Category Archives: Trespassing

Ravena Still Ignores Oaths of Office and Rights Protected by State and Federal Constitutions!!!

We have just received a report from a resident and property owner in the Village of Ravena. It looks like elected officials and public servants are again playing their Gestapo games and ignoring residents’ rights and the laws of this state and country. This resident is one of the few that actually came forward with his experiences. We have spoken to a number of others who have similar stories of Ravena’s targeting residents for everything from a children’s swimming pool on their property to “discarded rubbish,” without any further specifics.

Science has shown that incest can generate stupid people. That may explain Ravena Village Hall.

We have reported in the past about Ravena’s in-crowd and their total disconcern for the rights of residents and citizens. Here’s what our reader writes about one of the more recent violations of guaranteed and protected rights by our self-important public servants of nepotism, conspiracy, and conflicts of interests.

Our reader writes:

It’s been a long time since I’ve contacted the Editor and left a comment on the Smalbany blog. I think I’ll call this “Full circle.” Yesterday I received what appears to be two citations in the mail from the village of Ravena apparently notifying me of code violations.

For your information and as illustrations, I am also providing you by emailing you a copy of the correspondence and pictures of what the Code Enforcement officer is referring to. It’s pretty much self explanatory that Mr. Ron Hohman, so-called Zoning Enforcement Officer, is a bit ignorant and illiterate. He’s also in violation of his oath of office because he’s violated the protected rights assured by the New York State and the United States Constitution, both of which he’s sworn to support. I guess he’s overlooked the 14th amendment and the laws relating to violations of private property rights.

As you can see in one of the notices, he’s concerned about a vehicle parked in my driveway in the back of my building. The other violation” cites so called “discarded rubbish.” Any property in the back of my building is far from “discarded rubbish,” and I do take offence that Mr. Hohman, overreaching his authorities and unlawfully entering my private property, further offends me by describing my property as “discarded rubbish.” First of all, who is Mr. Hohman to decide what is “discarded” and what is “rubbish.” Being the curious person I am, I went to Ravena Village Hall to ask them what their official definition of “rubbish” might be, simply commenting that the violation is so vague, and I couldn’t find any “discarded rubbish” on my property.

Mr. Hohman’s notification of a zoning violation because I have an unplated vehicle on my property, in my driveway, and the suggestion that it is not operating or roadworthy, raised other questions. First of all, Is Mr. Hohman a qualified automotive mechanic? Did he make an inspection of the vehicle to determine whether it operates or not? Highly unlikely on both counts. I am also concerned that Mr. Hohman actually entered my property to obtain the Vehicle Identification Number from the registration sticker, something that is invisible from the street and you’d have to get up real close to be able to see it. In other words, Mr. Hohman trespassed on my private property to get the VIN. Violation of my protected constitutional rights and something that will have repercussions very soon in terms of criminal charges.

But what has the vehicle to do with the zoning status of my property? Obviously, Mr. Hohman and the Village of Ravena have opened a can of worms, AGAIN! I had and still have a lot of unanswered questions.

I have lived in the Village of Ravena for more than 25 years, I am a responsible property owner, and a participating member of my community. I am respectful and courteous to everyone. I think I’m not asking too much for respect and courtesy from my elected officials and our public servants. I reasonably expected the courtesy of a knock on the door, perhaps? Is that too much to ask, Mr. Hohman? On the day the notifications were issued, that is, if the date of August 1, 2018, is truthful, I was home all day and nobody knocked on my door, least of all Mr. Hohman from the Village, to get permission to be on my property or even to talk to me informally about any suspected violations. Furthermore, the only way to get any facts or information for both alleged “violations,” if they are violations at all, was that Hohman had to accessed my property to see what’s actually behind a 6ft fence! How does Hohman justfy this criminal trespassing? Hohman had to go to some trouble to see around the neatly arranged trash containers at the edge of my property.

Back to my “Full Circle” quote. The reason why I’m saying “full circle” because some 25 years ago the Ravena Zoning Board held a meeting and then a special meaning about my property without my knowledge or inviting me to comment, again yet another violation of the right of due process and fair hearing. Ravena has a long history of violating constitutional and protected rights: They accused me, tried me, convicted me, and then sent me my sentence without fair hearing. That’s Ravena for you. My attorney at the time, an now retired, read them the riot act in a letter informing them that their conduct was a gross violation of my constitutional rights. They have very short memories apparently.

You’ve written a lot about the Village of Ravena and the Town of Coeymans’ violation of citizens’ and residents’ rights without any form of due process or concern for the New York State or United States Constitutions and the Bill of Rights. They have sworn oaths to support the constitutions and thus to defend our rights and the laws of the state of New York and this great country, but they ignore their duties, their obligations, and their oaths of office. It’s become commonplace in Ravena and the surrounding area and it has to stop. We have rights as citizens and we all deserve due process and fair hearing, it’s guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution!

I look forward chatting with you because you can’t make this stuff up, and the pictures and the violations speak for themselves.

Letters from Mr Ron Hohman, Village of Ravena Code/Zoning Enforcement Officer.

The laws simply do not use the word “rubbish”

We’ve done our research and wanted to know first of all what “discarded rubbish” is supposed to mean. There are two problems with Mr Hohman’s use of the phrase: Firstly, rubbish is not a legal term with a reliable definition. if you look for a legal definition of “rubbish” you’ll probably be redirected to the legal notion of “waste,” as in “solid waste” etc. The laws simply do not use the word “rubbish,” so we can say that the use of the undefined term in the notification has no legal impact or effect.

Resident’s Back Yard Seen from Street. No “rubbish.”

Waste is actually a subjective concept, because things that some people discard may be of value to others

In fact, our research shows that “waste” refers to unwanted substances that people generally tend to dump.  Depending upon the locale and common language waste is also sometimes referred to as rubbish, trash, garbage, or junk. One point is very clear, though, waste is actually a subjective concept, because things that some people discard may be of value to others. It is a natural part of the ecological cycle. It is created when living organisms take in materials and excrete them after use. Waste can be recycled by other living organisms. Discarded home appliances, kitchen waste, sewage sludge, manufacturing waste, packaging waste, old paint containers, biological waste, and hospital waste are all examples of waste. Waste is classified into different types based upon their sources and nature. Solid waste, biodegradable waste, hazardous waste, medical waste, e-waste, yard waste, construction and demolition waste, agricultural waste, and mining waste are the different types of waste.

Resident’s Back Yard viewed from 2nd floor porch. No “rubbish.”

Ravena Code Enforcement Officer Ron Hohman makes no sense.

Another question that arises is how Mr Hohman determined that whatever it is he is referring to as “rubbish,” or more properly put, waste, is in fact “discarded.” Discarded means “unwanted,” “dumped,” “junked,” etc. Fact is, Hohman has no way of knowing whether anything at all is “rubbish” in terms of being “waste,” and furthermore, Hohman has no way of knowing that the property to which his is referring as being “rubbish” has actually been “discarded.” Hohman makes no sense. But that’s not surprising for Ravena and its neighbors.

The other troubling question is Mr Hohman’s concern about a vehicle parked lawfully on private property and Hohman’s wild speculations that the vehicle violates the law by simply being in the resident’s driveway. Hohman does this without any further inquiry or discussion. That’s absolutely offensive by any standard!

The offending vehicle, parked lawfully on the resident’s property, in his private driveway.

In short, Mr Ron Hohman has his head up his arse because he is assuming with no factual basis that the vehicle on the resident’s property is an abandoned, junked, partially dismantled, etc. vehicle under the provisions of New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law!!!

We have personally visited the resident’s property to verify the images sent and to examine the correspondence received from the Village of Ravena and Mr Ron Hohman, Village of Ravena Code/Zoning Enforcement Officer.

Pull Your Head Out, Hohman!!!

We found the vehicle to be in good condition and would never qualify as abandoned, discarded, junked, or partially dismantled. In fact, it’s quite a nice vehicle. We are informed that it belongs to the resident’s daughter who has been saving to manage insurance, registration and putting it on the road. Is that a violation, we ask? We also suspect that Mr Hohman in his haste to get a violation while violating the resident’s protected rights and trespassing on the property, actually missed the dealer’s plates on the front seat of the vehicle. We didn’t miss them. Did you miss those plates Mr Hohman? Or do you expect that they should have been on the vehicle so that they could be stolen, and the Coeymans police investigation allowed to go cold without an arrest or recovery of the plates. 

Maybe Ron Holman has better credentials than a NYS licenced motor vehicle inspector; maybe that’s how he knows the condition of the vehicle. NOT!!!

Oh! Did we neglect to mention that the property owner’s son is an automotive mechanic with licences for several classes of vehicles as a State Motor Vehicle Inspector? And that he drove the vehicle to it’s present location? Did we fail to mention that insignificant fact? But then, maybe Mr Holman has better qualifications to determining whether a vehicle is junk or roadworthy. Got a response, Ronny-boy?

As for the “discarded rubbish” to which Mr Hohman refers, we were unable to find any discarded anything on the property, much less anything that would qualify as “rubbish,” “trash,” “garbage,” or “waste.” In fact, the pictures provided by the resident are clear and factual: There are household items belonging to the resident, his family, and his tenants, including several functional grills. There are some spare parts arranged on a workbench, a tire leaning up against the building, and several containers. No rubbish. Nothing that appeared that it should be discarded. In fact, what we saw had value, was usable, and had every right to be stored neatly in a resident’s back yard, on his private property, without being a nuisance or an eyesore to anyone, especially given the fact that it is actually surrounded by a six-foot fence!!!

So, in conclusion, we have to ask what Mr Hohman’s game is? Does he have an ax to grind? Does someone in Ravena Village Hall have an ax to grind? Does Mr Hohman have to justify his job and “create” violations where there are none? And why is it necessary for Mr Hohman to break the law and violate a resident’s, a citizen’s protected rights to cook up some sort of idiotic and unfounded “violations”?  We’ll be investigating these questions in more depth and will report on our findings. First of all, we’ll find out more about this character Ron Hohman and get some background on him. Something’s fishy here AGAIN and we will get to the bottom of the stinking pond called Ravena, and find out what the bottom-feeders in Ravena Town Hall are up to. Stay tuned!

We’ll get to the bottom of this.
The Editor

Editor’s Note: Unlike Mr Holman, Ravena’s roving public servant terrorist, we obtained the property owner’s permission to visit and view his property.



Theft, Malicious Mischief, Damage to Property, Trespassing: And you call yourself a retired Marine?!?!

— We Rarely Publish Letters in their Entirety but this Letter Really Needs to Get Out to Our Readers for Two Reasons:

  1. Someone locally is hiding his/her criminal behaviour behind a mask of pseudo-patriotism and tarnishing an honorable armed force, the United States Marine Corps.

  2. The victims have provided the Coeymans police with enough evidence to choke a horse; let’s see if they can handle an investigation, arrest, prosecution now that they’ve been handed everything but the perpetrator himself!

Done Like a Thief in the Night, not like a Marine

Done Like a Thief in the Night, not like a Marine

Call it a test, call it a challenge. Call it whatever you want but we are calling on the Coeymans police department to investigate, arrest, and on the Coeymans town court to prosecute and sentence the thief, vandal, and trespasser who is maligning the tradition of the United States Marine Corps. Here’s the full text of the letter we’ve been asked to publish:



The majestic 7×14 foot flag on the 40 foot high flag pole when raised was an exciting day for my family and our community. The symbolic American Flag for all to honor as they pass by. Quietly expressive, a daily reminder of our responsibility to protect the constitution, honor those who have served and died for this country, and be thankful that each of us has the opportunity to have opinions and fight for our rights and freedom.

SEVERAL DAYS AGO THIS FLAG WAS STOLEN—THE CABLES HOLDING THE FLAG WERE CUT, ALSO TAKEN, A NOTE WAS LEFT By the Perpetrator, Trespasser, but he/she did not have the decency or guts to sign their name… The note read   “USMC RETIRED” [Editor’s Note: But the moron who left the note left it on a letter from a social services agency with identifying information on the back!]


A REAL MARINE would have shown respect, honesty integrity.   A REAL MARINE would not trespass, sneak onto someone else’s property when no one was there; purposefully damage property and steal the AMERICAN FLAG which they had no right to take.

A REAL MARINE would have stopped to ask if we knew the bottom of the flag was torn, and if we needed help to take it down considering the high winds and weather.

If YOU had taken the appropriate action – to contact us – You would have been informed that the reason the flag was still up, even though bottom stripe was torn due to high (30+miles an hour) winds, was that it was too dangerous to take it down. But most important, YOU would have been told that we felt it was better to wait until more clement weather so as not to cause additional damage to the flag —it would be impossible to prevent Flag from falling on the ground with high winds; you would have been informed that we already had a replacement flag and as soon as the weather permitted, the flag would be replaced. You would have been THANKED for expressing your concern for the flag we love and respect.

BUT NO! YOU took it upon yourself to TRESPASS, DESTROY PROPERTY, AND STEAL! You, who were so concerned about ONE tear……   god knows how damaged the flag was when you cut the cables allowing the flag to fall 40 feet to the ground/mud with the high winds of this week-end.   Your indignant, iniquitous, self-righteous behavior apparently has overridden your senses on what is truly correct and legal behavior, in regard to OUR GREAT NATIONS FLAG! You’re not a Marine, you’re a common thief, a criminal acting under cover of darkness!

That is why I cannot respect you, an individual who is a sneak and a liar PLEASE DONOT TRY TO JUSTIFY YOUR ABERRANT BEHAVIOR ON YOUR purporting to be a “RETIRED MARINE” . This is an insult to those who exhibit honor, respect for others, tolerance, bravery and integrity, not only in battle, but in their daily actions.


To all who may read this, a reward is being offered for true, reliable information regarding this theft and disrespect towards the AMERICAN FLAG! Contact number 265-0745.

Thank you and GOD BLESS AMERICA!       Joseph Vadney,   Ann Marie Vadney and Family (the location of the flag was 1627 US Rt. 9W Selkirk)


 When we read stuff like this and we have to report stuff like the Deluca frauds, the violation of constitutional rights by elected officials and law enforcement officers, people who have taken oaths to defend the Constituion of the United States. When we have to report what’s going on in our village, town and city halls, the scandal, the disgrace, we are truly ashamed of the hypocrisy of those who have the gall, the nerve to call themselves Americans!

Men and women of honor do not break the law in the name of pseudo-patriotism and do not disgrace the men and women of the US Marine Corps by stamping their criminal activity with “Retired Marine.”

The Coeymans police department now has a duty and an obligation to this community to apprehend this criminal and to exhibit him for what he is: a thief, a coward, a despicable fraud and a dishonor to this community!

Thief! You bear the shame of a naked rat!

Thief! You bear the shame of a naked rat!


Don’t Miss Our Recent Shame Articles on the Corruption in Ravena-Coeymans!

Share Our Shock: State Fire Chiefs’ Association Hires Dirty-Hands Jerry Deluca!
From the Judge Himself: Coeymans Judge Resigns, Insider Exposes Corruption
Bruno Doesn’t Realize He’s Not Mayor Anymore: Asking for donations for centennial!

This just in: We’re investigating the unconfirmed report that Coeymans police officer Danielle Crosier — Crosier is also a police security officer or “RSO” at the Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk high-school — has allegedly been apprehended or charged with DUI/DWI. It seems that it is the current buzz at the RCS high-school. If anyone has any information regarding this report, please contact this blog as soon as possible or send the Editor an e-mail at

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 28, 2014 in, Albany, Albany County District Attorney, Albany County Sheriff Department, Albany Police, Andrew Vale, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Bill Bailey, Bob Ross, Brian Bailey, Catskill-Hudson Newspapers, Cecilia Tkaczyk, Charles A. Bucca, Civil Right Violation, Civil Rights, Coeymanazis, Coeymans, Coeymans Police Department, Coeymans Town Attorney, Coeymans Town Board, Coeymans Town Court, Coeymans Town Justice, Columbia-Greene Media, Corrupt Police, Craig D. Apple Sr., Crime and Punishment, Criminal Mischief, Criminal Prosecution, Daily Mail, David Soares, David Wukitsch, Eleanor Luckacovic, Eleanor Oldham, Eliminate Coeymans Police Department, Eric T. Schneiderman, FBI, FBI Criminal Information System, FBI Public Corruption Squad, George Dardiani, George Langdon, Greene County District Attorney, Greene County News, Greene County Sheriff, Gregory Darlington, Gregory R. Seeley, Gregory Teresi, Harold Warner, Hearst Corporation, Hudson Valley, Hypocrisy, Investigation, Joan Ross, John B. Johnson, John Luckacovic, Johnson Newspaper Group, Joseph C. Teresi, Joseph Teresi, Ken Burns, Kenneth Burns, Kevin Reilly, Law Enforcement, Letter to the Editor, Liberty Weeping, Mark Vinciguerra, Michael J. Biscone, Misdemeanor, Misdemeanor, Moose Misuraca, New York, New York State, New York State Police, News Channel 10, News Channel 13, News Channel 6, News Herald, NYS Assembly, NYS Senate, Obstruction of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Pete Lopez, Peter Masti, Police Incompetence, Public Corruption, Ravena, Ravena Coeymans Selkirk, Ravena News Herald, RegisterStar, Scott Giroux, Selkirk, Smalbany, Stephen Flach, Stephen Prokrym, Steve Prokrym, Terrorism at Home, The Daily Mail, Thomas E. Dolan, Times Union, Times Useless, Tkaczyk, Tom Dolan, Trespass, Trespassing, Vandalism, William Bailey


Ravena Loitering Law is Unconstitutional: Violates First, Fourth, Fourteenth Amendments!

Our Advice: Drive a Crook Crazeee Wear a Wire. Get yourself a small digital voice recorder and keep it handy. Protect yourself when you talk to the Ravenazis or the Coeymanazis, when you enter their dens, when they approach you. New York State is a “one-party state” which means that if you are a party to a conversation you can tape the conversation without having to tell anyone. They’re crazy-paranoid now that they know we know they can be taped. If they behave themselves—which is highly unlikely—they have nothing to fear; if they don’t behave—which is very likely—you’ve got evidence and they have a problem. Ask mayor John Bruno and Cathy Deluca…they know!

Get Wired!

Get Wired!

Ravena Law Is Unconstitutional: Violates Citizens’ Protected Constitutional Rights

Absolutely Stupid!!! And Unconstitutional

Absolutely Stupid!!!
And Unconstitutional

Village of Ravena Posts a “No Loitering” Sign on Main Street Gazebo.

Part Two: Ravena’s Laws Are Unconstitutional—No Loitering? How the village of Ravena, the Coeymans Police Department, and a Jerky-Boy District Attorney, P. David Soares cooperate to violate your rights! It’s all in violation of the United States Constitution and your rights!

The elected members of the Ravena, New York, village board have again demonstrated their profound ignorance of basic constitutional rights that every person in the United States of America is guaranteed. Ignorant elected officials make vague and illegal laws that invite discriminatory and retaliatory enfocement by a biased police department.

First of all, it’s absolutely ridiculous to put up a gazebo in a highly visible place right in the middle of the village and then to post a warning sign that prohibits its use! Think of it this way: By definition a gazebo is “a roofed structure that offers an open view of the surrounding area, typically used for relaxation or entertainment” and is usually situated in a spot that provides a pleasant view while offering shelter from the sun. shelter from the elements, a place to meet, or simply a place to relax. So why would the village of Ravena erect a gazebo and then post a warning tantamount to forbidding its use based on a local nonsense law?

In Article II “Rules of Conduct” [Adopted on May 28, 1934 by Ord. No. 1 [footnote omitted]] includes § 83 – 10. Riotous assembly, § Obscene language or conduct, and especially § 83 – 13 Unnecessary congregation, the village law that is referenced in the sign placed on the Main Street gazebo.  § 83 – 13 reads in its entirety:

vor no loitering sign detail

§ 83 – 13. Unnecessary congregation???

§ 83 – 13. Unnecessary congregation.

No persons shall unnecessarily congregate upon the sidewalks or streets or street corners in the vicinity of any church or other public place. [footnote omitted]

So what would the person of average intelligence make of this idiotic verbage? The words “unnecessarily” immediately caught my attention. Isn’t “unnecessarily” subject to a really broad and vague interpretation? “Congregate” is another troublesome word in this constitutionally unenforceable law. What does congregate mean, anyway, as used in the law. And if you can’t “congregate” on sidewalks or streets or street corners, that leaves very few other places to “congregate.” Well, that leaves alleyways, abandoned buildings, parks, vacant lots, any other public area that is not a “sidewalk,” “street,” or “street corner.” In fact, where you can congregate is just about anywhere mischief can be done ‘safely.’ And according to this Ravena law you’d better watch out for the Coeymans cops after church when you “congregate” “unnecessarily” on the street in front of the church or in the church parking lot. According to the Ravena law, you will be loitering and subject to a ticket (depending on who you are, of course; law enforcement in Ravena-Coeymans is highly biased).

 “A person is guilty of loitering when he/she…loiters.”

Even the New York Penal Law § 240.35 Loitering, despite its redundant phrasing “A person is guilty of loitering when he…loiters.” Brilliant language skills of the New York State legislators. Makes sense, doesn’t it? But in a law that kind of language can cause problems on an appeal or constitutional challenge, as we’ll see below.

Nevertheless, the New York loitering law is somewhat specific but not immune from challenge in that it notifies the citizen that he or she is guilty of loitering if he or she “wanders about in a public place for the purpose of begging…or gambling…or sexual conduct…or sexual behavior of a deviant nature;” or if a person is in a place and “masked…or disguised…or in unusual or unnatural attire.” The NY law also defines loitering as when a person is on “or remains in or about school grounds…with no legitimate reason for being there,” or is present a transportation facility “for the purpose of soliciting or sale of merchandise or services…or for the purpose of entertaining,” or is “in a transportation facility…and is unable to give a satisfactory explanation of his presence.” Loitering is a violation.

Loitering is a Violation. Sign on Ravena Gazebo

Loitering is a Violation.
Sign on Ravena Gazebo

Reading this law anyone of average intelligence will be able to understand the behavior that might earn him or her a ticket in New York state but anyone of average intelligence will also recognize that the terms of the law are so vague and ambiguous that the can cause any prosecutor really big problems when confronted with a smart defendant or defense attorney…most likely the prosecutor will opt not to prosecute –  – as is often the case –  – and just drop the charge or make a deal.

But back to the Ravena so – called “loitering” law. The Ravena law is conspicuously unconstitutional for the reasons we discuss below and the United States Supreme Court agrees. Here’s why (without going into the details of the individual cases, which we have studied for this article):

Your Rights Ignored Criminals: Bruno, Warner, Bailey, Case, Persico, Darlington!

Your Rights Ignored
Criminals: Bruno, Warner, Bailey, Case, Persico, Darlington!

The Supreme Court has held that such ordinances violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because they offend the protected rights and freedoms of association, assembly, and expression. The Court has also held that such ordinances are unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they arbitrarily restrict personal liberties.  Such ordinances as the Ravena law are unconstitutionally vague because the law fails “to establish standards for the police and public that are sufficient to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty interests” by biased police officers. The Court also found that such ordinances are unconstitutional because they violate the Fourth Amendment by allowing a law enforcement officer to arrest a citizen suspect without probable cause. The Supreme Court held that “the freedom to loiter for innocent purposes is part of the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Here’s a bit of history for you: The legal background of loitering laws go back way before the American Constitution. In fact, laws criminalizing vagrancy and loitering go back to the time of the Black Plague in England more than 500 years ago. Back then the laws had an economic purpose: preventing laborers from traveling to neighboring communities where labor was scarce, where they could demand a higher wage. As time went on and poor populations increased and the unemployed filled English roads to rob those who traveled them, loitering laws became a tool for crime prevention and criminal punishment.

The loitering law allows police to “control persons who, although not traditionally considered criminals, were nonetheless considered undesirable.”

Today loitering laws still focus on crime prevention. The most common reasons for passing loitering laws include stopping drug dealers and prostitutes from frequenting an area, preventing obstruction in public passageways, and of course allowing police to “control persons who, although not traditionally considered criminals, were nonetheless considered undesirable.”  In fact, the Supreme Court held in a landmark case, Thornhill v. Alabama, that the statute in question was too broad and “prohibited otherwise lawful conduct that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. The Court also believed that the statute violated due process by granting the police too much discretion and “readily lent itself to harsh and discriminatory enforcement by local prosecuting officials, against particular groups deemed to merit their displeasure.” Sound familiar RCS residents?

This type of law, the United States Supreme Court believes, “bears the hallmark of a police state.”

In another case, the Supreme Court ruled that “cities and states could not pass loitering laws simply as a way of increasing their power to arrest, and required that the state narrowly define who fell within the ordinance and ensure that the person’s actual conduct at least in some way constituted a recognizable offense.

A municipality’s anti-loitering ordinance criminalized innocent conduct and that was the downfall of the ordinance

In another important case the Supreme court ruled that the ordinance was “unconstitutionally vague because it subjected the exercise of a right of assembly to an unascertainable standard, and is unconstitutionally broad because it authorized the punishment of constitutionally protected conduct.” In other words, the court again found that a municipality’s anti-loitering ordinance criminalized innocent conduct and that was the downfall of the ordinance.

The Supreme Court in its rulings on the loitering laws has consistently held that loitering laws without a separate criminal element are overly vague and thus invalid.

In a recent landmark decision that buttressed and emphasized the Supreme Court’s attitude against loitering laws the Court stuck with the presumption that “the freedom to loiter for innocent purposes is part of the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” With those words the highest court of the land placed the freedom to loiter within the greater “liberty” concept of “life, liberty, or property” within the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. A further effect of this is that it the Supreme Court recognized that discriminatory enforcement is the product of vague laws and the rulings prevent biased police from discriminating or retaliating against innocent persons. In other words, a law like the Ravena nonsense code would leave the police free to act out their biases, by unfairly targeting, dispersing, and arresting anyone or any group they disfavor. Sound familiar?

And by the way: The fact of being a young person doesn’t mean that you don’t have constitutional rights. You receive those rights at birth!

This should come as a very clear warning to the village of Ravena and its bunch of ignorant and useless fixtures called the village board (mayor John Bruno, Nancy Warner, William Bailey, Martin Case, Rocco Persico) to the town of Coeymans and its town board (supervisor Stephen Flach, Peter E. Masti, Thomas E. Dolan, Dawn Rogers, Thomas A. Boehm), and especially puts the Coeymans Police Department on particular notice to watch their steps because we’re watching and we’re ready to take action to clean up their acts if they can’t do it themselves. So listen up Bruno, Flach, Darlington. You’ve been served!

And village of Ravena mayor John Bruno and village board members Nancy Warner, William Bailey, Martin Case, Rocco Persico: Take the damned sign off the gazebo. It’s mere presence is proof of your ignorance!

The Editor

The Editor

Cases cited in this article:

  • City of Chicago v. Morales, 687 N.E.2d 53, 58-59 (Ill. 1997), 119 S.Ct. 1849 (1999)
  • Thornhill v. Albama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940)
  • Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87 (1965)
  • Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972)
  • Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971)
  • Nevada v. Richard, 836 P.2d 622 (Nev. 1992)


  • Farrar, Jared. “Just Hangin’ Around: Gangs and Due Process Vagueness in City of Chicago v. Morales,” Mercer Law Review, v. 51:973-986.
  • Leipold, Andrew D. “Targeted Loitering Laws,” Journal of Constitutional Law, February v.  3:1. 2001:474-502.
  • Letter, Attorney General McMaster  S.W. White, January 28, 2010, Opinion on Constitutionality of Union, So. Carolina Loitering Ordinance
  • District Court of Prince William County (Va), Commonwealth of Virginia v. M.I. Hernandez et al., GC04009123-00, Motion to Dismiss (undated)
  • N.Y Pen. Law § 240.35 Loitering

Stay tuned for:

Part Three: The Coeymans Police Department—Scoff-laws in Uniform. How Indifference and Bias Denies You Your Constitutional Rights. (This is a must-read for Coeymans police chief Gregory “DoDo-Cop” Darlington, Gerald “Dirty Hands Jerry” BoBo-Cop-Deluca, and Officers Jason “what investigation” Albert, Ryan “Psychocop” Johnson, Kerry “it’s hearsay” Thompson)

Part Four: Suing the Town of Coeymans Coeymans Police Department for Obstruction of Justice and Misuse of Public Office. How Coeymans police chief Gregory Darlington is going to lose his job and his crooked cops may find themselves doing jail time. So you want to make misdemeanors and felonies disappear, Mr Tom Dolan (Ask Tommy about his son’s escapades and where the charges went) and Dawn Rogers (Ask Dawn about her daughter’s friend the bottle and where the alleged DUI charges went). You might want to ask about how evidence is safeguarded in the Coeymans Police Department or their recipe for hitting parents through their kids. Or you might want to ask how to frame a resident or how to screw up a drug raid for a thimble full of marijuana while the real druggies are in the Ravena offices or the Coeymans PD evidence room (just speculating on this one). Of course, the Coeymans Police would rather hassle a bunch of kids congregating on a public gazebo than go after real criminals like Scott Lenden and his helpers (theft, possession of stolen goods, criminal tresspass). But then Dirty-Hands Jerry Deluca was investigator on that case and didn’t move his fat arse on it for six months until the victims called in the Albany County Sheriff’s team. Or how about arresting a kid for possessing his own prescription drugs and having him jailed for 45 days…on the information provided by a known, convicted druggie? An what about the recent botched up drug raids? Any comment, chief Darlington or admin assistant Kerry Thompson? And what happend to the investigations of Cathy Deluca and Claude Wheeles on falsely reporting an incident—one that never happened but Deluca and Wheeles collaborated and lied about it—maybe Officer Jason Albert, chief Gregory Darlington, or maybe Dirty-Hands Jerry Deluca can provide some answers. How does evidence leak out, Mr Deluca, Mr Darlington, Officer Albert?

Part Five: Going after the Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District Board of Education, a Turncoat Superintendent of Schools, and the Teachers Union Lackeys Voted to the RCS Board of Education. How’d that all happen? We’ve got some information and facts that are going to knock your socks off and have some people soiling their undies. The real facts behind what cooking on the BoE and what a suicidal, ignorant school district has done to itself by handing over $40 million to crooks!

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!
Special Notice & Legal Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Persons accessing this site are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.

Posted by on August 30, 2013 in Abuse, Abuse of Public Office, Accountability, Albany, Albany County Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Albany County District Attorney, Albany County Sheriff Department, Alice Whalen, Annette Demitraszek, Bill Bailey, Bitter Bob (Ross), Black Mamba, Bob Dorrance, Bob Knighten, Bob Ross, BoBo Cop, Bray Engel, Brown and Weinraub, Bryan Rowzee, Bullying, Burning the Constitution, Capital District, Cathy Deluca, Civil Right Violation, Civil Rights, Claude A. Wheeles, Coeymanazis, Coeymans, Coeymans Police Department, Coeymans Town Attorney, Coeymans Town Board, Coeymans Town Court, Corrupt Police, Corruption, David Soares, Dawn LaMountain, Dawn Rogers, Diane Malecki, DoDo Cop, Dr Alan R. McCartney, Edward "Teddy" Reville, Edward Reville, Eilleen Vosburgh, Eleanor Luckacovic, Eleanor Oldham, Eliminate Coeymans Police Department, Elizabeth A. Varney, Entrapment, FBI, FBI Criminal Information System, FBI Public Corruption Squad, Felony, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, George Dardiani, Gerald Deluca, Greene County, Greg Teresi, Gregory Darlington, Gregory Teresi, Harold Warner, Howard "Bray" Engel, Hudson Valley, Ignorance, Incompetence, Investigation, Jason Hyslop, Jena Misuraca, Jerry "Dirty-Hands" Deluca, Jerry Deluca, Jerry Perrine, Joan Ross, John Luckacovic, John T. Bruno, Joseph C. Teresi, Joseph Teresi, Josie Biscone-Bruno, Larry Conrad, Latter-Hyslop-Brown, Laverne Conrad, Law, Law Enforcement, Loitering, Marlene McTigue, Martin Case, Marty Case, Mary Partridge-Brown, Matt "the Mutt", Matt Miller, Matthew J. Miller, Mayor Bruno, Michael Biscone, Misconduct, Misdemeanor, Monitoring, Nancy Biscone-Warner, Nancy Warner, New Baltimore, New York, New York State, New York State Police, NYCLU, NYS Assembly, NYS Senate, Office of the Attorney General, Official Misconduct, P. David Soares, Patrick E. Brown, Pete Lopez, Peter Masti, Phillip Crandall, Police Incompetence, Police State, Pudenda David Soares, Ravena, Ravena Coeymans Selkirk, Ravena Village Attorney, Ravena Village Board, Retaliation, Robert Fisk, Rocco Persico, Sarah Berchtold Engel, Sarah Engel, Scott Lendin, Scott M. Lendin, Selkirk, Smalbany, Stephen Flach, Stifling Freedom, Surveillance, Susan K. O'Rorke, Teddy Reville, Thomas A. Boehm, Thomas E. Dolan, Tom Dolan, Trespassing, Unamerican Activity, Violation, William Bailey