymous note attacking my family, submitted to the ZBA by the town clerk, who
refuses to disclose the source of the note she introduced as evidence, an act
endorsed by David Everett, remains part of the record before the board and has
not been stricken from the record.
Montie, board member and town employee, has endorsed violence against me and
said that I should move out of town in writing.
These were not slips of the tongue, as he maintains his advocacy of
violence even as he sits on the board. Ed Scott also endorsed vigilante
violence on video. Ed Scott stands by his promotion of violence. Mary Kline
stands by her promotion of violence. Vandalism, as encouraged by town
officials, has occurred at our property as a probably consequence of previous
hearings here at the ZBA.
only town resident who complained of dog barking prior to August 9, 2010, Mary
Kline, also endorses violence, posted racially charged attacks on my
inter-racial family and lives more than 1600 feet away from the dog boarding
facility. By endorsing the notice based solely on her complaint, the ZBA would
be endorsing and encouraging her racist vigilantism.
ZEO is on record admitting to have stalked my property before dawn 25 times.
federal civil rights action is already filed on this case.
ZBA has already voted on the issue of noise. The majority of the board voted
that there was no violation by a 3 to 2 vote. Two members voted that there was
a noise violation, although they both acknowledged that the noise is not loud
at the property line. The ZBA was unanimous in acknowledging no loud noise.