Since the Office of the Albany District Attorney is a Regular Reader on this Blog, Mr Soares, We Would Strongly Suggest You Also Check Out the Comments Section, If You Don’t Already!
Since About May 31, 2012, the Albany District Attorney, P.[udenda] David Soares, Has been Persecuting Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk Board of Education President John M. Vadney
on the Grounds of a Facially and Factually Fraudulent Harassment Complaint made by Former School Board Member Josephine (Tracey) O’Connor’s Father, Joseph Tracey
What the Albany Times Union (a.k.a. Albany Times Useless) and the local rags don’t tell you…and the RCnaziS (Coeymanazis) don’t want you to know:
Yes! It’s our hypocritical Albany District Attorney, reliable cog in the wheels of the eternal political corruption of the Albany Democrat machine so deeply imbedded in Albany politics, who is persecuting the RCS board of education president, John M. Vadney, on a cooked-up charge of harassment. On January 8, 2013, our Albany DA P.[udenda] David Soares’ special prosecutor–Yes! You read correctly, a Special Prosecutor, Paul Webb, appeared in Bethlehem court to AGAIN postpone resolution of the trumped up frame-up of the Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk school board president, Mr John Vadney. Can you imagine the stupidity of pursuing this fraudulent, politically motivated persecution at taxpayers’ expense!
We’ve seen and read the illiterate so-called Witness Deposition sworn to by Joseph Tracey, under the inept supervision of Coeymans police bobos Thomson and Crosier (see below), and it’s beyond comprehension that any judge with even a half a brain wouldn’t have looked at it and thrown it and Tracey, together with the idiot Coeyman’s cops who took it, Crosier and Thompson out the nearest window! (Yes! that’s Kerry Thompson, who is married to Coeymans police chief Darlington’s sister, the same corrupt Coeymanazi who refused to take a local businesswoman’s complaint that that same Joseph Tracey harassed her and threatened her family!). The deposition is a mass of confused statements and contradictions. Moreover, it was taken by the Coeymans police the day after Tracey had been arrested by the Bethlehem Police and released. It’s obviously a halfwit’s attempt at getting back at Mr Vadney. Lest we forget, Joe Tracey, Josephine O’Connor’s ‘til then estranged father, who is a very good friend of Gerald “Dirty-Hands Deluca of Coeymans police department and Coeymanazi fame, claims to have been called a “homosexual” (I can hardly believe that that word would be in Joe Tracey’s vocabulary!) and that he was insulted. Poor pussy cat!
Now that’s fact. Joe Tracey says he asked Mr Vadney to call him about some statement made 10 days earlier to Josephine O’Connor. All of a sudden, 10 days later, Tracey needs to talk to Mr Vadney about something said to Tracey’s adult daughter, married, wannabe teacher, at the time a member of the RCS board of education. We’d like to remind you that Josephine O’Connor’s statement is not supported by any witnesses and, in fact, several people present at the time say the incident never happened. In his deposition, Tracey actually admits in so many words he was not there but he’s got to talk to Mr Vadney about the incident. Well, Tracey does talk; in fact he talks his way to jail on a charge of aggravated harassment, a misdemeanor.
So, Tracey gets out. Mr Vadney gets an order of protection to keep Tracey, who threatened Mr Vadney and his family, away. Next day, the Coeymans police show up at Mr Vadney’s home, cuff him, and cart him down to Coeymans. The charge: You guessed it, aggravated harassment.
But Mr Vadney’s due process rights are violated multiple times. He isn’t read his rights at the time of arrest, he isn’t arraigned after his arrest, in fact he doesn’t even know Why? he’s been arrested!
In fact, the Coeymans police had to make several attempts at writing up the Appearance Ticket issued to Mr Vadney. Get this: The Coeymans police, Thompson and Crosier, had to generate no less than five, FIVE, appearance tickets, each one correcting the one before. Yes, they couldn’t even get the appearance ticket right without having to redo it five, FIVE different times!!!!
Both town of Coeymans judges didn’t want to touch the case and they recused themselves! Local BoBo judges were scared shiteless to touch the case! So Bethlehem town court had to take the case. And that’s where it’s stuck for the past almost 7 months. Does anyone smell the nasty retaliation rat here?
Our buck is on the bet that the local Mafiosi and Coeymanazis, all Democrat tools, in RCS are behind the persecution and retaliation to coerce a resignation–they’ve been trying forever to oust the non-teachers from the RCS board of education. You see, once they get enough non-teachers to resign from the board, the teachers clique and the teachers union, Matt Miller and NYSUT, will have free reign on the budget and programs. And you all know damned well where that’s going. This persecution thing has been going on forever: first they tried like hell to get Rodney Krzykowski to leave by calling him a terrorist, a scofflaw, a tax-evader. Of course, none of that was true. Then they went after Jeff Lukens, even allegedly using his son in retaliation, but Lukens stood firm. Then back in May 2012, right after the preliminary results of the 2012-13 school budget vote–those same results are under investigation by the New York State Education Department because of allegations of irregularities and even fraud by the supporters of the more than $42 million school budget supported by the teachers and the teachers union, NYSUT, and a group of Coeymanazi-brainwashed residents–they set the board of education up with a performance by sociopath Josephine (Tracey) O’Connor, who did the “He called me fat” performance at the RCS High School in front of voters. (She’s not exactly “petite,” let’s say.) But numerous voters and officials present and with Mr Vadney claim nothing of the sort happened!Then, Josephine O’Connor’s father, Joseph “Joe” Tracey, a man with a very colorful past involving, let’s just say “self-medication”, appears at a local business owned by a relative of the board president and then creates a threatening scene, intimidating the board president’s sister and threatening the board president’s family.
[Editor's Note: We are indebted to a reader who points out that we shouldn't foget that Coeymans police chief Gregory Darlington's wife is secretary to moron Albany County DA P. David Soares! There is a clear trail leading from the Coeymanazi nest of iniquity to Soares' office!]
Joe Tracey later telephones the board president, asks for a call back, and then proceeds to verbally abuse the board president, who has the entire conversation on speakerphone, and uses such language that the concerned parents have to send their children from the room.
Mr Vadney, now concerned for the safety of his family, notifies law enforcement who then contact Tracey. Tracey abuses the law enforcement officers who then arrest him. He is arraigned on a charge of aggravated harassment in Bethlehem town court before judge Marc Jordan. In retaliation and revenge, Tracey cooks up a fraudulent charge of harassment against the board president, who is then arrested by, You guessed it! The Coeymans police, agents of the local Coeymanazis and friends of O’Connor, and supporters of the Coeymanazis who are now facing the voting irregularities investigation. The entire scenario has the signature of Gerald “Dirty Hands Jerry” Deluca, a so-called investigator with the Coeymans police department, and a person with a very questionable history, himself. (Street talk says Dirty-Hands Jerry Deluca and the Biscones had their eyes on a large tract of property on 9w, but their conspiracy was foiled when a relative of the board president purchased the property right out from under them. Since then Coeymanazis in the Ravena-Coeymans mob, like Larry Conrad, so-called building inspector, the Department of Environmental Conservation (allegedly a client of Dirty-Hands Jerry Deluca), and the Coeymans police (lackeys of Deluca and his gang, have been engaging in a persecution campaign for years that has cost the owner of the property tens of thousands of dollars. The same basic tactics have been used, in addition to slander and libel tactics against another elected official on the school board, Mr Rodney Krzykowski.) Retaliation and intimidation looms very large in the Ravena-Coeymans district!
So back to the history. The Bethlehem court grants Mr Vadney an Order of Protection against Joe Tracey, which Joe Tracey admits he violated on the very next day, when he received word that the Coeymans police were about to arrest the board president on Tracey’s fraudulent complaint. Tracey just couldn’t help himself and had to drive by to witness the damage he was doing. Now who do you think informed him of the police activity? Could it have been our little friend Dirty-Hands Jerry Deluca, known to be a very close friend of Josephine O’Connor? Wouldn’t that be a violation of police protocol, chief Darlington? But not in the nest of hypocrisy called Ravena-Coeymans!
So, the woman harassed by Joe Tracey at the family business had previously gone to the Coeymans police to make a complaint about the treats and intimidation by Joe Tracey but Guess what! The officer on duty at the Coeymans police station, Kerry Thompson, who later was rewarded with a $30/hour plum job as chief Darlington’s “administrative assistant,” and who, incidentally, is married to Darlington’s sister, refused to take the complaint, saying it was “hearsay.” IDIOT! COEYMANAZI! CO-CONSPIRATOR! TERRORIST COP!
Is the murky water in Ravena-Coeymans getting murkier for you, yet?
Mr Vadney and his group on the school board did not support the outrageous tax increase that was imposed to support the more than $42 million 2012-13 school budget. The interim superintendent of schools at the time, Elizabeth “Betsy” Smith, was a former teacher and a colleague and friend of the teachers on the board, her former colleagues, and a member of the teachers union, NYSUT. She was useless, to say the very least. The opponents of the budget, represented by Mr Vadney and his supporters, ran a clean campaign recommending a No! vote; the teachers union and their supporters, headed by Dirty-Hands Jerry Deluca and his mob, got really dirty…and illegal. But when you’re a police investigator on the Coeymans P.D., who’s going to go after you. Especially when you have a dumbass police chief, Gregory Darlington, who’s scared shitless of Deluca, and the town court justices, George Dardiani (under investigations for judicial ethics violations) and Phillip Crandall, are just as intimidated and don’t dare rock the boat. One Coeymans judge, George Dardiani, in flagrant violation of the Judicial Code of Ethics, even posted a sign on his front lawn supporting the Yes! vote in support of the local Coeymanazis! (See the article on Dardiani on this blog.)
So, now, although Mr Vadney was charged in the town of Coeymans but because the local Coeymans judges, George Dardiani and Phillip Crandall, because they’re in the pockets of the local politicos, can’t be trusted to be impartial to preside over the Vadney case, it goes to a neighboring town, Bethlehem, for processing. And that’s where it has been dragging on and on and on to this day.
A little refresher course, history:
We reported on this blog how the courts are considering this type of harassment charge to be generally unconstitutional, a violation of the right of free expression.
But to give you an idea of how stupid P.[udenda] David Soares is and how he’s wasting taxpayer money and the resources of the courts, let’s compare the Greene CountyDA’s practices with those of the Albany CountyDA. I’d like to take three examples that I know to be true and documented:
A New Baltimore resident, Joan Ross, is served with a subpoena ordering her to appear in court as a witness. Ross gets on the telephone and calls the subpoenaing party and leaves a voicemail message: “You piece of shit! You piece of shit! You have the Sheriff come to my house! I’m coming over there now to fix you!” The Greene County Sheriff is notified and Ross is visited with a warning. Finito! (Later, on advice of her attorney, Ross takes the Fifth at a deposition when asked about the incident.)
A New Baltimore resident, Robert “Bitter Bob” Ross (Yes, Joan Ross’ husband), threatens a pedestrian with his vehicle, making contact with the pedestrian. Ross admits to the encounter. The responding state trooper visits Ross, takes his statement, issues a summons for aggravated harassment 2nd degree. The trooper asks the pedestrian if he wants Ross arrested. The pedestrian answers “No. Ticket is enough.” Ross appears in court, is arraigned. Assistant DA assigned the case and after several court appearances recommends that pedestrian settle with an ACOD (adjournment in contemplation of dismissal) and Ross is put on probation for several months. According to the assistant DA, “He [Ross] has had to hire an attorney, has had to pay for the attorney. That should be enough. Let’s request an ACOD.” Fair enough!
Another New Baltimore resident, John Luckacovic, stands on his front porch and shouts obscenities in the presence of a neighbor’s visiting family, including two young children. The neighbor’s sister wants to call the troopers; the neighbor opts to let it go for the moment, considering having to live across the street from Luckacovic. The neighbor later requests assistance from the state troopers who suggest arrest but the neighbor requests merely a warning to Luckacovic to stay clear.
You see, even serious assaults like the Ross vehicular harassment can be satisfactorily handled without extended inconvenience to either party and without tying up the courts or being a nuisance to law enforcement. The same could, should be true for the town of Coeymans if it weren’t for their addiction to retaliation, intimidation, and coercion!
When a law enforcement department like the Coeymans police department degenerates to that level, the level of being a tool for retaliation, intimidation and coercion, that’s when it has turned rogue! That’s when it has to be purged, eliminated.
And that’s the difference between the Coeymans p.d. and the AlbanyCounty or Greene County Sheriff’s Departments or the State Troopers. The Sheriff’s deputies and the troopers are well-trained, professional law enforcement, unlike Coeymans cops, the majority of whom are thugs. And that alone is a reason to eliminate the Coeymans police department. They’re simply not doing good law enforcement and have become enforcers for the local Coeymanazis and RCnaziS.
Any Constitutional Rights Attorney Will Crucify New York’s Criminal Harassment Statute!
The laws criminalizing “offenses to public order,” (i.e. the “disturbing the peace” family of crimes such as harassment and loitering), need to be carefully drafted to avoid constitutional issues. Frequently, the phrase “for no legitimate purpose” is added to these statutes, letting the courts define what constitutes a “legitimate purpose,” so that constitutional issues can be avoided. See People v. Shack, 86 N.Y.2d 529 (1995).
Subsection One of New York Penal Law 240.30, defining Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree, however, has some drafting issues that need to be addressed by the State Legislature. The law criminalizes any communication where someone “with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person… communicates… by telephone, by telegraph, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm.” This crime is classified as a Class A Misdemeanor, meaning that it carries a sentence of up to one year in prison and/or up to a $1,000 fine.
Essentially, as phrased, the law criminalizes being intentionally annoying or causing alarm, for any purpose. This could describe any other emergency communication or warning, such as reporting a fire or telling someone they need to go to the hospital right away; it could almost any argument over the telephone; or it could describe someone engaging in parody that is protected by the First Amendment.
The problem with the law’s phrasing has been known for decades. Rather than throwing out the statute, however, the courts would interpret the statute as containing additional elements or limitations, and would evaluate each case to see if the statute was unconstitutional “as applied.” People v. Dupont, 107 A.D.2d 247, 253 (1st Dept. 1985). People v. Smith, 89 Misc. 2d 789 (App Term. 2d Dept. 1977).
In 2003, the Court of Appeals found this statute unconstitutional. People v. Mangano, 100 N.Y.2d 569, 571 (2003).
By that point, however, the legislature had already amended the statute, and thus Mangano was based on the pre-2001 version and is not necessarily binding on charges brought under the latter version. Rather than address the Constitutional concerns, however, the 2001 amendments were mostly stylistic. Whereas the statute previously said “communicates, or causes a communication,” now it is divided into two paragraphs, one starting with “communicates,” and the other starting with “causes a communication.”
In 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found the current version of the statute unconstitutional, and found that the City of New York could be civilly liable for enforcing it. Although the constitutional issue was not appealed, the Second Circuit sent the matter back for further submissions on whether the City had an option to enforce the law, or if it was required by the State. The matter was settled prior to another written decision being issued. Vives v. City of New York, 524 F.3d 346, 357-358 (2d Cir. 2008).
Following Mangano and Vives, some courts have held that this subdivision one of Penal Law 240.30 is unconstitutional and dismissed charges brought under that section, while others continue to enforce it depending upon how it is being applied. See People v Louis, 2011 Slip Op 21254, 927 N.Y.S.2d 592, 597 (Nassau County Dist. Ct., 2011).
The overbroad wording is a problem that could probably be fixed by simply adding the phrase “with no lawful purpose” to the law, but given the emerging phenomena of cyber-bullying and related issues, the legislature may want to do additional re-writing. There are other disorderly conduct laws on the books that deal with general “threatening behavior,” so it is not as if people are permitted to run amock, but this law, if properly worded, is supposed to deal directly with threatening or harassing phone calls and similar written/electronic communications.
David L. Hudson Jr., a First Amendment scholar, recently wrote that a N.Y. judge stated that the aggravated-harassment law “cries out to be reworked” (N.Y. judge: Aggravated-harassment law ‘cries out to be reworked’, the First Amendment Center, Speech News, August 2, 2011).
Here’s the case [Editor’s Note: Paraphrased in part]: A man who left profane telephone messages with an assistant district attorney in Nassau County, N.Y., has had his aggravated harassment charges dismissed by a New York court. The judge reasoned that the law was unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.
Between February and April 2010, Nicolas Pierre Louis left a series of telephone voicemail messages with an assistant district attorney. Louis yelled and screamed threats and profanities at the attorney. Louis was upset that the district attorney would not arrest a person identified only as Jessy Pierre Louis. The opinion doesn’t explain the relationship between Jessy Louis and Nicolas Louis.
The assistant district attorney, not named in the court’s opinion, said he or she believed the messages were a threat and feared for his or her safety. This fear led to Nicolas Louis’ being charged with violating a state harassment law, which says that a person is guilty of aggravated harassment when:
“with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she either:
(1) Communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, by telegraph, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of written communication in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or
(2) Causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, by telegraph, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of written communication in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm.
Louis contended that his statements did not rise to the level of fighting words or a true threat. He also argued that the aggravated-harassment statute was unconstitutional because it was too vague and too broad.
Judge Valerie Alexander of the District Court of New York, 1st District, NassauCounty, agreed in her July 25 decision People v. Louis. “A criminal prohibition on communicating in an annoying or alarming way is facially unconstitutional,” she wrote.
“The vagueness and overbreadth of this statute is readily apparent,” she said. “It cries out to be reworked, and sharply limited, to those areas where speech should be circumscribed.”
The Nassau County District Attorney’s office argued that the law could be saved by construing it narrowly to apply only to unprotected categories of speech, such as fighting words. However, Alexander wrote that “it is basic that the very language of the statute must be fairly susceptible of such an interpretation.”
Alexander said the statute was not written with nearly enough precision to accord with basic free-speech principles.
|Special Notice: We make every effort to be truthful, complete, fair, and balanced on this blog; therefore, if you see anything that you know to be false or incorrect, or if you have additional information to clarify any issue, please let us know by e-mailing your information or by leaving a comment. It’s very important to us that we don’t fall into the same category as those whom this blog is intended to expose. Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation and assistance!|