Over1 Million dollars of Piotrowski’s personal tax payer’s pocket book:

[truth seeker]

Is there a thread here about anyone other than Piotrowski and Clarke? Have I criticized Clarke as well as Piotrowski (the answer is yes)?
Have you done anything other than polish Piotrowski's ass and continually ignore glaring faults? No.

When you finally get off the script you've been handed and start using some common sense perhaps people would think of you as something other than the lackey you are. Until then, you made your bed little lady.

You waste too much time bashing other people, but not much time dealing with the issues. If you're not putting someone down, then you're not happy.

[FisherRd]

Now, if you honestly think it is all right for someone to win an election because their opponent was falsely discredited in some politically motivated farse of a lawsuit, then I am not sure what else we have to talk about.

Who says DT gave it to those people, or Ch 2 for that matter? In other words, who's telling you to spread that rumor? Be honest and answer for yourself, for once...

I love how your ignorance plays such a staggering role in your thought process. First you thought your team wasn't able to present evidence to defend themselves (at a hearing of all places). Now, you're stupidly trying to forward the notion that the hearing was unfair (because that is what you were told, but have no idea if it's true or not).

Why do you bother? It's an honest question. What, besides grief, are you planning on getting for your lousy propaganda spreading?

Tell us something original. Something you've concluded on your own. An opinion that wasn't supplied to you.

[FisherRd]

You waste too much time bashing other people, but not much time dealing with the issues. If you're not putting someone down, then you're not happy.

I've asked you point blank questions and mysteriously you fail to respond...coincidence, right?

What issue have I not dealt with? Name it. You on the other hand seem to avoid posts specifically directed to you...

If I see some lackey spouting the company line I ridicule them.
Clearly you have an agenda as well, but have I put you down for it, or have I respectfully addressed your posts and asked you question?

Look, I understand your need to protect the stupid amongst your ranks, but wouldn't it be easier to kick her off the team or get her a new screen-name?

[TheLegendKiller]

Who says DT gave it to those people, or Ch 2 for that matter? In other words, who's telling you to spread that rumor? Be honest and answer for yourself, for once...

I love how your ignorance plays such a staggering role in your thought process. First you thought your team wasn't able to present evidence to defend themselves (at a hearing of all places). Now, you're stupidly trying to forward the notion that the hearing was unfair (because that is what you were told, but have no idea if it's true or not).

Why do you bother? It's an honest question. What, besides grief, are you planning on getting for your lousy propaganda spreading?

Tell us something original. Something you've concluded on your own. An opinion that wasn't supplied to you.

Who says DT gave it to those people? He did....

Yesterday at 12:38 I sent an e-mail to the two Town Board Members and the Town Attorney that had a copy of the Referee's report that I received from the attorneys for Mr. Piotrowski at 12:23. It was not until 12:45 that Mr. Powers asked me as a courtesy to not disseminate the report until their application could be heard by Judge Fahey and at that time I advised Mr. Powers that it had already been sent on and to whom. The Judges order was not issued until sometime after 2:00 p.m.

The hearing only challenged the finding of facts for certain claims. This did not cover the entire case, and a new hearing is scheduled to challenge the referee's report, obviously with additional information to refute it. I'm not sure what you are not getting.

The fact that Warren sends copies of these records to people, posts them on here, discusses them on facebook makes me wonder why he is doing this in the first place. He is either attention starved or this is a politically motivated attack, probably both, in a weak attempt to remove from office, someone he doesn't personally like. It's ridiculous.

[dtwarren]

The hearing only challenged the finding of facts for certain claims. This did not cover the entire case, and a new hearing is scheduled to challenge the referee's report, obviously with additional information to refute it. I'm not sure what you are not getting.

You are not correct the hearing was held to Determine the facts on all disputed issues of fact raised in the Petition. Look at the transcript. A new hearing is not scheduled. A motion was made by the respondents to reject the referee's report and I made a motion to confirm it. There will be no further information added to the record as nogods pointed out to you in another thread.

The fact that Warren sends copies of these records to people, posts them on here, discusses them on facebook makes me wonder why he is doing this in the first place. He is either attention starved or this is a politically motivated attack, probably both, in a weak attempt to remove from office, someone he doesn't personally like. It's ridiculous.

Getting back to this you never answered how I was barred from releasing the report, prior to any order sealing it, to town officials?

For your information the news media and the public have a Federal constitutional right pursuant to the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution, a presumptive State constitutional right under article I, § 8 of the New York State Constitution, a statutory right as set forth in Judiciary Law § 4 and Civil Rights Law § 12 and common-law right to access to judicial proceedings and a common-law right to inspect things filed or admitted into evidence therein. ( Globe Newspaper Co. v Superior Ct., 457 US 596 [1982]; Richmond Newspapers v Virginia, 448 US 555 [1980]; In re National Broadcasting Co. v Myers, 635 F2d 945 [2d Cir 1980]; Matter of Newsday, Inc. v Sise, 71 NY2d 146, 153, n 4 [1987], cert denied 486 US 1056 [1988]; Matter of Associated Press v Bell, 70 NY2d 32 [1987]; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707 [1980]; cf., Fed Rules Civ Pro, rule 77 [b].)

There is a strong presumption favoring public access to court records. People v. Burton, 189 AD2d 532, 597 N.Y.S.2d 488 (3d Dept. 1993); Doe v. NYU, 6 Misc. 3d 866, 786 N.Y.S.2d 892 (Sup. Ct. 2004). It is believed that public scrutiny of court proceedings and records, is an important check against corruption and incompetence. Danco Lab., Ltd. v. Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter Ltd., 274 AD2d 1, 711 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1st Dept. 2000). Privacy is a limited right, which is not recognized in New York common law ( Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co., 171 N.Y. 538, 64 N.E. 442 [1902]) and exists only to the extent created by statute ( Messenger v. Gruner + Jahr Print. & Publ., 94 N.Y.2d 436, 706 N.Y.S.2d 52 [2000]; Stephano v. News Group Publs., 64 N.Y.2d 174, 474 N.E.2d 580, 485 N.Y.S.2d 220 [1984]).

This issue is and has been, of substantial public interest in the Town of West Seneca. Why should it be sealed?

The First Department has held that "neither the potential for embarrassment or damage to reputation, nor the general desire for privacy, constitutes good cause to seal court records (see Liapakis v Sullivan, 290 AD2d 393, 394, 736 N.Y.S.2d 675 [2002]; Matter of Benkert, 288 AD2d 147, 734 N.Y.S.2d 427 [2001]; Matter of Hofmann, 284 AD2d at 94)." Mosallem v Berenson, 76 A.D.3d 345 (1st Dep't 2010).

[TheLegendKiller]

First of all, I didn't respond to your question? You haven't responded to any of my questions and continue to duck them. My objection was not that you were barred from giving the report to Meegan, it was the fact that you did.

The respondents allege that you are doing this to defame them and affect the results of the upcoming election, of which Meegan is his opponent. Why you would be stupid enough as to be seen and then go on record admitting to giving the report to her.

They also allege your behavior is unprofessional for posting legal documents on this site, yet you keep doing it.

If you will not answer any of my other questions, can you at least explain this quote, it's been bugging me for a few days now...

Putting 2 and 2 together, it sounds like the ruling was not very favorable toward Piotrowski and Bielecki. Otherwise his lawyer would never have asked to have the ruling sealed. I am sure Dan Warren would never asked it to be sealed. This should vindicate Dan Warren and Dale Clarke. Piotrowski, Bielecki and Lorigo should all be in jail.

This was from Count Alucard on the proceedings to remove Piotrwoski thread. Why would he say this vindicates you and Dale Clarke? I have been curious since he posted it why he feels this would vindicate him too? Is he working on this with you?

[dtwarren]

First of all, I didn't respond to your question? You haven't responded to any of my questions and continue to duck them. My objection was not that you were barred from giving the report to Meegan, it was the fact that you did.

First she was not the only one it was given to as I stated it was given to all the other members of the Town Board and the Town Attorney. Secondly why wouldn't I, as we can tell if it was left up to the respondents they would not have received it.

The respondents allege that you are doing this to defame them and affect the results of the upcoming election, of which Meegan is his opponent. Why you would be stupid enough as to be seen and then go on record admitting to giving the report to her.

They alleged that but when they had the opportunity to actually present their proof to substantiate their allegations they declined. Why? Perhaps they had no evidence.

They also allege your behavior is unprofessional for posting legal documents on this site, yet you keep doing it.

Again they did allege that and again they failed to present any evidence when given the opportunity.

If you will not answer any of my other questions, can you at least explain this quote, it's been bugging me for a few days now...



This was from Count Alucard on the proceedings to remove Piotrwoski thread. Why would he say this vindicates you and Dale Clarke? I have been curious since he posted it why he feels this would vindicate him too? Is he working on this with you?

Why don't you ask Count Alucard.

[TheLegendKiller]

Since I have your attention, there are some other things I would like to ask you.

In items 15 & 16 you say the comptroller did not properly audit claims and did not properly record inter-fund activity, but you did not mention that on March 2, 2009, despite making reference to other quotes in these minutes, that the Comptroller described in some detail how he handled these claims, and no board member objected to it, and one in fact claimed the Federal Government audited them.

Mrs. Carpenter referred to a previous budget and stated that the Charles Burchfield Center was listed as an item. They were given a budget of $44,000 and went over that figure by $13,000. In 2008 the figure was $56000 and in 2009 it was 52000. Mrs. Carpenter questioned what this money was allocated for.

Supervisor Piotrowski stated that in 2008 the town no longer provided them with employees. The town only provided them with the space that included gas and electric services.

Mrs. Carpenter stated that under the Burchfield line item, there were some credit card purchases made in 2007 amounting to $10,000. She questioned how someone is reimbursed for this, and noted that when they were submitted for reimbursement it said they were for AmeriCorps.

Councilwoman Meegan questioned which departments had credit cards.

Comptroller Robert Bielecki stated that Mark Lazzara’s department turned in charges, but he was not certain whether it was for the Youth Bureau or AmeriCorps.

Mrs. Carpenter questioned the procedure for reimbursement of a charge card purchase and if receipts had to be shown.

Mr. Bielecki responded that he currently requires the detailed listing on the credit card for reimbursement.

Councilwoman Meegan questioned how the credit card was written and whether it was under the Town of West Seneca, Mark Lazzara’s name, the Youth Bureau, or AmeriCorps. She noted that if it was under AmeriCorps, it was not the town’s bill to pay.

Mr. Bielecki stated that this has always been a question. Sometimes Mr. Lazzara charges it to the Youth Department or one of his trust funds.

Supervisor Piotrowski stated that they would have to look into this further.

Mrs. Carpenter requested clarification on the trust funds and questioned if that was something the town monitored.

Mr. Bielecki stated that Mr. Lazzara has the grants and has money that is kept in trust. Money goes in and out of the trust funds, there is a balance, and it is monitored. For example, Mr. Lazzara collects money for delivering Meals on Wheels, that money goes into the trust, and he spends money out of there. The money should be used for the exact purpose it was put in the trust for and verification of those expenditures was done by the department head.

Mrs. Carpenter did not see how there were any checks and balances if Mr. Lazzara was authorizing the expenditures and overseeing them.

[B]Councilman Graber stated that they are audited by the federal government.[/B]

It was after this meeting that Sheila Meegan contacted the State Comptroller's office for assistance in developing a credit card policy. Not because Piotrowski or Bielecki were doing anything wrong, but because none of them had faced a situation like this and needed advise on what to do.


In item 28 you present board meeting minutes from January 14, 2008 discussing a department by department review. You failed to indicate that these reviews were never completed. Furthermore independent reviews of AmeriCorps were conducted a year later and according to Christina Bove, nothing was found to be wrong.

Councilwoman Bove stated that over the past year there has been a thorough accountability of what is going on in that department. They have looked at the Youth Bureau, AmeriCorps, and a lot of things that were not looked at before. Councilwoman Bove found that there were many things that were not explained to her over the last few years and she now understands. There are many people that are no longer working at the Youth Bureau or AmeriCorps, but when there is a program that starts small and grows quickly things have to change.

Mrs. Minklei commented that when many things change it is an indication that something is wrong. She questioned if a report had been completed on the evaluation of AmeriCorps.

Councilwoman Bove responded that a few different people evaluated AmeriCorps on their own; it was not a committee.

Mrs. Minklei thought the Town Board should meet with the department heads and do the evaluation together so they can exchange deliberations, ideas, and questions. She questioned if a termination had been considered for Mr. Lazzara.

Mr. Hunter advised that this would be a personnel matter that should be handled in Executive Session.

Mrs. Minklei questioned why these matters were kept out of the public and allowed to continue unaddressed.

Supervisor Piotrowski responded that he tried to address this on many occasions last year and was unable to do anything with the situation, but he was not giving up.

Did you just forget to include mentioning these items or were you afraid they would hurt your case?

[TheLegendKiller]

They alleged that but when they had the opportunity to actually present their proof to substantiate their allegations they declined. Why? Perhaps they had no evidence.

Again they did allege that and again they failed to present any evidence when given the opportunity.

They alleged this in the affidavit supporting the request to have the report sealed. Considering that request was granted and the report was sealed, I would say they succeeded.

[TheLegendKiller]

Why don't you ask Count Alucard.

I am asking you.

[dtwarren]

The complete minutes are attached to the petition and verified reply that is on file in the Court Clerk's office of the Appellate Division. As I said before for whatever reason Mr. Michalek, who is representing Mr. Bielecki, did not raise this as an argument.

[dtwarren]

I am asking you.

I did not make that statement, I do not know what (s)he meant by that.

[dtwarren]

They alleged this in the affidavit supporting the request to have the report sealed. Considering that request was granted and the report was sealed, I would say they succeeded.

You can say what you want, but as we all know that has a tenuous connection with reality. Piotrowski alleged the same thing in paragraph 68 in his Verified Answer, it is a constant theme of his, and he still failed to offer evidence of it at the hearing.

[TheLegendKiller]

The complete minutes are attached to the petition and verified reply that is on file in the Court Clerk's office of the Appellate Division. As I said before for whatever reason Mr. Michalek, who is representing Mr. Bielecki, did not raise this as an argument.

Do you think he should have raised it as an argument?

[dtwarren]

Do you think he should have raised it as an argument?

I don't think it would have helped particularly in light of Mr. Bielecki's signed response to the State Comptroller's audit that basically admits it. But it was not my duty to raise arguments of fact or law for my opponent. Perhaps you should have been his lawyer.