Skip navigation

Category Archives: Corruption incubator of Suffolk County

C-Countrer Narrative to Patchogues Redevelopment: New Village

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 Brooklyn—the 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

FBI Petition to Investigate Patchogue, Port Jeff Fake POLICE

  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.

NY State say Patchogue’s police illegal

Suffolk County Says Patchogue Fake Cops Illegal in effort to Avoid Lawsuit

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

Pontieri is in on NO-Show Pension Scam in Suffolk

I have the number two person in Suffolk County Personnel, Ms. De Stephano , in a hour and a half taped telephone interview emphatically explaining how NO-show jobs are created in Suffolk County.
Ms. De Stephano explains that friends of major politicians, such a Pontieri, are allowed to submit signed sworn-to duty statements which lack a job descrption.
Suffolk County personnel then  pens  into  the document, an exceptable yet untrue or fraudulent job-description to make it pass through the system allowing those receiving pay for illegal NO-Show jobs to receive benefits and pensions, including  NYS  pensions
She passionately tries to persuade me that the practice is so widespread that nothing can be done of this violation of law, in order to coverup the fake constabulary of Port Jefferson. Moreover the explanation of how entire illegal police depts are funded, is that Suffolk County does not require compliance with NYS pension fund and reporting law.

The District Attorneys office is in on the scam. And I have had conversations with Alan Schneider director of personnel stating that when I complained in the past, investigators from the DA’s Office rifled through the Civil Service files looking for evidence fake Patchogue Constable Alex Costello’s file in an attempt at damage control.

I have emails that show ex Suffolk Attorney Christine Malafi was aware of the practices which reveal she is only concerned with avoiding lawsuits, and not protecting the Taxpayers’ money.

Henry R. Terry
P.O. Box 2148
Patchogue, NY 11772

Patchogue’s Mayor Paul V. Pontieri Jr. accused of being “on the take? “

Police Insurrection: Vigilante Cops in Patchogue

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

Full text: Dissolve Patchogue Village

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

7.7 Million back in fake tickets to the Residents of the Inc Village of Patchgoue

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: