for                                the

Holidays

“Ticket Trap” Patchogue:  Our Guests, Customers, and Residents are preyed upon with frivolous Parking Tickets and deceptive expired Inspection Tickets. It’s  Village Merchants who are rebuilding our town, while Pontieri takes the credit. Merchants work hard to attract customers, then Pontieri slaps them with fines, bleeding everyone dry.  Except the mayor’s buddies – their tickets are fixed.     This predation must stop.

For the holidays, stop preying on Village patrons.

Henry R. Terry   (631) 578-9584                  http://patchoguepost.com.

State scrutinizing Patchogue’s finances

November 21, 2011 by PATRICK WHITTLE / patrick.whittle@newsday.com

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli’s office is auditing Patchogue’s finances — heightening political tension that village leaders predict could reverberate through next year’s election.

DiNapoli’s audit began in July and could wrap up as soon as January, a spokesman for the comptroller said.

DiNapoli’s office declined to reveal the specifics of the audit, but Mayor Paul Pontieri Jr. said the inquiry focuses on the village’s financial practices, especially after Susan M. Roach, a village clerk for 20 years, allegedly stole nearly $193,000 from the village over a three-year period.

Roach, a Farmingville resident who was arrested in February and has pleaded not guilty, is due in court in January on grand larceny and forgery charges.

But village trustee Stephen McGiff, an opponent of Pontieri, said the audit might also shed light on what he described as Pontieri’s financial mismanagement.

“They are seeing discrepancies in the internal practices of the village under his lead,” McGiff said of state auditors.

Pontieri described the audit as routine and said the village has been complying. The village’s last state audit was in 1991, he said.

“The fact that the state audit is going on right now, to me, is a good thing,” he said.

The audit is occurring three months after a power struggle in Patchogue that came to a head when Pontieri stripped McGiff of the title of deputy mayor and handed the job to trustee Jack Krieger, an ally of Pontieri. It is also about four months until village elections, in which Pontieri and trustees McGiff, Krieger and Pontieri ally Lori Devlin will be up for re-election.

McGiff and trustee Gerard Crean have criticized Pontieri for being too cozy with developers and for orchestrating the town’s purchase of a vehicle from a relative. But Pontieri says he did nothing wrong.

McGiff and Crean have also said Pontieri was wrong to approve an interest-free $150,000 loan to Artspace, a new downtown residential development, without first getting trustee approval. Pontieri said he “probably should have” sought trustee approval, but added he believed the loan was justified.

“We’re getting the money back,” Pontieri said.

Pontieri was ousted from Patchogue First — the party that has controlled village hall since 2004 — in late July in a movement led by Crean and McGiff. Pontieri and his allies have since formed a party called Patchogue 2012, while McGiff and Crean have started the Residents First party.

Pontieri said he expects his opponents to cite the audit in their campaign to unseat him in March.

McGiff agreed. “It’s going to be a heated election,” he predicted. “I don’t think any of the parties involved have ever shied away from a fight.”

Police disguise was an aggravating factor

By: Carol Winker | carol@cfp.ky
07 October, 2011

1

> Be the first person to share your comment

Carlney Rashad Campbell, 20, was sentenced last Friday to 15 years imprisonment for an attempted murder that occurred in May 2009.

A Grand Court jury found Campbell guilty weeks ago, but sentencing was delayed for a social inquiry report to be obtained (Caymanian Compass, 25 August).

The incident leading to the charge occurred at the Treasure Island where the victim, José Morales, resided at the time. He was attacked in an elevator by a man portraying himself as a police officer.

In reviewing the evidence before passing sentence, Justice Alexander Henderson noted Mr. Morales’ evidence the attacker wore blue overalls with the word “POLICE” above his shirt pocket and a Cayman Islands logo. He also wore a black belt, black boots and gloves so as to look like a local police officer. When the man had initially walked past Mr. Morales, the letters “POLICE” were on the back of the overalls.

The judge said wearing such a disguise was clearly an aggravating factor because Campbell had done so for the express purpose of portraying himself as somebody to be trusted. “This was so that he could attack his victim while his victim was off guard,” he said.

The attacker pulled a knife and Mr. Morales struggled with him, at one point holding the man’s hand against his throat. The man told him, “I’m sorry, man. Somebody paid me to do it.” Mr. Morales asked who had paid, but did not get an answer. He was bitten, which prompted him to let go of the attacker’s hand, and then he was stabbed on the right side of his head and again around his left ear. The man eventually fled after dropping the knife. Although he lost a large amount of blood, Mr. Morales managed to stagger outside, call 911 and summon help.

Justice Henderson said the facts of the attack were uncontradicted by any evidence. The issue was solely identification of the attacker.

The case for the prosecution, as presented by Senior Crown Counsel John Masters, included evidence that Mr. Morales saw a vehicle leaving the scene and managed to get the licence plate number. One of the digits turned out to be incorrect, but police succeeded in tracking the vehicle down. It belonged to a friend of Campbell’s. The friend said Campbell had put a pair of overalls into a barrel used to burn rubbish.

There was also DNA recovered from the bite mark on Mr. Morales’ arm. A comparison with Campbell’s DNA profile did not exclude him.

At the sentencing hearing, defence attorney Nicola Moore asked the judge to consider Campbell’s age at the time of the incident – 18 – as well as his family background as detailed in the social inquiry report.

Justice Henderson referred to some details publicly, noting a lack of parenting and Campbell’s status as “an alumnus of the Alternative Education Programme after being expelled from John Gray High School.” He had been sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for burglary and handling stolen goods. The report indicated Campbell presented a high risk of re-offending.

The judge also considered a victim impact statement from Mr. Morales, who swore under oath he had no idea why he had been attacked. “The presumption is that it was a case of mistaken identity,” the judge said.

He agreed Campbell’s age was a mitigating factor. However, he added, “I consider the impersonation of a police officer in the course of a paid attempt to kill someone to be an aggravating factor. There was also a high degree of planning involved in this offence.”

The maximum sentence for attempted murder is imprisonment for life. UK guidelines indicate a range of 12 to 20 years.

After imposing the term of 15 years, Justice Henderson said, “There has been a lot of criticism expressed in the press of police investigations and evidence gathering. In this case, the police did an admirable job of gathering the evidence and putting the case together. I think it is appropriate for the court to recognise that.”

Originally published: August 16, 2010 8:27 PM
By ZACHARY R. DOWDY zachary.dowdy@newsday.com
Quick Summary

A local businessman says he was harassed and intimidated in a bid to derail his business.
Henry Terry on a dock along the Patchogue

Photo credit: Joseph D. Sullivan | Henry Terry on a dock along the Patchogue River across from the property and Marina parts business he used to own before selling it in 2005. (Aug. 11, 2010)

A federal judge is presiding over a case that could decide whether code enforcement officers in Patchogue were illegally empowered to act as police officers – a case in which a local businessman says he was harassed and intimidated in a bid to derail his business.

U.S. District Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf is hearing a claim filed by Henry Terry, who asserts in a 150-page lawsuit that armed code enforcement officers were illegally empowered to serve as “constables” in the Village of Patchogue, and that they aggressively ticketed him and his customers for storing boats and marine equipment and forced him to abandon an expansion of his waterfront business.

“The defendants commenced a campaign of terror against the Plaintiff in an attempt to take his property, intimidate, coerce and otherwise violate his civil rights, by issuing the first of many appearance tickets against the Plaintiff,” read the complaint that he filed in 2005. The litigation is one of two cases before Mauskopf but both are related to what Terry calls a “constable policing scheme.”

Terry, former owner of Anything Marine, is represented by Bruce Vetri, a Bayport attorney who appeared before Mauskopf in her Brooklyn courtroom Aug. 6. Mauskopf adjourned the case to next month, citing overlap in the two cases and advising Terry and Vetri to merge the two matters into one case.

The Village of Patchogue, which declined to comment, is represented by Sokoloff Stern, a Westbury-based firm. Attorney Brian Sokoloff said Terry’s claims have no merit.

“If anybody has been harassing anybody, it’s Henry Terry who’s been harassing the village with frivolous lawsuits and repetitive Freedom of Information Law requests – and enough is enough,” said Sokoloff.

Sokoloff declined to discuss the substance of Terry’s claims.

Code enforcement officers, composed of housing inspectors, building inspectors and parking meter collectors, make citations on village ordinances governing quality of life issues ranging from recreational facilities to housing and some vehicle and traffic ordinances.

They are not empowered to arrest or cite people for state vehicle and traffic violations, a duty that has fallen to the County Police Department since Patchogue citizens voted to be protected by Suffolk police officers under the county’s charter.

In 2008, Mayor Paul Pontieri removed the code enforcement officers’ guns. And, last year, the village repealed the ordinance that authorized police powers for code enforcement officers.

Now, they operate like any other code enforcement agency, their purview restricted to quality of life issues such as parking violations and excessive noise.

……….

Ms. Crescenzo said there have also been concerns by residents that the constables are overzealous to the point of harassing people.

“One woman ran into the house and got a ticket for leaving her engine running,” she said. “When it comes to moving violations, outsiders get immediate tickets while villagers get 10 to 12 warnings.”

The legality of the Poquott constabulary stems from a 1959 pact, when the Suffolk County Police Department was formed. Before that, most villages and towns provided their own police departments. With the formation of one department that would cover all but the five westernmost towns, incorporated villages were given an opportunity to accept county coverage, or, if they had their own police force, to continue to provide their own. The decision was made by referendum, and all but eight villages voted to go with the county. The eight, according to the Suffolk County Police Department, are Amityville, Asheroken, Head of the Harbor, Huntington Bay, Lloyd Harbor, Nissequogue, Northport and Ocean Beach. Some others might have constables or code enforcers, but, the county attorney said, their duties are limited in scope.

Poquott voted for county protection. But two years ago, Mayor Peter Murphy said, concerns about public safety and speeding on the roads led the village to hire constables.

“We felt response time by the Suffolk County Police Department was too slow and that we had to take matters into our own hands,” said Mr. Murphy, who added that the constables did not replace the police department, but merely augmented it.

“Our position is pretty clear,” he said. “When the Poquott voters voted to join the police district, they gave up their power to have police functions.”

Mr. Cimino said the courts have ruled in favor of the county when these issues have come up.

The village of Port Jefferson, which incorporated in 1966, after the county police department was formed, fought right up to the United States Supreme Court to be allowed to withdraw from the county police district. It lost.

In Nassau County, said County Attorney Owen B. Walsh, villages cannot have both the county police and private security performing the same duties. This issue, he said, was decided in 1984, when the village of Woodsburgh wanted to provide its own police department in addition to the county.

“Woodsburgh attempted to augment the coverage they had with us,” Mr. Walsh said. “It didn’t square with the charter and the courts upheld that.” Ultimately, because the Nassau County charter allows villages to vote for withdrawal from the police district, Woodsburgh chose to opt out and form its own police force.

September 15, 2009 By KEITH HERBERT  keith.herbert@newsday.com

Photo credit: Patrick Andrade | Gov. David A. Paterson has announced that Richard Fife will take on campaign responsibilities.

Gov. David A. Paterson Tuesday indicated he’d speak to state and local prosecutors about an incident in Suffolk County in which a member of the Hispanic Advisory Board was allegedly discouraged from speaking out about hate crimes in the county.

Paterson held a closed-door meeting with Hispanic community and elected officials at Touro Law Center in Central Islip. He said he supported discussing the incident with state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota, according to a spokeswoman.

A spokesman for Cuomo’s office said he was unaware of any request from Paterson to review the case, and a spokesman for Spota’s office didn’t return a phone call seeking comment Tuesday.

“I think his message was that this community is not isolated and that state officials are behind the community and willing to listen,” said Assemb. Phil Ramos (D-Brentwood), who said he attended the meeting.

Later Tuesday, Paterson, answering questions at an event in Nassau County, said he had discussed hate crimes, but also jobs, code enforcement and housing.

“If there is a silver lining around the dark cloud of those type of incidents, it is that leaders in a community are forced to come together,” he said.

Last week at a public hearing in Suffolk County, Francisco Hernandez of Patchogue said he and his family had been victims of hate crimes. A member of the Suffolk County Hispanic Advisory Board, Hernandez, 35, said at the hearing that when he was a victim of a crime, Suffolk police asked to see his driver’s license to “verify that I was an American citizen.”

After the hearing, Hernandez said a county official threatened he’d be removed from the advisory board if he spoke about being a hate crime victim at that hearing.

An official with County Executive Steve Levy denied he ever threatened Hernandez with removal from the board. Tuesday, a spokesman for Levy didn’t return a phone call seeking comment on Paterson’s visit.

Marissa Shorenstein, a spokeswoman for Paterson, confirmed the governor said he would discuss Hernandez’s allegations with both state and Suffolk County prosecutors.

Earlier this month, the Southern Poverty Law Center issued a report that concluded that Suffolk County was fertile ground for anti-immigration hate, and based its findings on a decade of reports that Latinos were the victims of crimes, ranging from low-level assaults to vicious attacks.

Levy and Police Commissioner Richard Dormer denounced the report, claiming its authors didn’t seek their input before it was published.

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 multiple round 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