Skip navigation

Alan Schneider Director of Civil Service Suffolk correspondence

Suffolk’s  County  was instrumental in  the creation of an unauthorized police force in Patchogue and Port Jefferson  NY.  Suffolk officials participated in a scam that  allowed the fake cops of Patchogue to be paid on  fraudulent duty statements and false applications for payment.  Bottom line:  Suffolk paid the fake cops, knowing they were fake and knowing the statements they made for payment were fraudulent.    Suffolk  knew the cops were fake when they paid them.  In the emails [link above and below] is conversation between Suffolk County Attorney Christine Malafi and Alan Schneider  [Director of Personnel] where these officials  engage in damage control claiming that so long as  they quietly  condemn the racially motivated illegal policing, Suffolk County can avoid responsibility for the hunting of undesirables with fake police.

“plausible Denial ” fake cop strategy:  Click on the link above to see the interagency emails of Suffolk officials in which they acknowledge Patchogue’s Cops were/are illegal.

 

Alan Schneider Director of Civil Service Suffolk correspondence

RE:  Vigilante Cops in the Incorporated Village of Patchogue

The Incorporated Village of Patchogue created an illegal constabulary or “fake” police department, corrupting many aspects of government and in order to undermine the minority population and drive the immigrants out. These village employees wore illegal uniforms, ticketed civilians and were armed  with crowd control deadly force.

The corruption of the Incorporated Village of Patchogue’s constabulary coincides with the Incorporated Village of Patchogue’s redevelopment. The Village’s used federal and state monies to fund its redevelopment through the New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources Local Waterfront Redevelopment Program, which has federal regulations and guidelines that were violated.

One objective of the Village’s redevelopment included the pushing out of minorities and lower income people out of the Incorporated Village of Patchogue. The “shock and awe” fear of an unlawful illegally armed police force was particularly effective in pushing undesirables out the Incorporated Village of Patchogue’s boundaries. The Incorporated Village of Patchogue’s employees, posing as constables, threatened deadly force and coerced residents to give up their rights, which would have otherwise been protected under New York State and Suffolk County laws. Residents were faced with fines, arrests, unwarranted inspections, harassment, and threats of assault with illegal firearms.

Proof and admissions the Constables were volatile of Suffolk County law

On June 23, 2008, Brian Egan, the new Incorporated Village of Patchogue Attorney, finally publicly admitted that the practice of carrying firearms was illegal. Attorney Brian Egan declared that the arming of their personnel violated not one, but three laws, and possibly violated the oaths of office of those who were involved. The admission of Mr. Egan goes to the heart of the Incorporated Village of Patchogue’s ability to illegally maintain an unlawful and illegitimate policing force.

I an effort to obtain copies of guns permits, I contacted the Suffolk County Police Permits Division and used the New York Freedom of Information; they refused to allow me access to the Incorporated Village of Patchogue employee pistol permits. These pistol permits would have shown the permits used by these employees were unlawful.

The previous Village of Patchogue Chief Constables, Mr. Tameo and Mr. Kratch, who oversaw the Incorporated Village of Patchogue employees unlawfully deemed “Constables,” have admitted in sworn statements of having participated in the this illegal scheme. Mr. Tameo and Mr. Kratch directed Incorporated Village of Patchogue employees, not recognized as Constables, but nevertheless acting like Constables to stop and detain Suffolk County motorists as they drove through the Village [Contrary to law, no provisions to thwart racial profiling were in existence, see below ]. Mr. Tameo and Mr. Kratch testified that they thought their practices were sanctioned by the District Attorney’s Officer, because this agency prosecuted the tickets.

In 2006, Village of Patchogue Mayor Paul Pontieri conceded in a public forum in accepting the Wood v Incorporated Village of Patchogue, et al, Index No. 01-CV-0229 (the “Wood Case”), class action settlement because the actions of detaining motorists was wrong and that the Village would cease the practice.

In the Wood Case, the Incorporated Village of Patchogue had to pay back motorists for these unlawful tickets as part of the Class Action suit settlement with Suffolk County residents. However, at the time no one realized that the Village of Patchogue’s Constabulary was illegal, unauthorized and lacking federal regulations concerning racial profiling.

The Incorporated Village of Patchogue has failed to fully live up to its settlement.  They failed to comply with making the best efforts to heal the motorist driving records. Most importantly, the suit never alleged or resolved the issue of racial profiling. Upon information and belief, the Village has stopped the practice of detaining motorists, but no one has had sufficient access to Village records to investigate the racial bias of the illegal police activity. I used the New York State Freedom of Information Law to obtain information, including the Incorporated Village of Patchogue’s rules concerning racial and national origin profiling instructions and they responded that the Village lacks any instructions.

Due to the recent death of Marcelo Lucero, a Latino immigrant, the Village of Patchogue’s officials attempted to distance themselves from the illegal constable scheme. I spoke at the Incorporated Village of Patchogue Board of Trustee public meeting on or about Monday, December 8, 2008, and when I asked whether the Village would continue to use the title of “Constable,” I was informed by Brian Egan, Village Attorney, Steve McGiff, Deputy Mayor, and Mayor Paul Pontieri, that during the present administration (2004 to present) the “Village never called its employees ‘Constables.’” “never used the term,” “don’t know what you are talking about.” This is a deception.

Furthermore, the Incorporated Village of Patchogue Public Safety code enforcement or Public Safety Departments, or its officers, are defective in that it fails to maintain the minimum standards required by the State of New York. There is no official reporting and therefore, no transparency. This allows the Incorporated Village of Patchogue to run an unlawful and unauthorized Constabulary, a “fake” police department, with the intent to discriminate against minorities.

Suffolk County’s Failure to Protect Village of Patchogue residents:

Suffolk County Officials Knew That The Incorporated Village of Patchogue Was Running An Unlawful Policing Department in The Form of Office of The Village Constables and Did Nothing About It

Sergeant Santa Maria of the Suffolk County Police Department was present at the 1994 enactment of Local Law #9, Chapter 7, of the Village of Patchogue Code, which falsely and deceptively passed a law that allowed the Incorporated Village of Patchogue policing power. The Suffolk County Police Department’s presence condones this illegal act.

Furthermore, the Suffolk County Police Department worked in conjunction with the Incorporated Village of Patchogue Constables, even though they had knowledge of their illegal power and were duty-bound to shut the organization down and arrest those village employees who were impersonating officers. Suffolk County allowed the Incorporated Village of Patchogue Constables to enter crime scenes and to piggy back upon their official privileged access. Furthermore, Suffolk Police Department shared information with Incorporated Village of Patchogue Constables. Upon investigation from the proper authorities, evidence may emerge that the corruption of the Incorporation Village of Patchogue departments started the corrupting of the Suffolk County Police Department and other policing agencies.

The Suffolk County Police Department may have rewarded its auxiliary police force members with opportunities to participate in the illegal Incorporated Village of Patchogue unauthorized and illegal policing force. The Suffolk County Civil Service Department not authorize the practice nor recognized the title “constable” or the practice of carrying guns and told the Village to cease the practice. Many of the Village’s Constables were ex Suffolk Police Department auxiliary police, which in the late 1990’s Suffolk County’s Sherriff’s office trained. This training was illegal and further added to the illusion that the Incorporated Village of Patchogue employees’ policing power was legitimate. Also there was a sharing of personnel between the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office and the Incorporated Village of Patchogue, case in point, Mr. Al Costello, who posed as a Village constable. This professional collusion caused the Suffolk Police Department to turn a blind eye to a policing entity that Suffolk Police Department knew was illegal, dangerous and discriminatory.

When complaints were made to Suffolk District Attorney’s office about the Incorporated Village of Patchogue’s illegal policing force, Darryl Burger, investigating for the District Attorney’s Office said “we can’t tell if the constables are legal or illegal. Our staff lacks the resources to make this determination.” Mr. Burger may have made this statement to conceal wrongdoing on the part of the Incorporated Village of Patchogue policing force. Other members of the District Attorney’s Office then proceeded to make improper determinations in order to protect Suffolk County Police Department and the District Attorney’s Office and to obscure the facts and avoid investigating a criminal matter that both the Suffolk County Police and the District Attorney’s Office were involved in. The result is that Suffolk County residents have been harmed and injustice has prevailed.

The Incorporated Village of Patchogue had willfully violated the following Federal Laws:

Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241. Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing, 42 U.S.C. § 3631. Section 3631 of Title 42 makes it unlawful for an individual to use force or threaten to use force to injure, intimidate, or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with, any person’s housing rights because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Among those housing rights enumerated in the statute are: 1) the sale, purchase, or renting of a dwelling, 2) the occupation of dwelling, 3) the financing of a dwelling, 4) contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above, and 5) applying for or participating in any service, organizations, or facility relating to the sale or rental of dwellings.

This statute also makes it unlawful to use force or threaten to use force to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is assisting an individual or class of persons in the exercise of their housing rights. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242. This provision makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Federally Protected Activities, 18 U.S.C. § 245. The portion of Section 245 of Title 18 which is primarily enforced by the Criminal Section makes it unlawful to willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with any person, or to attempt to do so, by force or threat of force, because of that other person’s race, color, religion or national origin and because of his/her activity as one of the following:

  • A participant in a benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;
  • A traveler or user of a facility of interstate commerce or common carrier;
  • A patron of a public accommodation or place of exhibition or entertainment, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters, concert halls, sports arenas or stadiums.

This statute also prohibits willful interference, by force or threat of force, with a person because he/she is or was participating in, or aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Cesar Perales, President and General Counsel of Latino Justice, an advocacy group said an investigation was “…akin to the Justice Department going into Mississippi in the civil rights era to investigate murders by the Ku Klux Klan.”

I fear that the lack of federal oversight concerning the investigation into these Suffolk County Long Island illegal policing activities will lead to the further eruptions of violence in our community.

Very truly yours,

Henry R. Terry

google-site-verification: google5f6b8f042b6605bc.html

JUSTIFICATION:  New York State has more than 10,521  local  governmental
entities,   which   include  towns,  villages  and  different  types  of
districts. These entities impose on the citizenry layer  upon  layer  of
overlapping taxing structures. As a result, New York's current system of

local  government is too expensive, confusing, inefficient and suscepti-
ble to waste, fraud and abuse.

Illustrative  of  the dysfunction in the current system of local govern-
ment is the more than 6,900 town  special  districts  operating  in  New
York.  State law now authorizes towns to establish special districts for
an ever increasing number of functions, including such arcane  functions
as  aquatic  plant growth control (Town Law SS 190, 198(10-e)), disposal
of duck waste (Town Law S 198-a), and fallout shelters (Town Law SS 190,
198 (10-c)). To be sure, some special purpose government entities play a
crucial role in town governance, by  providing  services  to  geographic
areas  that  other governments might not serve, managing critical public
services, and bringing attention to specific discrete problems. Over the
years, however, special districts have proliferated at an alarming rate,
increasing the cost of local government.

Indeed, the astounding number of  local  governments  in  New  York  has
contributed  to  the  rise  of local real property taxes. Throughout the
State there are large pockets of overlapping taxing entities. Erie Coun-
ty alone has 1,044 such entities,  including  3  cities,  25  towns,  15
villages,  32 fire districts and 939 special districts. Likewise, Nassau
and Suffolk Counties combined have  over  340  special  districts.    In
Hamilton  County,  there  exists  one  layer of government for every 132
people. Such examples can easily be multiplied.

For over 75 years, academics, commissions,  government  officials,  good
government  groups  and  informed  citizens have recognized the inherent
dysfunction in New York's local government system: In 1935, for example,
the New York State Commission for. the Revision of the Tax Laws, common-
ly referred to as the Mastick Commission, noted  that  there  were  "too
many  units of local government," resulting in the "duplication of func-
tions, overlapping areas, overlapping authority and  overlapping  debt."
Sixth  Report  of  the New York State Commission for the Revision of the
Tax Laws, at 15-16 (1935). The Mastick Commission criticized the State's
local government system as violative  of  the  "'first  principles'"  of
political  science  "taught  in our high schools, colleges and universi-
ties", and "so contrary to elementary principles of  human  organization
that  it is difficult if not impossible for the administration of public
affairs to be carried on with efficiency." Id.

Sixty years later, a study prepared by the 1995 Temporary State  Commis-
sion on Constitutional Revision revealed that the problem had only grown
in dimension:

New  York's  forms  of  general  purpose  government - counties, cities,
towns, and villages - were devised in the eighteenth century and  devel-
oped in the nineteenth. But they have not been modified in the twentieth
century,  despite  enormous  changes  in  population size and diversity,
economic  activity,  transportation  systems,  settlement  patterns  and
communications  technology.  Instead, the state has added frequently but
streamlined rarely. Localities kept their  forms,  but  their  functions
converged.  Where  necessary,  single-function,  special  districts  and

authorities were created to augment existing entities, increasing layer-
ing and complexity. The result is not a system, but a maze  of  overlap-
ping and often competing jurisdictions.

Effective  Government  Now  for the New Century: The Final Report of the
Temporary State Commission on Constitutional Revision, at 15 (1995).

Study after study has demonstrated  that  the  reorganization  of  local
government  entities - through consolidation and dissolution - holds the
potential for minimizing bureaucracy and thus maximizing efficiency  and
savings.{1}  Nevertheless,  despite a virtual consensus that the State's
local government system needs to be fixed,  consolidations  and  dissol-
utions of local government entities rarely occur.

Multiple  impediments  stand  in the way of local government reorganiza-
tion, but existing law is one which looms large. The applicable statutes
are randomly scattered throughout the Town  Law,  Village  Law,  General
Municipal  Law and Municipal Home Rule Law, creating an incomprehensible
maze for lawyers and laypersons alike.   For different  types  of  local
government  entities  there  are different consolidation and dissolution
rules and procedures, many of which are  inconsistent  and  nonsensical.
Some  rules are anachronistic, harkening back to a bygone era. For exam-
ple, a citizen must own taxable property  within  a  water  district  in
order  to sign a petition or vote in a special town election on a propo-
sition to consolidate the district with another one. See, e.g., Town Law
S 206(7). Such pecuniary and propertied qualifications  should  have  no
place  in contemporary society. A person's wealth is irrelevant to their
ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process.

Additionally, citizen petition requirements  related  to  consolidations
and  dissolutions,  to  the limited extent they exist under current law,
are complex, confusing and difficult to meet. In  some  cases,  citizens
cannot  even  require  their  elected  representatives to consider as an
option the consolidation or dissolution of a  local  government  entity.
Such voter powerlessness places New York out of step with numerous other
states  that  grant  their  citizens the right to readily initiate local
government reorganizations.

The Act dramatically reforms existing law. It repeals, amends and super-
sedes outdated statutes and establishes  in  a  single  article  of  the
General  Municipal  Law uniform and all-inclusive procedures under which
local government entities{2} may be consolidated or dissolved.  Notably,
the Act does not mandate the reorganization of local government entities
in which a majority of the citizens are opposed to it.  The  bill  will,
however,  facilitate  consolidations  and  dissolutions  throughout  the
State, by giving citizens, local officials and counties a readable road-
map to follow.

Under the Act, the consolidation  or  dissolution  of  local  government
entities may be initiated in one of two ways:

* by the entities' governing body, or

* initiative petition of electors residing in the entities.

The governing body initiated process is triggered by the development and
approval  of  a  proposed written plan for consolidation or dissolution,
followed by the plan's publication and public hearings aimed at maximiz-
ing citizen participation. Consolidation of  local  government  entities
other  than  towns  or.  villages may go into effect after the governing
body or bodies give final approval to the plan.  However,  consolidation
or  dissolution  of  towns and/or villages cannot go into effect without
the approval of a majority of voters residing in each  of  the  affected
entities at a referendum. Likewise, the dissolution of a village must be
approved by a majority vote.

The  citizen-initiated  process is triggered by the filing of a petition
containing the signatures of at least. 10%  of  the  electors  or  5,000
electors,  whichever  is  less,  in  each  local government entity to be
consolidated or dissolved. (For small entities with 500 or  fewer  elec-
tors  the  petition  shall contain the signatures of at least 20% of the
electors.) The Act strikes from existing law all pecuniary or propertied
qualifications for signing the petition.  The  filing  of  the  petition
requires  a referendum to be held in each of the entities. If a majority
of the electorate in each entity votes  in  favor  of  consolidation  or
dissolution,  then  the entities' governing body or bodies must meet and
develop a proposed written  plan  to  implement  the  voters'  decision,
followed by the plan's publication and public hearings. Consolidation or
dissolution  takes  effect  when, the governing body or bodies approve a
final version of the plan.  However, citizens may, within 45-days  after
the  plan's  final approval, petition for a permissive referendum on the
question whether the plan should take effect. To compel such a  referen-
dum,  the  petition  must  contain the signatures of at least 25% of the
electors or 15,000 electors, whichever is less, in each local government
entity to be consolidated or dissolved.

The Act anticipates the possibility that the governing body or bodies of
local government entities are either unable or unwilling to comply  with
the requirements imposed on them during the course of a citizen-initiat-
ed  consolidation or dissolution. In such circumstance

THE LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAMS (LWRP) PLAN.

1. Under federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Policies and New York State Department of State Local Waterfront Revitalization/Redevelopment Programs and Policies grants/contracts, the Village was contracted by the New York State Department of State (“DOS”) to work with the Village residents and begin the process of redevelopment and revitalization along its Village coastal areas including the Patchogue River; programs also including the revitalization of “new and expanding water-dependent uses, such as marinas;” “to protect existing water-dependent commercial, industrial, and recreational uses and to promote their future sitting in accordance with the reasonably expected demand for such uses;” including “waterborne commerce” and “water-related public and quasi-public areas,” “water-enhanced uses are activities that do not require a location on the waterfront to function, but whose location on the waterfront could add to public enjoyment and use of the water’s edge, if properly designed and sited;” “water-dependent use as which includes so as to “subsidize the water-dependent use” and “enhance” them (herein and hereinafter referred to as “LWRP”).

2. Along these lines, I have sought, as was his legal right, to review compliance and other records under LWRP. I, on behalf of Village residents, and myself sought to obtain evidence that the Village met the LWRP requirements. At various times, I have been denied LWRP records and information through various Village excuses, tricks, distortions, improper, fraudulent, arbitrary, and capricious determinations

by the Village, Village Board of Trustees and officials including Village Clerk and custodian of Village records and J. Lee Snead, former Village Attorney and FOIL Appeal Records Officer. This blocking of access to records and information in and of itself violates LWRP policies and rules as they apply to the

LWRP grants/contracts, including grant/contract #C005850, and #C006343 that records be open to the public for audit and review. The Village unlawfully blocked access to records, particularly the LWRP “work products” and “DOS tasks” of the various LWRP grants/contracts, including LWRP Contract #C005850, and #C006343 thus defrauding residents and my legal rights to be informed, educated, reached, i.e. “public outreach” and “community consensus.”

3. Under the LWRP Grant #C005850 there was no “community consensus” and that “work product,” “Task 5: Project Scoping Meetings and meeting summaries” were doctored up to look as if the Village had reached “community” consensus. I believe that the LWRP plan has developed and incorporated new techniques to fraudulently manufacture “community consensus” (See public outreach comments below).

4. LWRP DOS and federal policies require “community consensus” and “public outreach” in the redevelopment and revitalization of its coastal areas. With respect to the LWRP, the Village is in breach of contract. For years the Village Board of Trustees has constructively denied me access to LWRP records though they have publicly promised the records. For many years and also on or about June 20, 2006, June 29, 2006, and throughout 2007, Village Clerk Patricia Seal and J. Lee Snead, Village Appeals Records Officer, have constructively denied access to LWRP records, which should be available

to public under the LWRP federal policies and LWRP DOS rules, the Code of Ethics and the Freedom of Information Law (See FOIL index attached). The Village has concealed records as to require LWRP tasks not performed and does not give access to records with respect to adequate “public outreach” and “community consensus.” In fact, Mr. Dean represented to the community that the Village was not going to pursue any further LWRP when C000585 was terminated. Trustee dean, as director of the LWRP said the Village was going to pursue the redevelopment privately. I believe this was done so that unlicensed and permitted environmental remediation could take place on the property of Village insiders. Once the Village realized that the LWRP was funded by Title 11 environmental monies, Village decision makers proceeded to quickly allow for environmental non–compliance on certain properties to decrease cost of development for Village “insiders.”

5. I was shocked to hear that the Village had clandestinely applied for another LWRP grant and even more surprised when it did not appear on the DOS website as do other grants contracts. I was further shocked to see that the Village broke the law and concealed the grant number from the public at its first purported LWRP public meeting. This is significant as the Village Clerk has the policy and practice of blocking the public from records if the person does not know the exact name of the records one is requesting, i.e. the grant or contract number. In fact, Patricia Seal, Village Clerk, will not provide the record because she arbitrarily and capriciously deems it “not reasonably described” (See FOIL index attached). When I further asked Trustee Lori Devlin about the status of the “new” unidentified LWRP, she

said, standing on a linguistic trick that there was “no LWRP.” At this public LWRP meeting, Ms. Devlin was concealing government business from the public by changing the definition of LWRP to mean that the existing LWRP contract/grant was not an LWRP because it was a contract to establish an LWRP. This novel and devious twist to the game that the Village Clerk and Village Attorney had been playing, further exasperates the Village residents’ participation in the New York State funded “outreach.”

6. For many years, Village employees through frauds, deceits, misrepresentations, breach of protocol, further enumerated below, have blocked my access to this LWRP evidence and records thus harming residents from benefiting from the LWRP, while favoring others in the Village as to the redevelopment/revitalization in the Village. The blocking of access to these records was to curtail his investigation in the Village’s policy to favor some over other residents and business owners under the LWRP and other codes.

7. The Village, Village Board of Trustees, Seal, Snead and Village LWRP representative are non-responsive to “work product” records and “work product” records that was not performed. The Village did not properly performed LWRP Scoping Meetings.

9. On or about September 26, 2007, the DOS was finally responsive to my request for a list of all LWRP “work product” records of DOS tasks performed and not performed. The following is a list of those deficiencies as reported by New York State Department of State:

Task 5—Project Scoping Meetings: All records re: Scoping Meetings and meeting summaries—any records that reflect “community consensus” or how the Village plans to accomplish this task. DOS produces: Agenda and Meeting Summaries.

All LWRP records showing how the Village notified or will notify Village residents regarding future or past LWRP: DOS responded “no records” exist.

Task 6—Steering Committees: All LWRP records re: Application to become a member of the Village LWRP “Advisory Committee,” (a/k/a “Steering Committee”) and how one is chosen to be included or become a member of this committee or any other “public outreach:” DOS produced: Newspaper article.

Task 6—Steering Committees: All LWRP records re: Names of members “LWRP Advisory Committee”(a/k/a Steering Committee Members and LWRP Committee Members): DOS produced: LWRP Committee Members and conference call minutes.

Task 6—Steering Committees: All LWRP records re: “Public Please also note that the Village has been maintaining, for the past few months, in public forums, that it is not involved in another LWRP contract, in order to conceal their malfeasance concerning previous DOS LWRP Contract #005850.

Public Outreach—public meetings with written summaries—a summary of the public meetings

including attendees, the meeting’s purpose, issues or questions raised and appropriate responses to the issues and questions: DOS responded “no records” exist.

Task 7—Public Outreach: All LWRP records re: Study Area Profile—summary description of study area and summary of exiting conditions in the Northeast Quadrant of the Patchogue River or the Patchogue River: DOS responded “no records” exist.

All LWRP records re: developmental pressures along Patchogue River. DOS responded “no records” exist.

All LWRP records re: “moratorium” and who has gotten permission to build during this moratorium: DOS responded that “no records” exist.

All LWRP records re: Village planning initiatives relevant to the coastal area and Patchogue River as well as all “previous planning studies;” DOS responded that “no records” exist.

All LWRP records re: Patchogue River Maritime Action Plan and the website: DOS produced: http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/planning/PatchogueRiver.pdf

Task 5—Project Scoping Meeting: All LWRP records re: Project Scoping Meeting(s) and summaries, with inventory of problems completed; relevant previous planning records; and other information of the meeting summaries of agreements/understandings reached: DOS produced: Draft LWRP Scoping Meeting Minutes (2 pages).

Task 2—Review & Rank Proposals: All LWRP records re: “Contractors:” DOS produced Agreement between Contractor and Village of Patchogue (110 Pages).

All LWRP records re: “Harbor Management Plan.” DOS responded “no records” exist.

Task 11—Techniques to Ensure Compatible Redevelopment: All LWRP records regarding any and all completed “Written Summary of Issues, Conflicts and Opportunities;” “Harbor Management Plan-Identification of Existing Authorities;” “Summary of the issues of local and regional importance that should be addressed in the Harbor Management Plan” and “Summary of opportunities to resolve issues or advance desired projects or uses in the harbor area;” including “necessary [cross out] proposed or potentially desirable zoning changes” “redevelopment of underused or deteriorated areas for projects that advance harbor management efforts” that currently exit: “This summary shall also include a brief description of any conflicts between existing land or water uses and existing zoning standards. Such conflicts might include: existing nonconforming water-dependent uses in areas appropriate for water-dependent uses, but zoned for non-water-dependent uses; and intertidal wetland areas, bays or other offshore or intertidal areas that are used or zoned for residential or other inappropriate uses in these areas. ”DOS responded “no records” exist.

Task 11—Techniques to Ensure Compatible Redevelopment: All LWRP records re: Summary of existing authorities. DOS responded, “Records not reasonable described.”

Task 7—Public Outreach: All LWRP records re: LWRP component feasibility study. “The Harbor Management Plan may be completed as a separate document. DOS responded “no records” exist.

Task 7—Public Outreach: The minutes of public LWRP meeting already conducted: DOS responded “no records” exist.

Task 11—Techniques to Ensure Compatible Redevelopment: All LWRP records re: LWRP Title 11 environmental monies exist.

Task 6—Steering Committee: All LWRP records re: Steering Committee: DOS replied “no records” exist.

Task 6—Steering Committee: All records re: LWRP Steering Committee’s actions taken to ensure public participation during preparation of action plan; and action taken to assist public outreach and Application to join LWRP Steering Committee: DOS replied “no records” exist.

All LWRP records re: Draft Request For Proposal (RFP): DOS replied “no records exist.”

Task 2—Review and Rank Proposals: All LWRP records re: Consultation between DOS and Village to review and rank proposals received as a result of RFP: DOS produced: LWRP RFP Score Sheet (10 pages).

Task 9—Economic/Market Analyses: All LWRP records re: Community and immediate region Economic/Market Analysis with all appropriate sources—economic market analysis that provides sufficient justification to identify a range of realistic future land uses to occupy the area targeted for redevelopment: DOS records produced: Draft Redevelopment Action Plan for the Patchogue River Northeast Quadrant (33 Pages).

Task 10—Future Land Use Defined: All records re: LWRP Task 10: DOS responded “no records” exist.

Task 11—Techniques to Ensure Compatible Redevelopment: All LWRP records re: Task 11 with appropriate design standards and guidelines, local laws, and graphic or drawings; DOS responded “no records” exist.

Task 12—Action Plan: All LWRP records re: Task 12: DOS produced: Draft Redevelopment Action Plan for the Patchogue River Northeast Quadrant Section 6 (33 pages).

Task 16—Measurable Results: All LWRP records re: Measurable Results. DOS responded “no records” exist.

10. The Village denied me access to LWRP records, which he was entitled to review under the LWRP contracts and LWRP Policies that would evidence “work product” not performed.

11. The Village unlawfully denied access to LWRP records and evidence in an effort to conceal that the Village had not properly performed LWRP “public outreach” and reached “community consensus” and to denied me access to the political process.

12. The Village denied LWRP records on false reasons in order to conceal LWRP noncompliance

and wrongdoings and to restrict my waterfront business opportunities in the Village under the LWRP.

13. During the Scheme period, and the years 1997 through July 2007, various the Village, employees and unidentified and concealed persons took over the LWRP process; and unlawfully misled, concealed information from the public, and improperly held LWRP Steering Committee Meetings, whose dates and time are not of public record. In violations of the LWRP grants/contracts and LWRP Policies moneys were paid to these Steering Committee Members of which there is no documentation.

14. In LWRP public notices and at LWRP public meetings, the Village’s policy and practice allowed their LWRP “agents” to defrauded those in attendance as to the purpose of the LWRP contract/grants and the meetings tasks by misrepresenting the meetings’ purpose as “public information.”

15. Furthermore, Village residents were not informed as to the New York State and federal LWRP Policies and DOS LWRP grants/contract tasks, including but not limited to Grant/Contract C#005850, which demanded that the Village gather public information, reach community consensus and have community participation in the LWRP process.

16. Furthermore, the Village and their LWRP “agents” did not allow these LWRP public-meeting minutes to reflect adverse comment and concerns by the public.

17. Furthermore, Village DOS LWRP records evidence the lack of adverse comments by the public in the various LWRP public meetings minutes, reflect improper recording of public LWRP public meeting minutes. My comments at these LWRP public meetings are not on the record. Furthermore, the Village blocked me access to LWRP records to conceal the improper transcription of these LWRP public meetings.

18. Furthermore, the LWRP Steering Committee and LWRP agents designed the meetings in such a way that public comments were only heard in LWRP Sub-committee; and LWRP Steering Committee Member and LWRP “agents” filtered, censored, summarized and reinterpreted those LWRP public meeting comments for the official DOS LWRP written records and for general public at large. In this manner, the Village, Village employees, LWRP “agents,” LWRP Steering Committee Members deceived the DOS, Village resident. In this way they sought to gain unfair advantage and conspired against residents.

19. Furthermore, the Village, employees, LWRP Steering Committee Members and LWRP “agents” use LWRP Grants/Contracts moneys, including #C0005850, for unknown Village agendas, which includes the authorizing of condominiums for “insiders” and contrary to LWRP study objectives, and moratorium for “outsiders.” The times and dates in which these events occurred have been concealed by the lack of compliance with the LWRP Policies and LWRP grants/contracts, including Grant #C005850, the Village Ethics Code and destruction of records.

Frauds and Deceits

A. Denial and Destruction of Evidence

20. Access to information and redevelopment rights are some of the most important rights of business expansion and growth. As a Village and New York State resident and I have right to know government determinations related to Village government. In an effort to document these harms and to safeguard my water dependent business along the Patchogue River, I have requested vital information from the Village that was mostly denied. In an effort to obtain these records pertinent to his business activities, I spoke at Village Board of Trustee Meetings and requesting records, information and answer of various governmental policies, practices and regulations.

21. The Village improperly transcribed Village Board of Trustee Meetings and at other times completely omitted my presentations, questions, answers, as well as the answers of the Village Mayor, Board of Trustees, Village Attorney and the public. The improperly transcribed meetings include the meeting of June 12, 2006 where they threaten to remove and arrest me, thereby violating his rights to petition the government and to exercise his Freedom of Speech.

22. After I complained to the DOS terminated the LWRP under the deception that the Village was no longer willing to pursue the process. Therefore both the DOS and the Village acknowledge that the Grant is incomplete and its results “finds” obtained by fraudulent means cannot be used in any new Governmental study or the present LWRP.

23. The LWRP is an effort to aggregate the different community interests into a shared collective and collaborative vision of the future. The Final LWRP product is intended to be used to gain further financial and political support for an “established” agreed on direction for the community. Taken in this light, the current LWRP plan fails. The community was not contacted or notified properly. The community was not educated properly, they were not included in the process and their interests were

not protected. It is a contractual fraud to claim that community outreach had been reach by placing of an ad in the local paper seeking Steering Committee members and conducting two short meetings. It is a further contractual fraud to conceal these Steering Committee meetings from the public. Most people in our community do not understand the LWRP or what it means to future development. I have been personally and financially hurt by this con.

24. Please be aware that if the New York State Department of State do not stop these practices, the future monies obtained from federal and state moneys pursuant to the LWRP will be fraudulently obtained.

The Village’s Unlawful Policing Practices “Fake Cops.”

25. Furthermore, to maintain their redevelopment objectives the Village is engaged in fraudulent policing practices to the detriment of motorist and Village residents.

Recent Village’s Admissions of Wrongdoings and the Giving Up of Firearms

26. During the LWRP process and the redevelopment of the Village’s waterfront, the Village has maintained an unlawful Office of the Village Constable. This Village agency is comprised of Code Enforcement who are unlawfully deemed to be New York State Constables when they are not. These purported officials work with the Village’s Building Department and Village Justice Court. The Village’s policy and practice is the moving force behind a scheme whereby the Village unlawfully and under the

color of law burdens unwanted businesses with the intent of pushing property ownership and redevelopment rights into the hands of a few “insiders.”

27. On June 23, 2008, Brian Egan, the new Village Attorney, admitted that the practice of carrying firearms was illegal. Attorney Egan declared that the arming of untrained and unscreened personnel violated not one, but three laws, and possibly violated the oaths of office of those who were involved. In a further admission of wrongdoing, on June 1, 2008, the Village ceased the practice Village Code Enforcement Officers, the so-called “Constables” from carrying firearms. The admission of Mr. Egan, goes to the heart of the Village’s ability to illegally maintain an unlawful and illegitimate

policing force. It has been the Village policy to maintain a policing force without

proper training.

28. The previous Chief Constables, Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Kratch, who oversaw the constables, have admitted in sworn statements to having participated in the this scheme to direct Village Constables to stop and detain motorists as they drove through Patchogue. Mayor Pontieri conceded in a public forum in accepting the Wood v Inc. Village of Patchogue, et al, Index No. 01-CV-0229 (the “Wood Case”), class action settlement case that the actions of detaining motorists was wrong and that the Village would

cease the practice. The unlawful ticketing and firearms, is merely the tip of the iceberg with regards to the Village’s unlawful policies and practices. We refer to this illegal scheme, which included other unlawful acts in the name of Village code and “public safety,” as the “Private Police Force Scheme.” We use the word “private,” because the police force was unsanctioned by New York State and this illegal entity engaged in practices and objectives that were not governmental, but which served the private interests of certain Village employees, Village officials and Trustees and private citizens. Specifically, the scheme allowed Village “insiders” to open bars and use public moneys to gain extra legal police protection to foster their interest within the guise under the color of law.

29. Furthermore, the threat of the illegal police force allowed the Village to force residents to give up their rights, which would have been protected under New York State law and the LWRP, and be faced with fines, arrest, inspection, harassment, threat assault with firearms, etc. The necessary community trust for a Village Building and Planning Department work has been compromised. A redevelopment requires some semblance of trust for the quid pro quo process to work.

It has been found in the case of Mr. Joel Furman that the Planning Department now will “lifts” and entire redevelopment project, call it its own and parlay it to a political affiliate. When Mr. Furman presented an acceptable and potentially lucrative hotel plan complete with public funding sources, the Village adopted his plan as if it were their own and proceeded without him. The Building Department then impersonating New York State Peace Officers attacked Mr. Furman’s property by writing thousands of dollars of summonses and demanding hundreds of thousands or bogus improvements to force the sale of his property to someone they favored. This unlawful redevelopment policies and practices go beyond merely pushing people off their land for the benefit of “insiders,” it allows for the wholesale stealing of entrepreneurial ideas that the LWRP is suppose to foster and protect.

30. These practices allowed the Village to obtain and estimated $7.75 million dollars in faulty penalties from residents. When this issue was brought up at the September 23, 2008 LWRP Village Meeting, Trustee Hilton acknowledged the need to return this money to the residents.

31. The Suffolk County Department of Civil Service does not recognize the merging of these duties and only recognizes the duties of Code Enforcement Officer. It is further noted that the Suffolk county director of Civil Service, Alan Schneider asserts that the final decision makers who ratified the Village “fake police” Constable Department will have to reimburse the Taxpayer an estimated 800,000.00 for the costs of this improper police force. The DOS has a responsibility to remedy the Village abuse of NYS policing power and correct the harms done to the residents that came from using the Village police power to bilk residence and force unwanted business to be burdened with the higher regulatory burden

Civil Rights Violations

32. The Village intentionally, knowingly denied me the right to speak at public Village forums at various Village of Patchogue Trustee’s Meetings, specifically, but not limited to meeting on or about June 12, 2006. The Village barred Me from speaking to and before the panel of the Village of Patchogue Trustees and the Public Record, and the public, the residents of the Village of Patchogue. I was prevented

on various occasions over the past few years from speaking out. The Village has knowingly, continuously and negligently deprived Me of his right to speak under the Federal and State Laws, Open Meeting Laws. The Village has attempted to further block the Me access to information under the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”), by failing to abide by FOIL and stopped me from addressing the record in reference to various unlawful denial of FOIL request for records and other denial of records;

and they did so before the Incorporated Village of Patchogue Trustees’ panel on June 12, 2006; and at other times; thereby preventing me from addressing the public and residents of the Incorporated Village of Patchogue, as to determinations made by Village of Patchogue Officials at Village of Patchogue Trustees’ Meetings. The Village threatened to “call the Suffolk County Police” (interestingly they did not

use the Village Constables I was protesting) and to have me “arrested” and “removed” from Village Hall if I did not stop addressing the Village of Patchogue Trustees.

33. Both J. Lee Snead, former Village Attorney and Village Mayor Paul Pontieri have blocked me from speaking publicly at Village of Patchogue Trustees’ meetings and have on occasion verbally threatened me for speaking out and asking questions.

34. The Village and Village official have a policy of conspiring to conceal the substance of the LWRP from Village residents and has fraudulently made statement that there was no current LWRP when there is, in an effort to conceal this government LWRP and to have the public rely upon this fraud. this concealment was done with the intention of depriving me, business associates, Village residents of their rights.

35. On or about May and June 2008, I attended Village Trustee meetings held for the Village and spoke during the public will be heard portion of the meeting requesting from the Village that they either (1) provide him with the Village policy and practice regarding the Village’s Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) Application for records; (2) tell him why they have not responded to his request for records under FOIL.  Trustee Hilton responded for the Village, and conveyed to Me that he had not received

his a response to his FOIL Applications because I did not provide any services for the Village.

36. From on or about 2003 to the present, the Village Trustees in an effort to hide facts pertaining to Village Board of Trustee Meetings have approved inconsistent and inaccurate transcriptions of Village Board of Trustee Meeting Minutes.

37. The DOS LWRP Policy 2, protected me from these abuses “The intent of this policy is to protect existing water-dependent commercial, industrial and recreational used and to promote their future siting in accordance with the reasonably expected demand for such uses.” It is clear from the New York State Coastal Management Program LWRP Policies, Policy 2, that my Anything Marine business should not have been threatened or prevented from expanding by the Village as it was protected by these LWRP grants/contracts. The Village was receiving LWRP moneys to protect and expand water-dependent uses:

“In general, water-dependent uses, such as marinas, should be located within urban or developed areas that contain concentration of water-dependent commercial, industrial, or recreational uses and essential support facilities.” The Village was also bound to “Ensure the new or expanding marinas: —do not displace or impair the operation of water-dependent transportation, industry, or commerce.”

AKRF—Objections to the Village’s Subcontractors

39. Also please note the attached case on published on the web site:

nycourts/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_06279.htm

40. In conclusion, the Village residents have been harmed by the failure of the Village comply with the LWRP contract(s) and the failure of the New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources to ensure the compliance with the federal and state guidelines enforcing the terms of the LWRP contracts. The repetitive and continued deceptions, concealments and abuses of the LWRP considering the history of protest would lead on to believe that the Division of Coastal Resources is conspiring with the Village against Village residents to actively violate their federal, state and environmental protections.

Proposed Solutions—Overview:

41. The Village is a political subdivision of New York State. The Village, despite its claims does not have any legitimate power of its own, but rather borrows all of its authority from New York State. The Village is in all respects exercising the power of New York State. The Department of State should be aware that harms are befalling United States citizens. These abuse of power, power given to them by New York State, harms, which are exasperated by the defects LWRP.

43. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should work with the Department of Environmental Conservation to suspend the Village’s capacity to be the lead agency concerning EPA laws and SEQR compliance. The Village has used its lead agency status to allow condominiums to be build on previous known contaminated oil fields.

44. The Village has a history of prejudicing non-property classes and property classes who lease to the non-property class. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should review its policies and practices to ensure that invisible stakeholders are included in the LWRP process. These stakeholders could be fishermen, workers, tenants, who do not have property and who have been

previous left out of the process because they are not property owners.

45. The Division of Coastal Resources should provide immediate financial assistance to ensure that the Village residents get their money back with regards to the $7.7 million dollars worth of property tickets falsely conveyed by Village employees impersonating New York State Constables.

46. The Division of Coastal Resources should provide immediate financial assistance to ensure that the Village taxpayers get their money back concerning the improper salaries and expenses involving illegal Village Constables. Normally this return of revenue, which was improperly spent by Village officials, would be recoverable through a taxpayer class action lawsuit, but considering the existence of an LWRP,

the Division of Coastal Resources should provide the resources to alert the community to the harms done to them and prosecute the wrong doers.

47. The Division of Coastal Resources should petition the New York Department of State’s Division of Building and Housing to investigate the illegal activities of the Village’s licensed and unlicensed Code Enforcement Officers, who are unlawfully deemed New York State Constable by the Village Code and local laws.

48. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should petition the New York Department of State’s Division of Building and Housing to relieve the Village’s Building Department and temporarily assume its responsibilities to regulate and comply with New York State law.

49. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should petition the FBI to investigate numerous instances of extortion concerning the Village’s Building Department and the Village Constables extorting redevelopment favors from Village residents.

50. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should petition the FBI to investigate numerous instances of Village insiders escaping regulatory burdens and permit processes as was recently done in Hicksville’s Building Department.

51. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should alert the FBI regarding the Village’s rouge and unlawful policing force practices that affected Village residents, property owners, revitalization and water dependent businesses.

52. The Village and the New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should alert the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office and the Dept. of Criminal Justice concerning the prosecution of those who impersonated police officers and unlawfully carried firearms against Village residents and Village property owners. Since New York State does not allow for a private action of extortion or a Hobbes act violation, the residents will need a governmental entity to prosecute to redress these harms.

53. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should do a thorough investigation to ensure the accuracy and proper transcription of Village Public Meetings to ensure the proper protections of Village residents’ civil rights and functioning of the democratic process.

54. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should investigate the impact of the Village’s redevelopment plans on minority neighborhoods (DOS moneys may have already been used to selectively redevelop minority neighborhood in an effort to make them unaffordable to minority residents).

55. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should test and clean the neighborhood of contaminants caused by the releasing of the Patchogue River spoils were released.

56. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should alert the Attorney Generals’ office to review the dredge surveys to ensure that political insiders are not receiving dredging benefits at the public’s expense.

57. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should consider rewriting its operating policies and oversight procedures concerning insurance that the Title 11 funds are spent on remediation known environmental problems, such as those involved in the dredging of the Patchogue River. The present policies allow for the squandering on planning for condominium projects when there is known environmental issues that require remediation.

Thank you for your attention to the above matter. If you have any further concerns regarding the above please do not hesitate to contact me in writing with your NAME and email address. Anonymous comments will not be posted.

Respectfully Submitted,

Henry R. Terry

P.O. BOX 2148 • PATCHOGUE, NY • 11772

On or about June 9, 2008, the Village revealed new evidence that, in fact, constables could not carry firearms.  This excerpt from the June 9, 2008 Village Board of Trustee public meeting reveals newly discovered evidence that the guns were illegal: “Upon Motion made by Deputy Mayor McGiff, seconded by Trustee Crean, and unanimously carried, the board set a public hearing to held on June 9, 2008, at 14 Baker Street, Patchogue, New York, to consider rescinding Village Code 7-4, Subsection F. “This has to do with our code officers being armed. Effective June 1st the code officers will no longer carry weapons. This is something we have struggled with over the past four years. The civil service law job description does not address the issue of their being armed. The Suffolk County Charter around 1960 which created the Suffolk County Police Department effectively emasculated villages in having a separate police force. Two prior administrations have sought these code officers as peace officer from Albany and that has been denied…The third thing is, and it is the least out of all of them, but the greatest of impact on those in some sense performing, the liability insurance on our code officers carrying weapons is between ¼ and 1/3 of our total liability policy which is close to $100,000. For that policy that two men, at sometimes three men on duty, and most of the time only one during the course of the day costs about $100,000. It is not an easy decision to make. The Village Attorney did a lot of research on it for us. One of the other issues that became very clear, Village Clerk Seal contacted almost every village that has code enforcement. There is only one other village on Long Island that does carry a weapon and that’s Port Jefferson. They are going through the same process that we are going through…It is unfortunate that circumstances are what they are and based on New York State Civil Service law the carrying of a weapon ceases as of the end of this month. Upon a motion made by Deputy Mayor McGiff, seconded by Trustee Hilton, and unanimously carried, the request was approved as stated above. 74. On or about January 26, 2008, another new piece of evidence which support the illegality of the unlawful police activity on the part of Defendants alleged by Terry is the following Village public board of trustee meeting, in which the Village surrenders its titles of constables: Board Meeting January 26, 2008. The Board Meeting of the Board of Trustees met in the Municipal Building, 14 Baker Street, Patchogue, New York on January 26, 2009. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Pontieri with Deputy Mayor McGiff, Trustees Crean, Dean, Devlin, Hilton…. Village Clerk Seal read: Notice is hereby given that a public meeting will be held on Monday, January 26, 2009, at 7:30 p.m. at the Municipal Building, 14 Baker Street, Patchogue, New York, by the Village Board of the Incorporated Village of Patchogue to repeal Chapters 7 and 7A of the Village Code, a copy of which proposed Local Law is on file at the office of the Village Clerk. At said public hearing any person interested will be given the opportunity to be heard. Village Attorney Egan stated: This is a re-codification of sections that have been used and are in evolution as part of the code. Chapter 5A was the Park Ranger provision. It was originally adopted in the early 90’s and never been filled; we never actually had one on the force at Patchogue. Constables is step one of a two step legislation reform tonight to move that section from constables to the Division of Public Safety/Department of Code Enforcement where it always really, in my opinion, should have been in the first place. This is just more of a recodification of an evolution of these roles and how they are supervised, what their duties are, and how they are utilized today in modern day Village. We never want to leave anything in the code that doesn’t actively reflect what the actual practice procedure of the Village is. Upon a motion made by Deputy Mayor McGiff, seconded by Trustee Devlin, and unanimously carried, the Board repealed Chapters 7 and 7A of the Village Code. 75.

Responding to Lawrence Downes’ editorial “Victim Circus” in the New York Times:

Witches hunt? None here. Nor is there any need for a “hunt.” Seventeen years of a fake police should be a hard enough fact–“probable cause” for an investigation.

Is there any proof the Village personnel impersonating peace officers did anything wrong? We don’t need proof of wrongdoing. No speculation is required. Everything that they did is morally questionable and is legally actionable.

Do the immigrant Latinos, who Wolter asked to come forward, know what happened to them? How could they when the victims come from places where police and abuse is the norm? The authority figures in Suffolk, Levy, Pontieri, and others, are no different from what they are used to. Latinos are escaping a world where the fourteenth amendment “equal protection clause” does not exist.

In “Outlier” Malcolm Gladwell talks of cultural bias and how it shapes our lives. Here the cultural bias of many who come from Latin America is to distrust government officials and the police as they are known to violate human rights. But this culture bias, while indeed present in the Latin community I speak to, is actually grounded in reality and the district of the police and government is real. It is the well-founded distrust founded upon the fact that in the Suffolk and in Patchogue there is no equal protection clause to protect Latinos. How could there be one if they have an unlawful and untrained police department who targets them?

“They are not angry” pontificates as Mr. Pontieri characterizes. Many community leaders are asking for forgiveness and reconciliation. However, forgiveness and reconciliation traditionally comes after the admission of wrong doings and as a request for forgiveness and we have yet to hear such a request. In fact, Mr. Pontieri and others have done everything they can to suppress the truth of the illegal untrained police force is doing. If the Latin population and the general population is not angry YET, it is because are not aware of what has been done to them in the name of public safety.

Here in the North we believe that only the South would have such a corrupt police force to push the “undesirables” out. It couldn’t happen in New York, not 60 miles from New York City. You couldn’t possible have an untrained, illegally armed fake police force with no “racial profiling” and no prohibitions on asking detainees their status. This isn’t Alabama after all. Right?

Fake Cops, it must be a hoax you say. Suffolk County Police Department would never go along with that! Wouldn’t they have an obligation to put a stop to it? Doesn’t the Suffolk County Police Department have to uphold the law?

From the moment this hate crime problem came up, the politicians began to clamor for immediate “healing.” They wanted the cameras and newspapers to go away. Lawrence Downes alludes that Priest Wolter is a grandstanding, because after all, the Mayor “is concerned.” Somehow we should bow down to the Mayor’s authority, as he knows best and grew up two blocks away from where Marcelo was murdered. After all, he says, “The Village of Patchogue has always taken care of its own issues.”

The question, which Mr. Downes does not ask is how does the Village of Patchogue takes care of its own issue, but I will answer him:

1) They create a fake armed and untrained police force.
2) They illegally destroy and doctor records to hide their illegal activities.
3) They defraud Suffolk County Civil Service.
4) They deprive residents of the right to speak at public meetings.
5) They destroy public meeting tapes and do not record public minutes.
3) They only allow certain business in town.
6) They use constables to target Latinos and the poor.http://villagepolicecases.com/documents/Patchogue_Fourth_Amended_Complaint.pdf
7) They exempt their friends and associates from complying with Village Law and selective enforce the laws against others.
8) They call in a fake fire alarm to search the homes of suspected immigrants.
9) They deny anything happened.

Then one would ask, what’s has been the motive? Why the fake cops in the first place? Why go through so much trouble? Why put everything, the entire Village government at risk. FEAR is the confessed answer. Fear of whom?

If you want an answer, don’t listen to me draw conclusions. It’s all in the 17 years of Village of Patchogue, Village Court records and police records that were illegally “not maintained.”

Can you imagine if the Suffolk Police Department said it didn’t have any records? Well, this is what Village of Patchogue officials, Judge McGuire, former Village Attorney J. Lee Snead, current Village Attorney Brian Egan, and current Village Clerk, Patricia Seal are telling us. The records should document the illegal detaining of motorist, and the illegal search of DMV records, and the failure to remove false convictions marked on the victim licenses–a racial profiling cocktail, but which is by no means the main course.

The fake armed untrained cops (call them what you like Village Constables, Code Enforcement Officers, Park Rangers, because the Village of Patchogue unlawfully gave all these officers policing power) reason for EXISTING can be found in the government records and “Facts are stubborn things.”

If you want to find out what is going on in Patchogue you must go to the records. Slavery has its invoices and manifests and contracts and the Village Patchogue has its minutes and department records. An inspection of these will show what the history of what Patchogue did in the name of public safety, redevelopment, and progress.

Henry R. Terry
http://www.databasejustice.com

RE: The Investigation Is Ongoing:

Ronald Brinn from Patterson’s HRC has forwarded our complaint to Pamela Chin at Justice.   Also Suffolk DA’s Sgt. Woolman is now investigating the legality of Patchogue’s Fake Police Department.

The DA’s Office told us on December 2, 2008, that the Village of Patchogue is no longer calling their constables “constables.”

On December 3, 2008, I questioned Victor Cruz and asked him if he still considered himself a “constables,” he said that he is not. I asked Mr. Cruz when he gave up his “constable” status and he said that it was “about three months ago.”

The retraction of this title along with the surrendering of weapons on June 1, 2008, is an admission by the Village of Patchogue that they are guilty of abusing this New York State power. We estimate that there are over 7.5 million dollars taken from Village of Patchogue residents in connection with this scheme. If you have any information, please post it here.

We estimate there are 7.7 million in FAKE or faulty tickets signed as fake “constables”.  I am asking that this the trustees return the spoils  to the people.

We also estimate that it cost over 1million to run the scam,  which the Trustee who authorized it will have to refund the taxpayers.

To avoid futher  loss to the victims, I am asking Mayor Pontieri and the Trustees to return the money before the class action lawsuit gets underway.

henry terry

There is a real documentary brewing from depths and shadows of Patchogue: “PATCHO”  Perhaps  Battle for Brooklyn is a model on how to tell the C-CounterNarrative of Patchogue’s redevelopment.  Alternatively,  “Deputize” Deputized – ¿Cómo Pudo Pasar? the new documentary based on Not in Our Town  and Susan Hagdorn’s work is definitely  an example of how to be used/and abused by authority.  I guess they are paying her, or worse playing her.  From her website. 

 
 

“The opposite of good is not evil; the opposite of good is indifference.”
-Rabbi Abraham Heschel

Not In Our Town tells the story of people who have resisted indifference and stood up to defend their neighbors against bigotry. 

 
For nearly 20 years, we have helped communities confront the challenge of hate through our films and community engagement programs. We are now working with Marshalltown, Iowa, where 10 percent of the town has already pledged to stand up to bullying and intolerance. In 2013, we will create films and training tools for law enforcement, college students and educators. 

 It seems Ms. Hadorn is positioning herself as a healer, a confessor: get with the accepted narrative of the local government, 

New films and tools geared toward ending racism, homophobia and religious intolerance
Hands-on engagement and training for communities-in-crisis
Step-by-step community guides that bring together nearly 20 years of NIOT experience to bolster anti-hate efforts nationwide
In Patchogue , Hagdorn’s Not in Our Town was instrumental in the coverup of not i a armed fake police force that hunted immigrants.  An institutional racisim not seen since Alabama debt Slavery thru debt bondage after the civil war.
Tragically   She seems to honestly believe she has the magic potion on how to heal racial hostility, corruption, and broken neighborhoods .   I get the idea that she is proposing a documentary swat team to go into troubled areas at first blood.   Call it Coverup central.

” Patcho”  the documentary should be done Battle for Brooklyn style, albeit, smaller scale,   and perhaps with No Celebrities.   Patcho, and its   New Village and the development  as the Battle for Brooklyn has the same kinda sickness, except with the  authoritarian twist of an New York State sponsored illegal police force.  the Cops would not try the fake cop scheme in Brooklyn. Could you imagine in the Ratner Alantic City project having its own illegal police enterprise.  In Patchogue the DCJS and the head NYS , and Suffolk  authorities helped create a fake police force to ensure the redevelopment; as a result the  evictions harassment forced sales were unstoppable. 

“‘Battle for Brooklyn’ is a riveting flick that shows how real estate developers use sports to seize other people’s property and enrich themselves with taxpayer subsidies; it is about how corporate interests enlist their allies in government to get what they want, even if that means lying to the public and screwing people who lack deep pockets and political connections.” Michael O’Keeffe, New York Daily News

Battle for Brooklyn Simultaneously Battle for Brooklyn—the riveting counter-narrative to the intense, multi-million dollar PR campaign developer Forest City Ratner is using to tell a story they and their political supporters want the public and media to believe about their billion dollar arena and all the broken promises they would like to hide—will screen just steps away from the arena.
The critically-acclaimed feature film Battle for Brooklynthe true story behind the eight-year fight over the Atlantic Yards project—will be screened for free at the ball field at Dean Street Playground just one half block from the arena.
“Our film closely explores the contentious community fight to stop the Atlantic Yards project, and the promises made by the developer and his supporters in New York State and City government. The community’s efforts to have a meaningful say in its future, in the face of top down development and crony capitalism, is a universal story being played out all across the US,” said director Mike Galinsky. “The developer and the project’s proponents would like this history to disappear down the memory hole. Battle for Brooklyn, this screening and others timed around the arena’s opening plug that hole.”

Battle for Brooklyn was short-listed for a 2011 Oscar for Best Documentary, won Best Documentary and Best Film at the 2011 Brooklyn Film Festival and was chosen as a 2012 American Library Association Notable Film.

Filmmakers

Suki Hawley – Director, Producer, Editor

Michael Galinsky – Director, Producer, Director of Photography

David Beilinson – Producer, Additional Camera, Additional Edit

Adam Galinsky – Associate Producer

Susan Littenberg – Associate Producer

Letter to the Editor;

I went to Marcello vigil today. There were many politicians present and asking that in a Judeo-Christian tradition the Latin community rely on its spiritual traditions and forgive the assault that is widely being described in Newsday as an assault on our entire community.  I arrived a few minutes late, I figured I must have missed something… the part where the guilty party admits its guilt, shows some contrition and asks for forgiveness.    [ see footnote below  Rabbi Marc Gellman]

The Village of Patchogue Mayor, Paul Pontieri, got up and spoke for the local community about how members of his family are immigrants also and how Patchogue is a pro immigrant place. Actually, I was expecting more from the leaders of our community. I was waiting for Mayor Pointier to say, as did Attorney Brian Egan, that the Village of Patchogue had broken the law. I was expecting him to admit that as late as June 1, 2008, they had an illegally armed police force without proper police training because they were not police in the first place. In the audience were Pattersons’ Human Rights commission, the NAACP and countless other organizations, I was expecting the Mayor to come clean and admit that Patchogue has a illegal and unconstitutional fake police force that was created in response to the immigrant population. A police force that is morally wrong and ask the forgiveness of the entire Latin community for this criminal affront against them.  Well, maybe that wouldn’t even be enough, because just as those 7 boys are said to have attacked the entire community, it is pretty obvious that for 17 year the political leaders of Patchogue attacked our entire community—a reign of terror, full of fraud and deception, which closed, destroyed many businesses, closed out oldest standing veterans home and put them out on the street, illegally ticketed and targeted motorist and home owners. These acts were a similar attack on our entire community.

In order to have such an effective and colossal attack upon a community you have to have a few other things “fixed.” You have to fix it so that in order to pay the Village of Patchogue Constables, the Trustees had to pass a fake law, defraud the taxpayers and Suffolk County Department Civil Service and tell them that you don’t have an armed constables force. But there is more, more than a reign of terror and lawlessness spilling right out of the Village of Patchogue’s Board of Trustees and the Village Justice Court, which includes the suspension of the right to speak, fraudulent documents and the wholesale destruction of 17 years of constable personnel records. The fix goes even further, you have to have the apathy of other government agencies and regulators.

Where were the government regulators? Where was the Department of Criminal Justice Service?  Where was the District Attorneys Office? Where was District Attorney Spota, whose office both prosecuted the tickets, got dress up and moonlighted along with the Patchogue’s make believe cops? Where was the Suffolk County Police Department when the Village of Patchogue was impersonating police officers?

Prior to this vigil, officials in Patchogue boasted and would tell you that this is what it took to keep the likes of the Marcello out of the neighborhood. Why did Patchogue officials armed themselves? You have to begin to understand it from the Village of Patchogue’s Trustees perspectives. In their view, Patchogue was “at risk.” In fact being invaded! Hence they were defending their Village. If Latin America was going to come to Patchogue, the Trustees felt they had to take matters into their own hands and ironically become like a Latin America, where civil rights have little meaning and the cops are corrupt. So what if their friends got all the development rights and the outsiders had to carry the extra regulatory burdens? And what’s a couple of million dollars in illegal ticketing? So what if they were pretending to be cops without proper training? So what the Latin population bore the larger brunt of the illegal tickets? And so what if the legitimate minority American population lived in fear and was denied police protection because Suffolk County Police Department turned a blind eye? So what if Marcello Lucero lived in fear? All is fair in war…even if it is undeclared.

Dated: November 14, 2008

Patchogue, New York

 

Footnote:

I think the best text supporting the view that Christianity is not in favor of unconditional forgiveness is the famous parable of the prodigal son. In this story, the father forgives and fetes his profligate son, but only after the son has first asked for forgiveness: “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.” — Luke 15:21 (KJV).

Similarly, in Matthew 5:23-24, we have perhaps the clearest teaching of Jesus that reconciliation must precede forgiveness: “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” (KJV)

Those who interpret Jesus’ teaching in the conventional way as requiring absolute and unconditional forgiveness do have textual support for this view. Most powerfully, in Luke 6:27-29, we have the turn-the-other-cheek teaching that’s often used to support Christian pacifism: “But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.” (KJV)

In Matthew 18:21-22, Jesus also seems to teach the virtue of repeated unconditional forgiveness: “Then came Peter to him, and said, ‘Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times?’ Jesus saith unto him, ‘I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.”‘ (KJV)

This looks like a clear and unambiguous support for unconditional forgiveness, but even here it’s not clear to me whether the 70 times seven forgivenesses are or are not dependent upon 70 times seven apologies. Perhaps the best text for proving that Christianity teaches the virtue of unconditional forgiveness is Luke 23:34, where Jesus on the cross pleads with God on behalf of his unrepentant tormentors: “Then said Jesus, ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.’ ” In sum, I think that Jesus’ teachings about forgiveness are susceptible to different interpretations.

In Judaism, by contrast, the teachings are much less ambiguous. Forgiveness must be given, but only to those who ask for it. Jewish law requires a sinner to ask three times for forgiveness even if he or she is rebuffed by the offended person……..

On the other hand, my life as a rabbi has also taught me to see the value of conditional forgiveness. Forgiving some evil monster who’s not only unrepentant but also might, as you say, revel in his or her ability to hurt you, seems to me both psychologically and morally impossible.

Parents who forgive the unrepentant murderers of their children are not admirable to me. They are incomprehensible to me. A pious Christian friend once told me that Jews should forgive Hitler. I couldn’t even begin to consider this a productive spiritual challenge. And yet I know the corrosive weight of keeping score and carrying around old hurts. In the end, I believe that we must forgive, but that we also must be asked.

Newsday 12 8 12

Patchogue NYS says cops illegal in Ltr to Sen Diaz

EXHIBIT 8 – Exhibit FF Evidence Unlawful Policing SUFFOLK PATCHOGUE NYSCheck out these fake police training records created by Patchogue, Pontieri, Egan Snead to hunt latinos and undesirables. NY State and Suffolk were in on the scam because it made revenue.

EXHIBIT 8 – Exhibit FF Evidence Unlawful Policing SUFFOLK PATCHOGUE NYS

  I support a FBI investigation of the  Fake Cops in Patchogue .

After Marcelo’s murder,  the Village of Patchogue’s fake constabulary was secretly and quietly disbanded. Those involved violated Federal, State, Suffolk and Village Law, and have not been held accountable. Those covering -up  the fake cops have been able to advance their careers despite having engaged in violating the rights of thousands in our home town.

The Village of Patchogue’s  fake cops were involved with the Marcello Lucero murder–were illegally at the crime scene– and may have been responsible for the inordinate and possible deliberate- 40 minute- delay of bringing Marcello Lucero  to the hospital. The ensuing hemorrhaging of blood may have been a contributing factor to Marcelo’s death.

  • We call on the Federal authorities to conduct an independent and transparent review of public officials, and to make public all information related to illegal policing and ticketing activities conducted in the Village of Patchogue.
  • We ask for the full criminal prosecution of all who conspired to create and maintain the illegitimate Village of Patchogue’s constables,  including  Mayors, Village Clerks, and members of the Village Board of Trustees, and the Ex-Special-Forces-Military-personal that lead Patchogue’s  terror.
  • We ask that all officials  who knowingly perpetrated and/or were involved in these illegal activities should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and should be forced to pay the taxpayers back out of their own pockets as is required by NY State law.
  • We  support requiring elected officials and political appointees to make restitution to the public and the taxpayers for tax revenues misappropriated to fund the Village of Patchogue constables and all that it entailed. We demand the return of approximately $2.5 Million dollars, which were improperly spent by the Village of Patchogue Mayors, Clerks, officials, and members of the Board of Trustees.
  • We support the return of $7.7 million to be paid back to the public for improper tickets written by illegally armed Patchogue Village employees posing as constables.
  • We  support the investigation of the select group of prominent Village of Patchogue business leaders who unfairly benefited from the fake Cops who amassed large property  holdings in the Village as a result of the perdition of the fake cops. Their ill-gotten gains should not be sustained.

Replay: Trayvon Martin where he “ lives to tell the tale “

This is the  “what if”  story of what happens:   if Trayvon had lived to complains to the Police. It is actually a true story of a colossal police cover-up when I discovered a racially motivated illegal police force in Patchogue.  The difference between Patchogue and Florida is that Patchogue had a longer time to cloak  its Neighborhood Watch  or its illegal policing in official powers.  The similarities are that all NYS police entities from Andrew Cuomo‘s Attorney General’s office down to the local Sherriffs Office supported and hid the police fiefdom in Patchogue.

Patchogue: The anatomy of how a Neighborhood watch gains police power.

What “if Trayvon Martin lived to tell the tale? “ Let’s explore the scenario of Trayvon Martin surviving the attacks and attempted  to make a police complaints against Captain Zimmerman. This Scenero is not made up. It is based our experience of attempting to make police complaints and alert authorities after the Marcelo Lucero murder. Few know it by Lucero’s murder participated the discovery that Patchogue had created a fake police dept out of its own neighborhood type Watch. Moreover this is what happens when one brings a complaint, as our community did, about an Neighborhood Watch that got so out of control that it was turned into a fake police dept. Or said another way, this is the story, of how County State, and Federal Authorities empower illegitimate police activity like Zimmerman’s Watch, and protect them from both criminal and civil liability.

Lets say Trayvon somehow escapes Zimmerman and he tells his side of the Story to the local police. He complains to the local police of a racially biased illegal policing. We did just that and in Suffolk County, NY  the local police Cops do nothing. They would not even take the complaint. We complained to the DA’s Office and Chief investigators of the DA’s office Darrel Burger lied to us and said Suffolk County  cannot tell it Patchogue’s fake police activity was illegal. Moreover, the County Police told us  a story that the County lacks the legal resources, to ascertain if the Neighborhood watch, turned fake Constabulary was  legal.

The County Police failed to tell us they were in on it .  The Suffolk County Serriff’s Office fails to tell us they  illegally trained the fake cops. It would be as if Zimmerman was trained a public expense, and had a rifle range bonding moment with the boys.  They fail to tell us  they were aiding an abetting the criminal activity. [In Patchogue the fake cops were illegally staffed with personnel of the Suffolk County Police. ]

In Suffolk County the fake cops were a useful tool. If Orlando is anything like Suffolk, The local Police foster Neighborhood Watchs because they lack regulatory control.  In short they can engage in crimes against minorities, and “undesirables that  legitimate cops cannot.  Moreover, they are useful for police dept. which have policies or racial animus in that they are not Cops—for the sake of controlling police powers and constraining police violations of constitutional rights. Yet the very same police Depts. ,want to wrap the fake cops in their police privileges and protections.

In Patchogue they would not even respond to our complaint of improper policing until Marcello Lucero was dead.  That is before, Marcello’s Death all the discriminatory activity of Neighborhood watch turned fake Police Dept. was not actionable: NO BIG DEAL.  After Marcelo’s death the State sends its crack investigators down, the FBI of NYState, ” The Commission Of Investigation”.   The head NY State cops separates us and interrogate us.  They  looks for flaws making sure we are not politically undesirable, as in we are not anti-development or anti-gentrification or Anti-Condo.   In the process NYS investigators  desperately  tries to maintain the illegal the fake police force which had grown out of Neighborhood Watch.  They explore every grey area to maintain the fake cops. They worked from the assumption that racially motivated crimes are impossible to prove.  Too difficult to investigate. Too many grey areas. It was only because we had done over 5 years of research and spent tens of thousands of dollars litigating that we were able to CLEANLY prove the Cops were a fraud.

State is forced to close it down. They quietly shut it down. Do not release the information. Hide the documents behind governmental privileges, required lawsuits to obtain public documents, and destroy the evidence, even though it is illegal to destroy evidence of a crime.

When I  makes a complaint to the Dept of Justice, DOJ, the local police in conjunction with the Neighborhood watch openly retaliate for the complainant, even blocking of a civil rights complaints to federal authorities is a federal violation.  The DOJ looses my complaint over five separate times.  NYS officals lie and say they contacted Pamela Chin at the DOJ.  I hear  “Didn’t get it” , then “yeah we got it but the Mail room lost it.” and on and on….

Then the fake cops  goes after my residence. They bring false allegations. They use the false allegations to discredit me and to undermine my business and relationships.

Then they move for a Guardianship hearing to take control of the house where I reside. They obtain guardianship over my friend in order to punish me , and attempt to evict/eject me. When they can’t they sing contracts to sell the house out from under me. All based on false allegations, and all because I complained of an illegal police activity.

From the Suffolk FBI to the Attoney Geneals Office, from the NYS Commision of Investigation to Parents for Megans Law Crime Victums Center, every agency attempted to conceal the police fiefdom and the hate crimes , and  went so far as to destroyed evidence and documents, systematically blocking the doors to complaints and a hearing of the facts.  The  Official or Police investigation of Patchogues’s fake police dept was motivated by a desire to cover-up the enterprise to conceal the magnitude of the hate crimes.

March 13 2012 :  Today’s Newday story snapshots how tax assessment scams  works.  Patchogue takes this lack of oversight to a new level, to reward Mayor’s buddies. Unequal code and zoning enforcement and the rigged permit process allows Mayors friends to pay less property tax.

Southampton Village officials are working to reassess more than 100 homes following the recent discovery that a series of clerical mistakes dating to 2004 led to improper assessments.

The error was caught last year when the Southampton Association, a civic group, noticed that the assessment for a property of former town trustee Paul Robinson was not changed after renovations were completed on one of his homes. The group alerted the state attorney general’s office, which referred the group back to the village saying it was a local matter, said Mayor Mark Epley.

While researching that complaint, village officials looked at 2,500 permits dating back to 2004 and found that 108 homes were never reassessed after obtaining a certificate of occupancy.

According to officials, a building department clerk who is no longer with the village would “close out” the month a few days early and exclude the remaining days from the building report.

As a result, permits filed at the end of the month were left out of the process and were not received by the tax assessors or the tax receiver’s office, according to Epley. Most of the mistakes happened during 2004 and 2005, said Epley and Village Administrator Stephen Funsch.

“What we found is that, in the system, there were no checks and balances,” Epley said. “We have since corrected that.”

At a village trustee meeting on Thursday, two residents spoke about the error, saying it was the village’s responsibility to ensure safeguards are in place. Epley and other trustees agreed, adding that a newly installed computer system would now catch a similar error.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: