Upstate Conservatives

34 years of March for Life

2007-01-24T18:19:00.000-08:00

by Alan Roth, for the Upstate Conservatives Blog...

ABORTION: Hundreds of thousands of people came from Alabama, Seattle, Texas, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Maine, Utah, Indiana, Brazil, and beyond.

They were men and women, young and old, healthy and infirm, religious and secular.

While people of all shapes and sizes marched on behalf of Life in our nation’s capital the most outstanding feature of the more than 100,000 strong was their youth. Multiple tens of thousands of young people – grade school, high school, college students, and recent graduates marched in defense of the most innocent victims of abortion.

Some prayed, some shouted their opposition to Roe v. Wade, some carried banners with names of their schools, churches, and organizations. Many spent countless hours on buses to spend a handful of hours expressing their right to speak their minds on behalf of the innocent victims of abortion.

While the mainstream media gave short shrift to this 34th March for Life the marchers will take home the experience of a lifetime. They will spread the word within their communities that human life is sacred and many Americans agree that abortion must be stopped.

As is custom, many of the marchers went to the Congressional office buildings to lobby their legislators in defense of life. Large numbers went to the Capital Hill Club to meet the most openly pro-life presidential candidate – Senator Sam Brownback.

Senator Brownback does not hide his pro-life, pro-family beliefs. He wears them on his sleeve. And from the looks of those who came to see him and those who carried his banners he probably is going to enjoy support from young people (as well as others). Young people are attracted to candidates who take on the establishment when the establishment is wrong. They are attracted to candidates who stand for something meaningful. Brownback certainly fits that profile.

This March for Life seemed to have an energy not witnessed in a while. An energy that is necessary to champion the pro-life cause with a pro-abort Congress and a rapidly approaching Presidential Election.

The break is over

2007-01-08T13:26:00.001-08:00

Alan Roth sends this manifesto:

Conservatives in Disarray

In the Eyes of our friends, our liberal opponents, and the media the conservative movement is in disarray.

This year’s CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) should be a presidential showcase to show our relevance as a movement. I may be wrong but I don't get the impression that presidential candidates are lining up to participate in this event. It is also indicative of the challenge we face as a movement that there is no credible conservative candidate for President at this time.

After 8 years ofplaying inside the Beltway politics, my impression is that our grassroots conservative troops have lost confidence in our ability to win elections and to represent their beliefs in the political arena.

I believe that we, as conservatives, MUST promote some basic truths:

We are committed to protecting the people of the United States of America against its enemies. We should have a full debate about security and foreign polices. Engage someone such as John Bolton to outline his vision for dealing with Iran, with radical Islam that is sworn to destroy us, with a Russia that is causing havoc for us and the free world.
Living in a Post 9-11 world means that security will be an issue for decades to come. We need to lead the way by forming a consensus on solutions to these issues with experts such as Andrew McCarthy and Congressman Pete King.
Continue to be vocal and united on domestic issues such as nationalism, immigration, taxes, the rule of law, right to life, and gay marriage. We MUST align ourselves with credible leaders who articulate a conservative vision for America in the 21st Century.

If we do not present a united front, if we do not express confidence that our movement is politically potent, then no one else will. We collectively control our own destiny.

Comments from Allen Roth

Board of Directors – Member

American Conservative Union

Summarized by Greg Rigby

More Bruno Pork

2006-12-09T08:23:00.000-08:00

Bruno got firm unconditional grant

from the Albany Times-Union click for full story

$500,000 to Troy company had no restrictions; another $525,000 went to business

By JAMES M. ODATO, Capitol bureau
First published: Saturday, December 9, 2006

ALBANY -- The Troy firm that received $500,000 through Sen. Majority Leader Joseph Bruno had no strings attached to the money, and got another $525,000 from the state authority overseeing the grants.

Evident Technologies Inc. not only received two $250,000 grants sponsored by Bruno, but also got $525,000 from Empire State Development Corp.'s venture capital fund, state officials said.

Bruno's member item grants to Evident were highly unusual because such legislative grants almost always go to nonprofit organizations.

The grants were also remarkable because friends of Bruno have been investors and directors of Evident. They also contributed to his Republican Senate Committee and one provided plane rides to Bruno and is under investigation for potentially exceeding lobbying gift limits.

Bruno Ethics Probe

2006-12-07T14:42:00.000-08:00

from today's Syracuse Post-Standard

Bruno gave "pork" to firm connected to businessman in probe

12/6/2006, 11:45 p.m. ET
By MARK JOHNSON
The Associated Press
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno directed $500,000 in state funding to a private company connected to a businessman being investigated for providing Bruno with free air travel, state records show.

The Empire State Development Corp. grant to Evident Technologies Inc., a private nanotechnology company based in Bruno's district, received the "pork-barrel" spending at Bruno's request. Initial funding for Evident came from an investment firm run by Jared Abbruzzese, according to a news report posted on the company's Web site.

Abbruzzese is currently under investigation by the state Lobbying Commission into whether he provided Bruno with an illegal gift when he flew him between New York City and Albany. The businessman was formerly part of Empire Racing Associates, one of several groups seeking the lucrative state franchise to operate thoroughbred racing in New York. Hugh Carey took over for Abbruzzese in October.

Guest Commentary by Herb London

2006-12-07T13:39:00.000-08:00

Commentary
Herbert London: The coming crisis in American citizenship
Herbert London, The Examiner
Dec 1, 2006 3:00 AM (5 days ago)

WASHINGTON - The Intercollegiate Studies Institute recently completed a study on American civic literacy that should serve as a wake-up call for every educator in the country. Since America’s founding, leaders have argued that our nation cannot be free and ignorant at the same time. Yet, if this study can be relied on, that is precisely the predicament we find ourselves in.

Charles Eliot, former president at Harvard, once said, “The reason there is so much intelligence at the college is freshman bring so much in and seniors take so little out.” Eliot’s glib assertion was actually prescient.

According to the study, “There is a trivial difference between college seniors and their freshman counterparts regarding knowledge of America’s heritage.” Overall, college seniors failed the civic literacy exam. More than half could not identify the century when the first American colony was established in Jamestown. And a majority did not recognize Yorktown as the battle that brought the American Revolution to an end.

In addition, more than half of the college seniors did not know the Bill of Rights prohibits the establishment of an official religion and, remarkably, nearly half did not know that The Federalist Papers were written in support of the Constitution’s ratification.

What is going on here? The most highly educated generation, if one is reliant on college attendance, seems to know very little and, more significantly, does not learn very much while in the academy. Thorstein Veblen’s comment that students “are trained in incapacity” takes on new and poignant meaning.

Some might argue that these results apply to marginal colleges and universities, but they would be wrong. An Ivy League education contributes nothing to a student’s civic knowledge. Of the 50 schools in the survey, including Brown and Yale, 16 showed “negative learning,” to wit: The seniors in these colleges scored lower than freshman, “suggesting that they will graduate with even less civic knowledge than what little they had as freshmen.”

What is self-evident is that colleges that require a course in American history and institutions outperform those schools that do not. In fact, civic learning appears to be related to a traditional core curriculum. A lesser-known college such as Calvin College achieved a high ranking partly because its students took an average of 1.5 philosophy courses compared to 0.8 philosophy courses taken by seniors at Yale, Berkeley and Johns Hopkins.

Similarly, the study suggests that civic learning is related to active citizenship. Students with knowledge of American history tend to be more engaged in voting, community service and political campaigns. Clearly, family discussion helps to compensate for deficiencies at colleges. But whether it can compensate fully for curriculum omissions is unclear.

It should be obvious — but often isn’t — that our democratic republic needs to be nourished by citizens well versed in our traditions and unique institutions.

Unfortunately as this extraordinary study reveals, America’s colleges and universities are failing in this mission, leaving many college seniors bereft of the fundamental knowledge good citizenship demands.

Where will this ignorance of American life lead? It is hard to predict. But on one matter there cannot be any doubt: A people unfamiliar with their traditions will not be ardent about defending them.

America needs citizens well-versed in how exceptional this nation is.

If our colleges cannot produce these people, our enemies will know how to exploit this vulnerability.

Some might contend that is already happening. That is why we should all be indebted to ISI for this study and why it is time for our colleges and universities to address this fundamental need.

Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001).

Brown outspent Valesky by 50%

2006-12-05T16:03:00.000-08:00

from today's Syracuse Post-Standard

Dollar lead failed Brown
He took in more than 50 percent more but didn't unseat state Sen. Valesky.
By Alaina Potrikus

State Sen. Dave Valesky and Assemblyman Jeff Brown sank more than $2.5 million into the race for the 49th District Senate seat this fall, according to reports filed with the state Board of Elections Monday.

In the end, Brown, R-Manlius, continued his fundraising lead over Valesky, with total contributions topping $1.6 million, according to Monday's filing. Valesky, D-Oneida, who raised $927,000, won the seat Nov. 7.

New Citizenship Test

2006-12-01T14:06:00.000-08:00

I was reading about the new citizenship test and of course the headlines say things like "Can you pass the new test?" I think it's pretty disgraceful that papers all across the country write this headline in a joking way. Lack of knowledge about American History and Government is not funny. It's sad.

I know the curriculum for US History is a solid one, but what we lack is mandatory Civics class. A lot of the problems we are trying to tackle with the Upstate Conservatives group stem from the absence of qualified candidates for office- whether the local town offices or statewide. If more people understood the system and the importance of being involved, we'd have fewer "big bosses" running the show. I don't think it's realistic to have every office filled with someone who agrees politically- we don't need a one-party dictatorship- but there is certainly room for reasonable, sensible-minded individuals who want to govern in a way to benefit citizens.

I have had students whose parents went through untold hardships to move to America for a better life and I know that passing a test like the Citizenship test is almost silly in comparison. If you move your family from war-torn Sarajevo or Ethiopia or want to escape Communist China so your kids can be better off, isn't that a test in itself? I want immigrants who are motivated to come here and better themselves, learn English, teach their children democracy. Can a citizenship test prove actual worthiness?

Becoming a citizen is not like becoming a licensed driver. To be an American citizen is in the heart, not in the head.

Michael Brewster

from the Arizona Republic:

New test

1. There are four amendments to the Constitution about who can vote. Describe one.
Answer: Any citizen over 18 can vote. A citizen of any race can vote. Any male or female citizen can vote. You don't have to pay to vote.

2. What does it mean that the U.S. Constitution is a constitution of limited powers?
A: The federal government has only the powers that the Constitution states that it has. States have all the powers the federal government does not.

3. Name two of the natural, or inalienable, rights in the Declaration of Independence.
A: Life. Liberty. The pursuit of happiness.

4. Why did the colonists fight the British?
A: They had to pay high taxes but did not have any say about it. Taxation without representation. The British army stayed in their houses. The British denied the colonists self-government.

5. Where is the Grand Canyon?
A: Arizona. The Southwest. Along the Colorado River.

Current test

1.What do the stars on the flag mean?
A: One for each state.

2.What is the Constitution?
A: The supreme law of the land.

3. What is the executive of a state government called?
A: The governor.

4.Name some countries that were our enemies during World War II.
A: Germany, Italy and Japan.

5. Who meets in the U.S. Capitol building?
A: Congress.

The Truth on Minimum Wage

2006-11-24T10:13:00.000-08:00

submitted by Dr. Paul Bertan

Below is an excerpt of an article by Richard Daughty titled "Have you got your $87?" (click on title for full article)

...the angriest guy in economics" [The Mogambo Guru] on the results of raising the minimum wage at the federal level or elsewhere... it truly explains the results of raising the wages, and on and on...

Richard Daughty is general partner and C.O.O. for Smith Consultant Group, serving the financial and medical communities, and the writer/publisher of the Mogambo Guru economic newsletter, an avocational exercise the better to heap disrespect on those who desperately deserve it. The Mogambo Guru is quoted frequently in Barron's, The Daily Reckoning and other fine publications...

--In part:

"The bad news is that, thanks to the last election, half the states in the USA now have legally-mandated higher minimum wages, most of them usually about 40% higher than the federal minimum wage of $5.15.

This is unalloyed bad news. If you don't believe me, then listen to Gerard Jackson, the Economic Editor of Brookes News, who cited economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of the Employment Policies Institute, who found that there "was a correlation between minimum wage increases and poverty among 'the poorest of the poor.' In short, [effective] minimum wage increases raised the level of poverty. This is precisely what economics predicts."

And it is exactly what we will get more of, regardless of the glut of "economists", including some laughably lame-brained Nobel Prize crackpots, who have secured their place in the Mogambo Big Book Of Economic Infamy (MBBOEI) when they advocated, in writing, another raise in the minimum wage.

It boggles the mind that they would advocate such a thing when all of the other dozen or so raises in the minimum wage for the last 50 years have done absolutely nothing good for anybody, and have only left us with predictably more tragically poor people, a bigger government to take care of them, and higher prices for everybody, necessitating subsequent hikes in the minimum wage, raising prices, and continuing the spiral down, down, down to the Stygian depths of stinking economic hell and utter ruination.

And note that not one of these lowlife "economists" recommended that the damnable Federal Reserve stop creating excess money and credit, which is the cause of the price inflation that is bedeviling the low-wage worker in the first place! Idiots! First-class idiots!"

One of the worst exploits in the past election was perpetrated by Democrats. Their anti-Republican ads showed that the candidate "voted against raising the minimum wage while voting in favor of raising his own (legislative) salary."

Raising the minimum wage simply raises costs for employers, thereby raising cost of living for everyone. We should look at attracting businesses to Upstate NY which pay HIGHER than minimum wages. A pro-business climate will do this.

More on NY Justice Courts

2006-11-22T17:49:00.000-08:00

Looking at the full report (download pdf here) from Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman, some interesting ideas are to be found.

1. No recommendation is made to increase justice pay; but each court will need to have equipment upgrades (computers, digital audio recorders, fax machines, etc.)- the report calls for an additional $10 million.

2. Justice courts are responsible for $210 million per year in revenue- without any real accounting oversight. Part of the Action Plan requires
Auditing and Financial Control
∙ Require that justice courts transmit their monthly revenue reports to the State Comptroller electronically
∙ With the State Comptroller’s Office, develop financial control best practices for the justice courts
∙ Require local governments to submit to the Office of Court Administration copies of their annual justice court audits, and expand State auditing of justice court fiscal operations

3. Court security is a highlighted area:
Increase annual funding of the Justice Court Assistance Program to $5 million (from the current $1 million) and allow localities to apply for capital grants to upgrade justice court security

All told, the $10 million requested for the 2007 budget represents less than 5% of the revenue generated and may well be paid for with some strict auditing procedures.

Overall, Upstate Conservatives are against increasing judicial pay from the County Court level on up. Although this particular report doesn't address the pay raise issue, we are looking at this closely. Justice court funding is part of local budgets, supplemented with state funds. Any call for increased justice compensation would certainly result in higher local taxes.

The Action Plan does call for "Supervising Judges" to be appointed by January 1, 2007 for each of the eight Judicial Districts outside New York City (page 33). It's not clear whether these are new positions (very likely) or are additional duties for existing judges (unlikely), but either way, these are additional costs for taxpayers to bear.

Campaign Spending Enters the "ebay" Era

2006-11-22T16:10:00.000-08:00

by Michael Brewster

You get what you pay for, unless you fall for the sucker-bid and overpay. Veteran auction goers know that in the heat of the moment bidders may well overbid on an item, getting caught up in the excitement. In today's "ebay" campaign races, this problem is exacerbated.

A US Senate seat is worth $36 million according to spending by Sen. Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign (see details in Michael Medved's Town Hall blog). And that was for a shoo-in seat after the Republicans left John Spencer out blowing in the wind. Without Republican opposition, she basically ran unopposed and garnered 67% of the votes. In Pennsylvania, Sen. Rick Santorum spent $24 million in a losing effort. None of this national spending should be surprising when the numbers of local CNY races are examined.

In New York's 24th Congressional District, Democrat Michael Arcuri defeated Republican Ray Meier in a rare open seat contest. Spending on the race was $1.8 million by the Republicans, $1.1 million by the Democrats, the AP reported.

According to the Ithaca Journal, The Republican Senate Campaign Committee raised about $7 million this year, compared with $2 million for the Democrats. We know that over $1 million was spent by the Republicans on Jeff Brown's losing bid for the 49th Senate seat.

So where does the madness end? When will a strong local candidate run for statewide or national office stand up and refuse to allow special interest campaign donations to dictate loyalties once the seat is won? We hear a lot about bipartisan campaign reform, but the past few months prove nothing is different, that Washington and Albany are playing the same old money games.

Time for a Justice Court Overhaul

2006-11-22T08:26:00.001-08:00

If you have been watching carefully, you have seen the NY Times series about NY State's byzantine and outdated local Justice Court system. Besides being grossly deficient in terms of training, abuses by individual local justices were rampant. Tuesday, a proposal was floated by Judge Judith Kaye, NY's chief judge, to revamp the system.

link to full NY Times Article (free registration may be required)

As outlined by a series of articles in The New York Times in September, the courts have survived in part because the justices — most of them not even lawyers — have longstanding and deep ties to the upstate political system, and because of the substantial cost of replacing them with more professional courts.

link to short Albany Times Union report

"Of the six million new cases filed annually in New York's courts, two million alone are initiated or adjudicated in the justice courts," Chief Judge Judith Kaye said. "These courts must provide the same high standard of justice the public expects and deserves from any court in New York."

... Kaye and Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman said $10 million will be added initially to the state Judiciary's 2007-2008 budget request.

The good news? $10M is only about 1/1000th of $11B

NYS May Add $11Billion in Debt

2006-11-22T07:34:00.000-08:00

from today's Syracuse Post-Standard
By Erik Kriss
Albany Bureau
full article

"New York state is already suffering under huge amounts of debt, and now in the last days of the current administration, there is a rush to push through billions of dollars of projects that will load the state with billions more in debt, in many cases without getting a proper review," Comptroller Alan Hevesi said.

Certainly all such expedditures should be subject to review. Who stands to gain from such earmarks? Further in the article:

Much of the state's borrowing is done to pay for secret slush funds controlled by the governor, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

Are there any sane leaders in Albany?

Bills and Lobbyists

2006-11-22T07:31:00.000-08:00

Jim Brewster writes
This is from copied in-part of the "Brennan Report" (pg. 55).

It demonstrates the years 1997 to 2001 as to the Bills introduced before the Assembly and Senate. If you look at the percent that make it to the Governor's pen, you will be surprised.

It is a disgrace. No wonder the Lobbyists have a field day when the Legislature is in session! I think there is a $75.00 max on gifts to Leg Members, so why the 1,000's of Bills introduced? And, let's not forget the Millions of Dollars spent for just a single Senate seat right here in CNY (Jeff Brown-49thSD).

What is wrong with this picture? A blind man can see this! This is why we need to stand up and SHOUT!

The Legislators need to hear us while their fear is still there.

Who is next for www.dump............. com

Cheers....Jim

"The immense annual flood of bills introduced in each chamber reflects that the Speaker and Majority Leader do not impose any limits on this first step in the legislative process. Indeed, as shown already, this is the only step in that process which is not controlled, directly or indirectly, by these leaders. For much of the legislative session, members can and do introduce bills to highlight their policy priorities and fealty to certain institutional, organizational, or constituent interests that seek changes in state law. The fact that only a miniscule percentage of these bills will be voted on by either chamber does not deter members........"

Bills and Lobbyists Chart

2006-11-22T06:59:00.000-08:00

ASSEMBLY	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	total
Introduced	8,230	9,266	8,866	9,943	9,115	45,420
Passed by Both Chambers	192	213	229	186	221	1,041
Signed	174	188	203	150	188	903
% Passed	2.33%	2.30%	2.58%	1.87%	2.42%	2.29%
% Signed	2.11%	2.03%	2.29%	1.51%	2.06%	1.99%

SENATE
Introduced	5,808	6,833	6,183	7,052	5,858	31,734
Passed by Both Chambers	565	477	503	525	441	2,511
Signed	509	432	455	459	403	2,258
% Passed	9.73%	6.98%	8.14%	7.44%	7.53%	7.91%
% Signed	8.76%	6.32%	7.36%	6.51%	6.88%	7.12%

NYC to Change ID Rules for Transgendered

2006-11-18T11:41:00.000-08:00

The city wants to make it easier for transgender New Yorkers to switch the sex listed on their birth certificate even without undergoing sex-change surgery, putting the city at the forefront of efforts to redefine gender.

See link for full story.

and a reply to think about...

Hi;

Couldn't a registered sex offender get a new birth certificate and "start a new life" pretending to be a member of the opposite sex???

Cheers,

Renate

Something is working!

2006-11-18T11:21:00.000-08:00

We are glad to help publicize this cause. Hopefully, Mr. Robinson can achieve some redress.

Starting to get some feedback.
Assemblywoman Sayward wrote me back:

Mr. Robinson,
While I am very sorry to hear of your loss, I wish to thank you for
taking time to email me with your thoughts and ideas. I will take your
comments to our real estate analyst in Albany for his review. After he
has an opportunity to review the comments we may be able to introduce
legislation to correct this antiquated law and preserve the right of
quiet enjoyment of one's land here in New York State.
Teresa

I had a good chat with Clayton Rivet (Silver's Office). I forwarded you my written follow up with him.
Despite my calling twice, I have not heard back from Bruno's guys. I'll stay on them.

It's great that we are on the blogs - Perhaps it will lead to an uproar!
I'm waiting until I have talked to the lawmakers before I go to the press. This way the press can question them.

Aaron

A Message to New York State Landowners

2006-11-16T15:42:00.000-08:00

fellow Upstate Conservative member Carol B passes along the following:
Adverse possession cases and decisions victimizing the landowners have escalated and have been encouraged under the Republican administration.

BEWARE OF LAND THIEVES

Socialism and agrarian reform is the accepted norm in New York State with the assistance of local law enforcement agencies and approval of the legal community with the blessing of the State Supreme Court.

Apparently more lawyer welfare.

Note: This letter was was recently written in the wake of the recent decision against the latest landowner/victim in New York State under the Republican administration.

Letter to Assemblywoman Sayward

2006-11-16T15:37:00.000-08:00

A Message to New York State Landowners

Aaron Robinson
PO Box 271
Barryville, New York 12719

E-mail: arob -at- ptd -dot- net

Assemblywoman Teresa R. Sayward November 12, 2006
LOB 940
Albany, NY 12248

Dear Assemblywoman Sayward,

The verdict is in and once again the Appellate Division of the 3rd Department has taken precious property from a taxpaying owner of record and awarded it to a land marauder by adverse possession. My case is in many ways unique and further weakens the property rights of landowners across the State. The Appellate Division’s new exceptions to Statutes RPAPL 521 and 522 that govern what land can be awarded by adverse possession when there is no written document supporting the claim is opening the floodgates to loss and litigation. Until now these Statutes were unconditional in that only land actually occupied and no others can be claimed. Now this court has created a new variant contradicting the safeguards provided in these Statutes. If a claimant cannot occupy all the claimed property because of the physical character or nature of the property, the claimant is still entitled to it.

I realize that these cases involve complicated facts and common law left up for an interpretation ‘de jour’. But I will try to summarize the highlights of my case as they lower the bar for almost every required element in an adverse possession claim and negate any protection of property rights associated with the routine acts normally conducted by land transaction professionals. Now deemed meaningless by the courts in an adverse possession claim are title abstracting to ascertain clear title, having a survey and map prepared by a licensed surveyor, obtaining title insurance, recording of the deed with the Office of the County Clerk and the uninterrupted payment of real property taxes levied on the land being claimed :

The claim against my land was initiated by my brother 5 years after I purchased it in October 1997 from the record owner of 67 years. The court awarded the land based on a vesting period that ended 3 months prior to my buying the property. Nothing in the public record could have put me, the seller or my attorney handling the transaction on notice that this land had a claim against it. In fact what was in the public record was a 1987 Judgment by the Sullivan County Supreme Court that specifically declared that the claimant did not have interest in this same property from a prior attempt to get it by adverse possession. The claimant’s use of a small portion of the land claimed after my purchase was permissive (documented by my brother giving me a certificate of insurance naming me as landowner) and based on a then cooperative familial relationship. His use of the property was discontinued one year later by the sale of his business. The court chose a period before my ownership as the vesting period. How does one protect himself against unrecorded and un-adjudicated adverse possession claims that lay silent until a claimant decides when it is opportune to take action? Claims that relate to a time period prior to one’s taking title are so difficult to defend against. In my case the late principle of the owner familiar with the property died in 1993 after a being ill with cancer. Awards based on vesting periods prior to one’s ownership are an abuse by the court and nothing more than a form of stealth land theft from unsuspecting victims. By this retroactive award, did the court ‘create’ a fraudulent transaction by the seller. Do I now have a legal claim against the seller on the basis that although he had absolutely no way of knowing, he had no right to sell me property that he did not own by virtue of this court’s retroactive award 5 years after the sale? Does the State Legislature have the same power to enact laws that take effect 5 years retroactive to its being signed into law as done by this court’s ruling against me? Is there any difference?

The required element of continuous possession is now defined to be seasonal regardless of whether the claimant completely abandons the property by discontinuing his use and removing everything on it. Based on this decision, a claimant can use a property for 3 months on weekends, adjoining 2 continuous months and then be entirely undetectable for the other seven continuous months and still meet the requirement of continuous use. This definition precludes the true owner’s ability to detect the ‘open and notorious’ use by the party encroaching and take action to eject him during the non use period. A landowner who happens to inspect his land on a day during the period of abandonment has no cause to take action and cannot later demonstrate to the court that he maintained dominion over his property. This standard as it was applied by the court in my case allowed the claimant to argue that he was never ejected off the property by the owner during the vesting period. Did the court consider that it was not possible?

The level of proof for an adverse possession claim is required by common law to be by clear and convincing evidence. The court stated that the claimant performed certain activities on the property for a 5 month period and had installed a road and 2 permanent campsites. Other than claimant’s own testimony no where in the record can it be shown if or where actual use took place or the location of the alleged road or campsites during the 10 year statutory period. At trial the claimant marked up my survey map to use as proof where his activities took place and his perceived location of a road and campsite. But as the record undoubtedly showed, on September 13, 1989 a NYS Board of Health inspector filed a written report that he was unable to locate the campsites of Claimant’s campground. In fact most of what the court recited were controverted by the claimants own witnesses. As clearly and systematically pointed out in our brief, the testimony and the documentary proof of the trial record cannot provide any evidence that the asserted activities and improvements ever took place by the claimant on the disputed parcel. Can clear and convincing evidence be established by unilateral proclamation by the court and not by an accountable analysis of the facts? It appears that it very well can.

The definition of the required element of ‘Exclusive’ now means ‘Shared’. Despite the documented continued use of this property by myself with permission of the owner, my family, neighbor John Muldowney and the Traver brothers as well as many others throughout the court’s 10 year vesting period during periods that were concurrent as well as before or after the use by the claimant, the court chose to consider intensity of seasonal use by the claimant over exclusivity. Intensity of use is not an element of adverse possession. If the court does not consider that the shared use by the owner or by others as interfering with the claimant’s ability to satisfy the element of exclusive occupation, then why doesn’t the court also apply the same reasoning in the reverse to the benefit of the true owner? That is the use by the owner or by others when shared with the adverse possessor is exclusive to owner and therefore must negate a claim?
The court determined that Statutes RPAPL 521 and 522 that limit what land can be awarded by adverse possession is now subjective and determined by the ‘nature of the land’ and ‘circumstances’ of the use. The ensuing is a copy of these statutes.

Section 521 - Adverse possession under claim of title not written. Where there has been an actual continued occupation of premises under a claim of title, exclusive of any other right, but not founded upon a written instrument or a judgment or decree, the premises so actually occupied, and no others, are deemed to have been held adversely.

S 522 - Essentials of adverse possession under claim of title not written. For the purpose of constituting an adverse possession by a person claiming title not founded upon a written instrument or a judgment or decree, land is deemed to have been possessed and occupied in either of the following cases, and no others:

1. Where it has been usually cultivated or improved.

2. Where it has been protected by a substantial enclosure.

The court has now placed conditions on what it constitutes as ‘no others’ transforming its meaning to ‘no others with subjective exceptions’. Under these new rules, if a portion of a claimed property cannot be occupied by virtue of its physical nature, such as in this case ‘ its location on the riverbank subject to natural fluctuation’, the claimant is entitled to his entire land claim regardless of whether occupation was actual or not. Applying this new caveat to the statutes eliminates the need of the claimant to prove by clear and convincing evidence the precise area that was occupied while satisfying the common law elements for the statutory 10 year vesting period. It negates the mandate of the statutes and the court’s need to verify the facts of occupation. In my case the court decided that the changing shoreline of the river was basis to ignore the statutes dictate that ‘you only get what you occupy’ and therefore make unnecessary an analysis of the claimant’s proof of cultivation, improvement or enclosure. One would think that to make such a decision an examination of the portion of land effected by river’s flow would be compared to the entire claimed parcel. The court did not undertake any analysis of the area between the high and low watermark levels or the area unaffected by the river and suitable for cultivation, improvement or enclosure. In fact, record is completely devoid of any specifics that would satisfy the unadulterated statute.

The claimant admitted that he left an area to grow wild to provide a visual barrier of his activities from the public. The court included this untouched area in their award. How did the river’s changing shoreline influence the claimant’s location to cut brush or leave it uncut for a visual barrier? In addition the court included a steep 12 foot high by 12 foot wide dyke area running the length of the awarded parcel that could not be utilized for any purpose advanced by the claimant (It was actually used by neighbor John Muldowney as part of his garbage dump). How did the river’s fluctuations negate the proof of occupation for this area?

As with retroactive vesting periods, the courts new amendment to the statutes announced in my decision, precluded me from effectively defending by not knowing the criteria of the new standard. USGS data readily available from their website when applied to the topography of the awarded parcel shows that less than .09 acres encompass the area between the low and high water mark on the disputed property. Therefore proof of occupation by the claimant to the standard of the statutes should have been qualified by the court on the remaining .53 acres.

The result was a free for all land grab of .62 acres complete with arbitrary boundaries that correspond to a quit claim deed created by the claimant in December 2002, and not his occupation as an adverse possessor. Almost all of the waterfront land within the Upper Delaware River Wild and Scenic National Park is privately owned and maintained in its wild state. Federal, State and Local laws regulate its change and public policy wants these lands to be kept it in a natural condition for Park visitors to enjoy. The modification of these statutes by the court in this decision makes theses types of lands easy targets for adverse possession claims. It goes against and penalizes the owner that is deliberately keeping his land in the preferred indigenous condition. It is hard to comprehend that the statutes are fulfilling the intention of the New York State legislature when they were enacted in1962.

There is much more details to this absurd outcome. I would be more than happy to review these with you. One thing is for sure, in light of the recent ‘Przybylo’ decision where the Court of Appeals determined that a claimant’s knowledge that another party is the true owner will not defeat a claim by adverse possession, in conjunction with the implications of the court’s reasoning in my case, at serious risk is any absentee landowner of vacant land, or owners of large land parcels such as managed forestlands where it is difficult or impossible to continuously patrol each square foot of land for encroachment. Ironically in rare cases where the State can be sued for adverse possession the law doubles the statutory vesting period to 20 years in consideration of the overwhelming task of patrolling its land. What justification is there to treat the State differently than its taxpaying record owners of real estate?

Adverse Possession was intended to quiet title of disputed lands. In NYS it now succeeds to facilitate the exact opposite by providing an opportunity for an aggressive trespasser to disturb a good title every 10 years and then acquire the land without paying for it. The cost to defend ones land against an adverse possession case is prohibitive to many and has and will create land ownership by default. Prior to initiating my defense I consulted 5 independent seasoned attorneys familiar with adverse possession to determine my likelihood of overcoming this claim. Every one determined that I overwhelmingly should be successful. I have spent over $100,000 to defend a portion of my land worth $100,000. And I lost to a guy that never was even an adjoining landowner to my waterfront property until buying the house directly above it in December of 2002. This was not a case of a disputed boundary line. This was a case that used the court system as an agent to steal. If adverse possession becomes an alternative method to divest land from unsuspecting rightful land owners, to the surprise of the banks, mortgage companies, and realtors land ownership in New York will be in chaos. It is up to the legislators of the State to immediately remedy this abuse by unscrupulous claimants using a predisposed court system to steal land. Legislation must be enacted to protect the real estate assets of its citizens and preserve the tax base of the State of New York.

We assume that the Judicial arm of our Government is the most accountable and trustworthy arm. If one takes the time to review this case it will find that this court arrived at its decision by grossly overlooking the facts and the law. And when necessary it created new law. If anything is ‘clear and convincing’ the court system abrogated its responsibility serve unbiased justice. The worst part of this injustice is that I have little or no recourse to have it corrected. Please advise me if you are aware of a legal option that I can pursue.

I would be more than willing to assist in any way to expedite a reform. Perhaps my 4 years of studying the subject and reading volumes of case law could be put to a productive use.

Sincerely,
Aaron Robinson

Blame it on Bruno

2006-11-15T13:55:00.001-08:00

from Today's Syracuse Post-Standard

Disgruntled Central New York Conservatives are disillusioned with Bruno.

The group "Upstate Conservatives," which is headed by Cayuga County's Jim Brewster, includes 12 county Conservative Party chairs and launched a political action committee, is calling for Bruno's ouster.

The group, which opposed Brown's candidacy because it felt he wasn't a true conservative, faults Bruno for supporting gay rights, gerrymandering districts, padding the Senate payroll and trying to block information about pork barrel spending.

Brewster said the group would rather see Sens. Michael Nozzolio, R-Fayette, James Wright, R-Watertown, or James Seward, R-Milford, as majority leader. But he acknowledged they're likely to support Bruno for another two-year term as leader.

Sen. John DeFrancisco, R-Syracuse, is not on the group's list. Brewster noted DeFrancisco had the labor union-backed Working Families Party line - the Conservative Party's nemesis - in this year's election. Brewster also pointed out that Brown tried to get the WFP line.

Letter to Mike Long

2006-11-14T18:35:00.000-08:00

Jim Brewster calls on Long to disassociate the NYSCP from Republican involvement:

Mr. Chairman,

The below statement by David Keene has "hit the mark!"

Now is the time for the NYS Conservative Party to once again lead the way (and join the Upstate Conservatives) to demonstrate that we do have spines and call for the removal of NYS Senate Leader Joe Bruno.

It has been reported that Joe Bruno is blaming President Bush for the failures of the NYS Republican Party. Now Bruno sounds like the Liberal Democrat's that allege that the President caused Katrina too.

As we all know with the election of Elliot Spitzer and Speaker Silver holding a tight grip on the Assembly, that the great Empire State will soon be the great "Empire Pride State" as Bruno will wish to advance his "Agenda" and compromise away the principles we hold so dear by providing "Civil Unions" and paving the way for Gay Marriage in the "Empire Pride State" along with anything else Spitzer-Silver want.

Remember Bruno gave us SONDA and the highest tax increases in the history of the state. (oh yes... and we did not support him in 2004) Why would he change now?

He has lost his leverage with Spitzer with the loss of Jeff Brown after spending $1.5 Million to elect another yes man. Now he blames Nick Spano loss on President Bush?

I am surprised that Bruno thinks that Nassau Chairman Joe Mondello can resurrect the ashes that will smolder until Bruno steps down. The patient is in denial. The Republican Party of NY is on life support! Mondello could not even hold Nassau County as GOP Leader.

We can attempt to rationalize all we want to. The reality is that with Bruno gone we get a new beginning to rebuilt our coalition with conservative Republican Senators in New York. Until then...we die on the vine with the Republican Party.

Thanks for listening.

Regards,

Jim Brewster

----referring to David Keene's piece:
(click here for link to Human Events full article)
GOP Must Learn From '06 Election Failure
by David Keene
Posted Nov 13, 2006

Time for New Leadership

......We have stood by as Republicans have twisted and ignored rules to achieve their own partisan, rather than principled, ends and as leaders have used earmarks to seduce reluctant members to vote for legislation they knew was wrong or kept votes open for hours while they and their White House (ALBANY) allies bludgeoned their colleagues into line in support of such legislation...

Falling Like Dominoes

2006-11-12T06:14:00.000-08:00

State GOP leader quits; Mondello expected to replace

11/11/2006, 6:58 p.m. ET
By MARC HUMBERT
The Associated Press
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — State Republican Chairman Stephen Minarik, in the face of a Democratic sweep of all statewide offices in Tuesday's elections and the loss of three congressional seats, will step down at the end of the month.

Ryan Moses, state GOP executive director, said Saturday that Minarik informed state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno of his decision on Thursday. Bruno, as the state Legislature's top Republican, is the most powerful Republican left in state government in the wake of the Democratic gains on Tuesday.

full story in Syracuse Post-Standard

We say: Joe Bruno goes next!

Joe Bruno Press Release

2006-11-11T06:49:00.000-08:00

the Upstate Conservatives have issued a press release:

November 10, 2006
Upstate Conservatives Press Release
For Immediate Release

Contact: Jim Brewster
Phone 315 776 5312
Email: jdbrew1@localnet.com

Upstate Conservatives Coalition Calls for the Ouster of Joe Bruno
Senate Majority Leader is a One Man Legislature

Upstate Conservatives has formed to restore conservative ideals in New York State government. The same coalition that had the website www.dumpjeffbrown is now calling for the resignation of Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno. The Conservative coalition is presently headed by former New York State Conservative Party Vice-Chairman Jim Brewster and several Upstate Conservative Party leaders and also includes a cross section of bipartisan political leaders and citizens. During the past election season members of Upstate Conservatives played a role in helping to defeat Senator Bruno and Assemblyman Jeff Brown in their attempt to purchase the 49th Senate District for $1.5 Million dollars.

During his tenure as majority leader Bruno has created a dictatorship in the Senate that goes against the most basis principles of democracy.
• Only after being sued by journalists has Joe Bruno agreed to release detailed information about millions of dollars of public funds spent under his direction. Each year Bruno alone distributes these funds to Senators with no public oversight and no accountability. Citizens who live in minority districts receive millions less in tax dollars than those represented by members of Bruno’s Republican majority who use vast amounts of public funds to support pet projects and clandestinely reward political supporters.
• Joe Bruno has continually courted the support of the New York State Conservative Party, but at the same time has supported legislation that is in direct opposition to the party’s platform. i.e. SONDA Legislation, etc.
• .
• Working with his Assembly counterpart, Bruno has been able to effectively stop true legislative reform in Albany, gerrymander legislative districts to ensure election outcomes, and create an overload of bureaucrats on the public payroll.

“The time has come for Joe Bruno to go. The Republican Party under the leadership of Joe Bruno is on LIFE SUPPORT” said Brewster. “The voters of this area have rejected Bruno politics”. The Upstate Conservatives will be launching a variety of initiatives during the upcoming legislative session to excite public interest in his resignation. We will be reaching out to potential Conservative replacements for Senator Bruno to ensure they have the necessary support to challenge him. Upstate Conservatives firmly believes that by freeing the New York State Senate to function in an honest and open fashion, true legislative reform can begin in this state with a transfusion of new leadership.

Dump Joe Bruno

2006-11-10T11:45:00.000-08:00

With the momentum the Upstate Conservative group has created this fall, we should continue to work toward the goal of promoting honest Conservative values in New York State politics. We will be continuing our work here.

First Step:

I think it's time we call for Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno to resign. Bruno has demonstrated that he is no longer the leader of the Republican Party, and it is obvious that the People of New York are not willing to play that game any longer.

It is shameful that the Democrats pulled 75% of the gubernatorial vote in a state where most Congressional elections were much closer. Why would the Republicans concede defeat? Were they tired of governing?

Bruno rose to power ousting Senator Ralph Marino when Gov. George Pataki came to power. Many observers believe that Marino's support of Herb London the Conservative Party candidate for Governor in 1990 was the reason they went after Marino. This is the time for a real Conservative-Republican coalition to start working

Now that Pataki has faded into the sunset....so must Joe Bruno.