WELCOME GUEST  |  LOG IN
east hampton indoor tennis, lessons, club, training
27east.com

Story - News

Feb 10, 2011 3:27 PMPublication: The Southampton Press

Attorney Asks For $70 Million Judgment Against Southampton Town

Feb 10, 2011 3:27 PM

Southampton Town officials could be forced to pay $70 million in damages to an East Quogue woman after the town missed the deadline to respond to a federal lawsuit filed by her attorney, charging that she was wrongfully arrested and detained near the entrance to the Air National Guard base in Westhampton nearly two years ago.

Nancy Genovese filed a $70 million lawsuit against Suffolk County and Southampton Town law enforcement agencies last year, charging that she was wrongfully held and arrested after taking photographs near the entrance to the base at Gabreski Airport in July 2009—with two guns and dozens of rounds of ammunition in her car. The lawsuit charges that Ms. Genovese was the victim of assault and malicious prosecution when she was detained by the authorities for several hours on the shoulder of Old Riverhead Road and, later, spent four nights in Suffolk County Jail in Riverside.

Ms. Genovese’s attorney, Frederick K. Brewington, said on Tuesday that he filed a motion seeking a default judgment on December 16, 2010, after Town Attorney Michael Sordi failed to respond to the lawsuit. The suit was originally served to the town on or about August 30, 2010, and the town originally had until October 30, 2010, to respond. Suffolk County, the co-defendant, has responded in court, denying the allegations.

Mr. Sordi spoke with Mr. Brewington and sought an extension of two weeks or longer, but still failed to meet the new deadline, according to court records. He did not file the town’s response to the lawsuit, denying all allegations leveled by Ms. Genovese, until January 24, 2011, according to court documents.

As a result, Mr. Brewington said that Ms. Genovese should be awarded full damages. It is not clear when U.S. District Judge Joseph F. Bianco will decide on the motion.

Mr. Sordi could not be reached for comment this week, and those answering his phone at Town Hall said he was working from home all week for personal reasons.

In his written response in court, Mr. Sordi explained that two family members—his mother and his 25-year-old nephew—died within a week of one another around the same time the response was due. In addition, Mr. Sordi explained in a separate court document that he sought a two-week extension and “more, if it became necessary” during a conversation with Mr. Brewington on or about September 29, the day before the response was originally due, according to documents. An official request for an extension was never filed with the court.

In the response, Mr. Sordi said: “I was literally driving to my mother’s bedside at the moment, and so I was unable to confirm this extension in writing.” The two attorneys agreed to the extension, Mr. Sordi said, and he said he simply forgot to answer the complaint. “I simply got ‘caught up’ in my personal events and I thought, erroneously, that I had actually served the answer, when in fact I had forgotten to upon my return to work,” he wrote.

Ms. Genovese also could not be reached for comment this week.

The issue came to a head at Tuesday’s Town Board meeting when Southampton resident Elaine Kahl began asking board members—many of whom seemed to be caught off guard by the revelation—why a response was never filed.

Town Councilman Chris Nuzzi, who appeared surprised by the question, immediately asked Deputy Town Attorney Kathleen Murray to clarify what litigation Ms. Kahl was talking about. “Why is there a motion for default judgment?” he asked.

Town Supervisor Anna Throne-Holst said the issue had already been addressed in court papers filed by Mr. Sordi.

“Who is responsible to file the response?” Mr. Nuzzi then asked. Ms. Murray responded that Mr. Sordi was responsible for the town’s response.

Town Councilwoman Nancy Graboski asked why board members were never told about the situation, while Town Councilman Jim Malone told Ms. Throne-Holst that she had misrepresented the seriousness of the issue in a conversation they had last week.

“As an attorney I can say this: One of the most egregious actions or inactions any attorney can take is not responding to a pleading,” Mr. Malone said. “This is not a procedural question … this is significant. We lose right here, right now, unless the judge says, ‘You know what? Interpose your defense.’ That is quite different from ‘somebody missed an appointment.’”

Ms. Throne-Holst maintained she had not misrepresented the facts. She said she had received advice from outside counsel that the court is not likely to issue the judgment. “In this case, there was a death in the family,” she said. “It was a mother who died. And all of that has been submitted to the court.”

1  |  2  >>  

You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Already a subscriber? Sign in

Are you kidding? This whack job sat parked outside of a military base armed to the teeth and taking photos! If she had been an Arab citizen she would have been sent to jail and tried as a terrorist! Forget it, lady. No chance.
By peoplefirst (787), Southampton on Feb 8, 11 2:52 PM
Are YOU kidding?

Two firearms is not "armed to the teeth," and "taking photos" from a public thoroughfare of anything in plain sight is scarcely an arrest-able offense.

"No chance" you say? What sort of lala land do you reside in?
By Frank Wheeler (1805), Northampton on Feb 8, 11 4:29 PM
*"No chance" you say? What sort of lala land do you reside in?*

One where someone who's political views he disagrees with does not have the same civil rights as someone from a designated "victim class".
By RealityFirst (597), Bridgehampton on Feb 8, 11 4:36 PM
1 member liked this comment
Realitylast, I am beginning to think you have a crush on me!

This woman is a lunatic!
By peoplefirst (787), Southampton on Feb 8, 11 4:43 PM
1 member liked this comment
...another non response.

You wouldn't have so casually dismissed the cvil rights of this citizen if this woman's ethinicity was different.

You're a bigot. No wonder you spend so much accusing others of racism without an iota of fact.
By RealityFirst (597), Bridgehampton on Feb 8, 11 4:51 PM
1 member liked this comment
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By peoplefirst (787), Southampton on Feb 8, 11 5:38 PM
Peoplefirst, your dishonesty is stunning. Or didn't you read the site you linked to?

That Bloomberg group advertises that it's "against illegal guns," while Ms. Genovese firearms were entirely legal.

By Frank Wheeler (1805), Northampton on Feb 8, 11 6:29 PM
2 members liked this comment
With a comment like that i would think that the only people you want to put first are the ones as dense as yourself. There was not one thing that she did that was illegal. Properly stored firearms after coming from the gun range, stopped on a public street taking a picture that plenty of other people have taken. The Officers at the site had made several outrageous comments to and about her on scene. She broke no laws and was completely with in her rights at the time she was illegally detained. I ...more
By retahbil (6), OKC on Feb 9, 11 1:25 AM
1 member liked this comment
If the women, as it seems, possessed the firearms legally and as she claims that she had them for shooting at a target range...fine. The problem I have with HER is that the property SPECIFICALLY has signs posted that NO PHOTOGRAPHS ARE PERMITTED. I have lived here all my life (59 years) and as long as I can remember those signs have been posted saying that excact same thing. I do not care whether she was on a public roadway..no one has any idea why in hell would she even want to take these photographs??? ...more
By maryskitchen (5), Southampton on Feb 13, 11 9:45 AM
2 members liked this comment
Talk about frivolous law suits. The police were right to arrest Ms. Genovese. Her actions subsequent to that arrest, including a number of extremely disturbing posts on this blog, are evidence of mental instability and I am sure the police picked up on this when they found her there with a trunk full of ammunition. And peoplefirst is absolutely correct, had she been a citizen of Middle Eastern decent she would have received much worse treatment and been branded a terrorist.
By progressnow (556), sag harbor on Feb 8, 11 3:12 PM
This is not only about the lawsuit being frivolous. This is about the Town Attorney dropping the ball on this. If the court does not accept the excuse given for filling the paper late, the TAXPAYERS have to pay $70 million.
Also, if she was from the Middle East she would have been given better treatment because all the liberals would say she has rights.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Feb 8, 11 10:37 PM
1 member liked this comment
I seem to remember several other groups being branded as "Domestic Terrorists", you remember, those that would lean a little to the right. A couple hundred rounds is nothing to shoot at the range, trust me, I do it all the time. The Illegal detention at the scene after the Barney Fife wanna-be (s) knew that they had no right to hold her, set in motion the Lawsuit. The absent-minded city Attorney is just icing on the cake for this story, a calamity of bona-fide fools hired by the city to NOT do their ...more
By retahbil (6), OKC on Feb 9, 11 1:46 AM
1 member liked this comment
This an example of a this women's lawyers attempting to get as much press as possible, knowing full well that no Judge is going to issue a default judgment for 70 million because the town filed a late answer. At most the judge may require the town to pay sanctions for the late filing, but even that is almost inconceivable.

The question before the Court is how is this women prejudiced? None. Is there a reasonable excuse for the late filing? Yes. Is there merit to the defense? Of course. ...more
By Alterius (19), Westhampton Beach on Feb 10, 11 11:18 AM
1 member liked this comment
That all maybe be true, but it is the proper legal procedure to ask for the default judgment. Her payday will come after a trial......
By ICE (1214), Southampton on Feb 12, 11 6:01 PM
She didn't violate the law.

Had she been Middle Eastern you'd be defending her on those very grounds, hypocrites.
By RealityFirst (597), Bridgehampton on Feb 8, 11 3:23 PM
Are you so sure?? it has been posted NO PHOTOS etc..as long as I can remember. Why doi she want these specific photos?? She could get the images of planes on the computer..right?? Why these specific planes??? Can you explain why those planes...with guns in her car?? Why not take them on a day when she DID NOT have the guns in the car? I bet she would not have PUT HERSELF (lets remember no one froced her to do this...she made this decision) in this difficult situtaion.
By maryskitchen (5), Southampton on Feb 13, 11 9:59 AM
1 member liked this comment
$70 MILLION!!! Why doesn't this nut job try for $70 Billion. WHAT A WASTE OF TIME. When you mess around a military installment, take photos, and have a carload of ammunition.......well, in this day & age the authorities did the right thing and followed the right procedures. Arab or not, removing her from the situation into legal custody, and releasing the information was the right way to go. If any kind of default judgment is made this will be a real travesty of justice and a huge waste of taxpayer ...more
By SisBoomBonacker (106), Hamptons on Feb 8, 11 3:25 PM
No doubt, sisboom. No doubt!
By peoplefirst (787), Southampton on Feb 8, 11 4:43 PM
You have a problem with opening your mouth and your foot flying in there out of instinct......don't you. She at no time broke a single law. She did have her rights violated.

Some of your brain-dead cohorts above were the ones bringing the "Arab" race into the issue, of which has no bearing on the case. So "Quack" away... birds of a feather, flock together. What a bunch of frothing at the mouth racists!
By retahbil (6), OKC on Feb 9, 11 1:54 AM
1 member liked this comment
a default judgment means that the Town of Southampton could be on the hook for 70 million because the Town Attorney did not respond. Not a deputy but THE Town Attorney Michael Sordi. He is not even a resident of Southampton so that means that we get stuck with the bill not him. Michael Sordi dropped the ball and were stuck holding it now. Your tax dollars pay his salary and will now pay the 70 million.
By mainstreet (6), southampton on Feb 8, 11 3:31 PM
2 members liked this comment
This an example of a this women's lawyers attempting to get as much press as possible, knowing full well that no Judge is going to issue a default judgment for 70 million because the town filed a late answer. At most the judge may require the town to pay sanctions for the late filing, but even that is almost inconceivable.

The question before the Court is how is this women prejudiced? None. Is there a reasonable excuse for the late filing? Yes. Is there merit to the defense? Of course. ...more
By Alterius (19), Westhampton Beach on Feb 10, 11 11:21 AM
1 member liked this comment
Same response......
By ICE (1214), Southampton on Feb 12, 11 6:09 PM
Driving around with ammunition in your trunk is not a crime or grounds for arrest. PERIOD.

Now an attorney representing the town didn't meet a deadline due to "personal issues'? Try that with the town if your property tax payment is late.

The authorities had every right to investigate, but no proboble cause warranting an arrest. Her rights were violated.

Plaintiffs in cases like these usually ask for a ridiculous amount of money.

The town will lose, and rightly ...more
By RealityFirst (597), Bridgehampton on Feb 8, 11 3:32 PM
Totally irresponsible and now were going to spend more money on lawyers trying to undo this extremely irresponsible action by Town Attorney Michael Sordi
By mainstreet (6), southampton on Feb 8, 11 3:34 PM
1 member liked this comment
The town should forget to renew Mr. Sordi's contract. Judges don't take kindly to attorney malpractice, and Mainstreet is right, it will cost the town much more than it would have otherwise.
By RealityFirst (597), Bridgehampton on Feb 8, 11 3:38 PM
Reailty - the Town Attorneys are hired on 2 year terms by the Town Board. It's almost certain that at the start of 2012, Mr. Sordi would not be the Town Attorney (even without this incident on his already poor record). I can't think of the last Town Attorney who survived a change in Supervisors
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 8, 11 3:41 PM
1 member liked this comment
Thanks for that. One would think representing local governmental entities would be such a specialized area of law that it would make much more sense to be a civil service position rather than a political appointment.
By RealityFirst (597), Bridgehampton on Feb 8, 11 3:58 PM
1 member liked this comment
Or that it would benefit the Town and their respective taxpayers to appoint an Attorney from the immediate area who has local knowledge and wasn't booted from Nassau County after bungling a case that cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars.
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 8, 11 4:25 PM
I think it's hilarious that the posters above are so upset about the $70 million lawsuit (which of course, is an absurd and unjustified sum of money). That is what upsets you, and not the fact that our TOWN ATTORNEY (who is paid quite well with your hard-earned dollars) didn't respond to the lawsuit because:

"As a result of personal issues, I inadvertently failed to serve said answer in a timely fashion even though I thought I had done so.”

This is what the Town gets for ...more
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 8, 11 3:40 PM
1 member liked this comment
Hey, nature, if this lunatic hadn't been there in the first place there would be no case.
By peoplefirst (787), Southampton on Feb 8, 11 4:45 PM
Wow, so "she shouldn't have been there"!!??

peoplefirst measures justice and civil rights on a sliding scale, apparently.



By RealityFirst (597), Bridgehampton on Feb 8, 11 4:54 PM
1 member liked this comment
She broke no Laws by taking photos off of the public street she was parked on. If your keyboard was taken away the collective IQ here would rise significantly, but you are still allowed on the web. So if you would walk away from the computer, there would be no proof of your blatant self-loathing, racists attitude towards people.
By retahbil (6), OKC on Feb 9, 11 2:11 AM
Isn't calling her a lunatic a hate crime against crazy people? If race, religion, gender and nationality are all afforded hate crime protection, so should mental classifications as well be extended the same ideology.
By ICE (1214), Southampton on Feb 12, 11 6:12 PM
Ridiculous pic - are they presenting her with the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes check? Maybe...

I'm reasonably certain a default judgment will 'only' result in the Town admitting liability - she'll still have to prove up her damages. But by admitting liability, the Town has removed her biggest hurdle and has paved the way for her to recover something for all the pain/suffering/humiliation/etc. she'll claim she suffered.

Mr. Sordi's got some esplainin' to do...
By CoweeDewey (110), East Quogue on Feb 8, 11 4:02 PM
the deafault would be for everything, not just the liability aspect of it. what a mess.
By tm (174), mtk on Feb 8, 11 4:19 PM
I don't think so. You only get damages on default when your damages are "liquidated." LIquidated damages typically arise under contract (whereby, if you breach, contract provides the amount of damages you'll pay $X as "liquidated damages"). This is a tort case, where damages are inherently unliquidated. Assuming a default is entered (which, by the way, is generally unlikely), the court still must hold a hearing to fix her damages.
By CoweeDewey (110), East Quogue on Feb 8, 11 4:37 PM
If a default isn't granted, are ANY sanctions likely to be imposed against the defendants?
By RealityFirst (597), Bridgehampton on Feb 8, 11 4:41 PM
No default means the case moves forward. Defendants will either seek to dismiss the complaint (advisable) or will answer it. If they answer, discovery ensues, followed by motions for summary judgment (essentially seeking a judgment based on the evidence, but without having to go to trial). If the motions are denied, then there's a trial, presumably with a jury (if either party requested a jury trial).
By CoweeDewey (110), East Quogue on Feb 8, 11 5:03 PM
Please refer to the CPLR I believe that you are mistaken. The time to answer the complaint has passed. Unless the court grants the Town's motion to vacate the default judgment it's over and the Town loses. Damages, however are still arguable.
By mainstreet (6), southampton on Feb 8, 11 7:08 PM
The default judgment means that she has already won the suit. Since the suit was over damages and not related to an agreement such as a contract then the case will proceed to the next phase. Depending on how the case originated in the courts it will go before a judge or jury to determine the monetary value of the damages now.
By retahbil (6), OKC on Feb 9, 11 2:23 AM
they have only asked for a default, it has not yet been granted to the best of my knowledge.
By tm (174), mtk on Feb 9, 11 5:16 PM
The Publisher's Clearing House checks are much bigger.....
By ICE (1214), Southampton on Feb 12, 11 6:15 PM
1 member liked this comment
Agreed the story is about inexucsable inaction by the Town Attorney. And it will cost the taxpayers plenty. He should resign. There are plenty of other lawyers in that office that could have filed the paperwork.
By mainstreet (6), southampton on Feb 8, 11 4:02 PM
...rumor has it Mr. Sordi hasn't been @ Town Hall for a week. Hmm...Maybe ATH is trying to undo her mistake
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 8, 11 4:26 PM
The town attorney should be investigated by the district attorney's office to insure that this lapse was not inadvertent. He should be immediately replaced before he causes anymore harm to the town. It would seem to me that the whole staff of that department has to be reviewed. Is it up to the town attorney to keep track of deadlines or an assistant in the office?
By V.Tomanoku (677), southampton on Feb 8, 11 4:43 PM
1 member liked this comment
No question, no excuses - it's the attorney's responsibility.
By CoweeDewey (110), East Quogue on Feb 8, 11 5:05 PM
1 member liked this comment
This same thing happened to Sordi when he was with Nassau County. He was let go not because he served under Suozzi, but because he failed to file routine legal paperwork resulting in Nassau's largest settlement....does anyone see a pattern with Mr. Sordi here?????
By southfork11960 (14), Southampton on Feb 8, 11 4:47 PM
I totally think her rights were violated but come on after 9/11 anyone with half a brain knows u dont sit in a car taking pictures of a military installation with guns in your car. Makes you wonder if she wasn't looking for trouble.
I personally would have been more upset if she was able to do that and not be arrested. Lets face it people we are at war with terrorists. this is no longer the 70s or 80s when you could walk down Montauk Hwy with a shot gun over your shoulder heading to your duck ...more
By rich4411 (9), Hampton Bays on Feb 8, 11 4:55 PM
You got the "her rights were violated" section right, but no need to go Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory on the rest. People need to stop letting what some lunatic Muslim extremists did rule them with worry of what might and fear.
By retahbil (6), OKC on Feb 9, 11 2:39 AM
1 member liked this comment
The position should be elected and the individual should be a resident of Southampton. Any way you look at this one Sordi must go. There have also been allegations of unprofessional conduct by Mr. Sordi in the Southampton Justice Court.
By mainstreet (6), southampton on Feb 8, 11 4:56 PM
1 member liked this comment
Rich, you are wrong.

The police should be vigilant, and investigating this was appropriate. However, there was no cause to arrest her.

Unfortunatelly, to peoplefirst and progressnow, "shredding the constitution" in the name of security is suddenly ok becuase of who was involved.
By RealityFirst (597), Bridgehampton on Feb 8, 11 4:59 PM
1 member liked this comment
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By peoplefirst (787), Southampton on Feb 8, 11 5:33 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By AARGHHH (12), Hamptons on Feb 8, 11 5:17 PM
2 members liked this comment
The "concept" of terrorism existed then (as did actual terrorists). The Founding Fathers were well aware of it when they wrote the Constitution. The whole idea was that, in a (reasonably) free and open society governed by laws, the extreme views of the minority could not be imposed on the majority.

Keep in mind the 9/11 attacks had dual goals: horrific death/destruction but, more important, instilling fear/terror. To those Stone Age Islamic extremists, the ultimate 9/11 victory would ...more
By CoweeDewey (110), East Quogue on Feb 8, 11 6:35 PM
1 member liked this comment
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By peoplefirst (787), Southampton on Feb 8, 11 5:35 PM
What an ugly human being to do such a thing as to sue for $70mm! Even worse, what a lousy townsperson and county member. The article reads like she is JUST sueing the town police and the county, well guess who that is folks, you and me. So sorry you were inconvenienced doing something a person with a half a brain in their head would have avoided doing simply given their circumstances and location. Don't come taking my money because you can't think like an adult. I'm not into gun control, but ...more
By HarborDad (37), Sag Harbor on Feb 8, 11 5:52 PM
> "The cops who arrested and detained her should be fired, as should the Town Atty who didn't think it was important enough to answer the Complaint on time."

No argument about the Attorney -- he should have already contacted his own malpractice carrier.

And I don't have a problem with her being detained for questioning if there was actually a good faith basis for that action.

The arrest is what troubles me. She was on a public road, not committing any crime. Her firearms ...more
By Frank Wheeler (1805), Northampton on Feb 9, 11 12:07 AM
The Attorney and Cops won't learn a thing...the Town Attorney did the same crap @ Nassau County and still landed a job for Southampton Town. Plus, it's we the people who suffer and have to foot the $70 million bill (which would never be awared but you get the idea).

Sordi won't pay at all since he isn't a Town resident and doesn't have to foot the bill.
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 9, 11 9:14 AM
The police are trained to be thorough and we should be thanking them. After her arrest (AND RELEASE!) Ms. Genovese came on these boards to try and defend herself and instead ended up demonstrating that she could, to put it mildly, be considered a bit out of it.

I am sure the police picked up on this - a clearly imbalanced person sitting in her car near the entrance of a base taking photos with a gun and "DOZENS OF ROUNDS OF AMMUNTION." The police had every right to be suspicious and ...more
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 9, 11 9:19 AM
"Genovese's arrest was a direct result of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's Patriot Act which the right was so very proud of supporting."

So without the Patriot Act, this "lunatic" wouldn't have been arrested.

So to sum up, position is
...the arrest was warranted and absolutely necessary
...the evil Patriot Act should be eliminated
...without the evil Patriot Act this this arrest wouldn't have happened

Why did Obama write a letter urging congress to renew all the ...more
By RealityFirst (597), Bridgehampton on Feb 9, 11 3:47 PM
You got it exactly right, realitylast. You've perfectly spelled out the neocon hypocrisy.

As for Obama - unlike the zombie wingnuts on the right, we progressives do no blindly support our leaders on everything they do. We approach each and every issue intellectually. Obama was wrong.

The teaparty supported candidates actually sided with most dems on this, so I'll have to give them credit for sticking to their libertarian roots.
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 9, 11 4:26 PM
The hypocrisy is entirely yours, and you're too thick to see it.
By RealityFirst (597), Bridgehampton on Feb 9, 11 5:07 PM
Is there no scheduling software in place in SH Town to prevent such a sophomoric oversight?

Scary to think about what other lawsuits against the Town are sitting in the gutter, ready to explode!

Anna, after you answer questions tonight about what Kabot text messages and phone calls you might have received right after her DWI stop, perhaps you can address this apparent . . .

SYSTEMIC ERROR !!!
By PBR (4883), Southampton on Feb 8, 11 6:01 PM
And we wonder why our taxes are going up..too handle these cases that the town loses..........We need someone in office who is going to run The own of Southampton like a business..no mistakes.
By uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu (3), on Feb 8, 11 6:21 PM
Het, moderator, please explain your methodology for removing comments. You have folks like reality first accusing people of siding with terrorists and spitting on soldiers, but you allow those comments to stay while deleting those who respond to him? If it is based on the number of people who flag a comment as inappropriate then you are not taking into account the fact that these boards are overrun with wingnuts
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 8, 11 6:34 PM
Signed the WING KING
By joe hampton (3229), south hampton on Feb 9, 11 4:53 AM
An inexcusable mistake by the Town Attorney and his staff. Where was his secretary on this? Any attorney worth his salt would be paying very close attention to a suit handled by Frederick Brewington, who is quite high profile. The guy is very sharp and extremely detail oriented. I served on a jury in a case he handled - this town is in serious trouble.
By goldenrod (505), southampton on Feb 8, 11 7:57 PM
I don't understand how the town could make such a ridiculous mistake. I also can't believe that this lunatic can recieve a judgement for driving around with an arsenal in her car.
Just seeing her around town bragging about getting into the paper and how she is going to be rich makes me sick. The only judgement this woman should recieve is a sentence to the psych ward!
By SS&BMOMMY (5), East Quogue on Feb 8, 11 9:41 PM
Lunatic. Arsenal. Psych ward.

Do your words express your considered opinion here?

The Constitution is best viewed as one would view a leash on a mean dog. It is not the leash which "gives" you rights. Your rights pre-exist the Constitution. The Constitution hopefully serves to protect your rights.

One would view the chains as a Duty on the part of the Police in this matter. The cops were in Breach of their Duties. The woman's rights were violated - in itself an injury.

Please ...more
By circle456 (2), San Francisco on Feb 23, 11 2:38 AM
Anna tried to pay down the fact that the town attorney that she wanted dropped the ball on filing the paperwork on time on this $70 million lawsuit. Anna where is the transparency you are always talking about. The council members did not know about this, except Flemming she knew, and tried very hard to cover it up with Anna. What the heck is going on$70 mill the tax payers may have to pay because this guy screwed up?
This is the same town attorney (Mike Sordi) that Anna said could handle the ...more
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Feb 8, 11 10:28 PM
2 members liked this comment
Sorry. I think she would be irresponsible and stupid to discuss what the town's strategy and plan with respect to a $70 Million default judgment in open session.
By V.Tomanoku (677), southampton on Feb 8, 11 10:42 PM
Understood. I was trying to make a point. She tried to discuss the MTA lawsuit in an open work session a few months ago. Nuzzi, Malone and Graboski vote yes to hire outside counsel and not give the case to the town attorney Michael Sordi. Now because the Town Attorney
screwed up she wanted to cover it up and not even inform the 3 about it. Nuzzi, Malone and Graboski found out about Sordi not filing the papers on time in a Town Board meeting tonight. So the reason for exec session was not just ...more
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Feb 8, 11 11:49 PM
This Sordi is an Anna Throne-Holst appointment, I believe.
By Frank Wheeler (1805), Northampton on Feb 9, 11 8:30 AM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By V.Tomanoku (677), southampton on Feb 9, 11 8:33 AM
No I have not seen the movie.I did not know they are on the web. But if its up on the web then i guess my point is moot. Thank you .
By V.Tomanoku (677), southampton on Feb 9, 11 8:34 AM
OK. I did what I thought was the logical thing to do and went to the SEA-TV web site. Of course, I could not find any link there for past meetings or anything. Can someone post a link where we can find these videos. Thanks.
By V.Tomanoku (677), southampton on Feb 9, 11 8:57 AM
http://southamptonny.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 9, 11 9:27 AM
Correct the Supervisor always get to pick the Town Attorney of her choice. The rest of the Town Board usually just agrees in the hiring and votes yes on the resolution. As in this case. Sordi is Anna's boy and if you have kept up with the meetings you will notice he always agrees with her. Remember the MTA argument regarding the open work session and questing of outside counsel.
Thats way she is defending him, this is a direct reflection on her for hiring him.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Feb 9, 11 11:51 AM
Thank you for the link. ...It was good to see the video in its entirety. It fills in a lot. It clarifies for me the reason for missing the deadline due to the loss of a parent by the town attorney. However it does not justify why in the subsequent three month he did not do so nor assign it to someone else to file an explanation for the lapse. Perhaps his grief incapacitated him. Its tough for an outsider to judge.

I wonder what type of report exists for the board to accompany litigation. ...more
By V.Tomanoku (677), southampton on Feb 9, 11 12:25 PM
Nice link Nature
Once at the link that nature provided, go to the February 8, 1 p.m. meeting click on the little camera icon, a screen will open of the town board meeting you can fast forward to the public portion after the public hearings.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Feb 9, 11 12:37 PM
Just an additional observation. When the sums involved are this large why not bring in outside council? Might be worth looking into this in the future too...Penny wise, pound foolish.
By V.Tomanoku (677), southampton on Feb 9, 11 1:15 PM
counsel
By V.Tomanoku (677), southampton on Feb 9, 11 1:54 PM
Because no judge worth their degree would ever award something that approachs $70 million for what happend to her. She was probably harassed by Police and she probably has suffered some damages to her life because of it (though she has not helped herself by what she has said on 27east) but in no way does she deserve $70 million.

Let's assume worst case scenario, and this arrest made her lose her job and unable to ever recieve gainful employment. A judge wouldn't give her more than what ...more
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 9, 11 2:12 PM
In the event of a summary judgment: The town budget is $80 million. If we fire everyone and disband the government we could be out of this in a year. If we sold off all town government property we could pay for it with no cash out of pocket and walk away with a nice profit.
By Noah Way (450), Southampton on Feb 8, 11 10:45 PM
get her the Kabot jury... she'll probably get 80 million.
By littleplains (305), olde england on Feb 9, 11 4:35 AM
1 member liked this comment
Maybe they could find you a nice room at Pilgrim State
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Feb 9, 11 12:32 PM
I should have new the party was in here you all saw a $ amount
By joe hampton (3229), south hampton on Feb 9, 11 4:52 AM
... let's go to the videotape.
By William Rodney (514), southampton on Feb 9, 11 7:41 AM
From a press release on Michael Sorid's Hiring:

" I hope that my performance will meet or exceed the expectations of Supervisor Throne-Holst and the entire Town Board, and I am gratified by the confidence they have entrusted me with by virtue of my appointment as Town Attorney."

And ATH had this to say: "Michael Sordi is an excellent choice, and the Town Board joins me in welcoming him as our new Town Attorney. His depth of knowledge and experience on so many fronts will make him ...more
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 9, 11 9:21 AM
Once again I will ask government who is watching the store...Town attorney needs to be fired or HOPEFULLY he has errors and ommissions insurance cause this was a BIG error...he would be fired on the spot in private business...if you have a personal issue and are distracted, make sure others cover for you and since he is a public official...what the heck are the personal issues?????????????????????????? I would assume a 70 million judgement could bankrupt the town.................................................
By Quogonian (14), Quogue on Feb 9, 11 9:23 AM
His mother died at the time of the deadline. Unfortunately in the subsequent three months nothing was done about it until the plaintiff filed for the default judgment.
By V.Tomanoku (677), southampton on Feb 9, 11 12:34 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 9, 11 9:28 AM
unfair to bring someone's personal life into the conversation.
By progressnow (556), sag harbor on Feb 9, 11 9:44 AM
Low blow, nature
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 9, 11 9:52 AM
You have to kidding PERSONAL LIFE? He is the TA and it was his job to follow-up on this or give it to someone else. He had months to file the papers.
This m guy is a screw up, I can't believe anyone would defend his actions.
$70 Million folks.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Feb 9, 11 11:54 AM
By all I'm hearing and learning the man is an severe depression. Incapable of performing his job beyond his capability to recognize his condition. I would think that this would be brought up to the judges attention and that the plaintiff and their attorney make an allowance for that. Its the right thing to do. Nobody loses any rights or claims and allow for the case to proceed as if an extension had been granted. We all fall down...
By V.Tomanoku (677), southampton on Feb 9, 11 12:40 PM
Hey, rage rep, what does his personal life have to do with this? If he failed as a professional, fine, call him out, but to bring up his "estranged kids" is just stupid and unnecessary. No wonder you defend it.
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 9, 11 12:49 PM
Radical Razza you have really lost it. Read the comments again it was not me who mentioned his children. Try to keep up.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Feb 9, 11 6:11 PM
You defended the comment "You have to kidding PERSONAL LIFE? He is the TA and it was his job to follow-up on this or give it to someone else. "
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 9, 11 7:03 PM
It speaks to the character of the person and he was the one who said it was a "personal matter" that resulted in him neglecting to answer this lawsuit and do his job that the taxpayers pay him to do.
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 9, 11 10:08 AM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 9, 11 12:52 PM
Hey moderator, why did you delete my post? I am not allowed to disagree with Nature? I'll ask you again, please define your methodology.
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 9, 11 1:24 PM
Clearly, there are several troubling things about the events described in this story. One of them, which has received little or no attention so far, is the atmosphere of skirmishing that characterized the Town Board's approach to this matter. The 'gotcha' tactics on one hand, and the pugnacious defensiveness on the other, are all too familiar to observers of this Town Board. It seems to be how these officials deal with a large number of the issues before them. It may be "campaign season," as ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1888), Quiogue on Feb 9, 11 12:20 PM
House of Reps - 2 yr term
Pres/VP - 4 yr term
Senate - 6 yr term
By tm (174), mtk on Feb 9, 11 12:41 PM
TB: having watched you pound the podium over the (horrendous) Kratoville appointment (and process), I find your comments about "the atmosphere of skirmishing" to be, um, disingenuous.

Thanks to Nature's link (above) I just finished watching yesterday afternoon's Town Board meeting, and it left me with a terrible feeling in the pit of my stomach.

This Town, thanks to the inexcusable oversight of the Town Attorney's office -- if Michael Sorti was incapacitated, what was the Deputy ...more
By Frank Wheeler (1805), Northampton on Feb 9, 11 2:24 PM
Frank you are correct all all point and Anna is a liar and incompetent.
Turkey Bridge is the spin master but we the people are not Stupid.
We are watching closely on what is really going on.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Feb 9, 11 5:43 PM
tm: Thanks so much for passing along that hard-to-find info on federal terms of office. Don't know what we'd do without you. Sarcasm aside, my point was that, looking across all the states and the federal government, the general trend is for chief executives to have terms as long as, or longer than, the legislators. There may be exceptions, but that's the general trend, and Southampton goes the other way.

Mr. Wheeler: So Frank, how do you like being right there in synch on "all point" ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1888), Quiogue on Feb 10, 11 9:05 PM
In my post immediately above, 2nd paragraph, 2nd line, 3rd word should read "intellectual." Sorry.
By Turkey Bridge (1888), Quiogue on Feb 10, 11 9:12 PM
Heaney tried to get the supervisor's term to be 4 years, he failed.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Feb 9, 11 12:41 PM
Could you imagine if person was not arrested and started shooting people,everyone would of been sreaming how come the police didn't arrest her. I hope when she loses her lawsuit the judge makes her and her attorney reimburse the town and county for their costs. These BS lawsuits have to stop. When they pass a law, which they won't that requires the loser to reimburse the contra party this nonsense will stop.
By maxwell (169), speonk on Feb 9, 11 1:16 PM
2 members liked this comment
Ms. Genovese was the utterly innocent victim of plankeaded, bored cops who smelled excitement in their humdrum lives and overacted so violently that Buster Keaton would have found their behavior completely unbelievable.

First, she is reported taking photographs of an obsolescent helicopter by an OFF-DUTY STPD lieutenant. (If he were ON-duty, he would simply have arrested her for DWI.)

Then, eight hours later, after she has been cleared by every police agency from Homeland Security ...more
By highhatsize (3792), East Quogue on Feb 9, 11 1:19 PM
1 member liked this comment
Highhat, your hate for cops is tiresome. See maxwell's posting above and find a new pony to ride.
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 9, 11 1:22 PM
2 members liked this comment
Maybe she was taking pictures of an obsolete helicopter. Or she could have been taking pictures of the entrance to a military base. Recording the comings and goings of personel or anything else that could have been benificial to a homegrown terrorist. They rightfully detained her and felt they needed to investigate further. Thank God it wasn't ignored. Never forget 9/11. Never forget
By ADAMSG (53), EAST QUOGUE on Feb 9, 11 4:53 PM
I agree with you, Razza. But I have to admit that HighHatSized's comment about Buster Keaton helmets and big handle-bar mustaches is pretty funny....

Just sayin :)
By elliot (243), sag harbor on Feb 9, 11 4:54 PM
HiHatsize= don't ever change.
By Johnny Nova (83), Northampton on Feb 15, 11 9:57 PM
Everybody calm down. This is a frivolous motion. Sordi answered on January 24, 2011. The fact that it is technically untimely is irrelevant.

Default judgments are highly disfavored and a party can generally defend at anytime before default is actually entered. A federal judge is not going to enter a $70 million default against a municipality that has filed papers in defense of the action.

Its a joke PR move meant to boil up the blood, and as a quick review of this comments section ...more
By ex-pat (49), East Quogue on Feb 9, 11 2:03 PM
Excellent point - it's humorous that everyone is freaking out about the $70 million... no judge would ever award that, and if they did the Town would easily win in an appeal. You have to prove your damages...
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 9, 11 2:08 PM
A $70 million default judgment is now pending, and whether it is entered or not depends on the whim of a Federal Judge somewhere.

I hope you're right, but the irresponsibility if the Town Attorney's office is staggering! Did you follow your own link and watch yesterday afternoon's meeting?
By Frank Wheeler (1805), Northampton on Feb 9, 11 2:29 PM
Simply not true. It does not depend on the whim of a federal judge. The district court is required to exercise its sound judicial discretion in determining whether judgment should be entered, and must consider several factors including (1) the amount of money involved; (2) whether material issues of fact exist; (3) whether the default was largely technical (4) whether the moving party has been substantially prejudiced by the delay; (5) how harsh an effect default judgment would have, and (6) whether ...more
By ex-pat (49), East Quogue on Feb 9, 11 3:05 PM
1 member liked this comment
Ex-pat
Who are you damage control for Anna Throne-Holst the untimely filing now is irrelevant???
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Feb 9, 11 5:47 PM
No, I don't really know anything about Ms. Throne-Host and I have no opinion on whether she remains in office another day. My username is ex-pat for a reason, as I no longer live on the East End. I simply enjoy reading 27east in order to keep abrest of the activities in my hometown.

As an attorney, I am simply trying to help the commentators on this board understand the actual consequences and repercussions of Mr. Sordi's error. Other than the egg of the Town's face and the damage to ...more
By ex-pat (49), East Quogue on Feb 9, 11 7:15 PM
This Genovese case is interesting, and the youtube video of the Council squabbling is hilarious.

I'm not an Attorney - but I did find this:

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 55, Default Judgment:

(a) Entering a Default.
When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default.

(d) Judgment Against the United ...more
By circle456 (2), San Francisco on Feb 23, 11 1:23 PM
Who manages the attorneys and what controls or procedures does the town have in place to monitor timelines and progress so mistakes like this one get caught in time? I come from a highly regulated industry where we managed timelines so things stay on track.
By Peconic Sunset (8), Southampton on Feb 9, 11 3:15 PM
Who do you think manages them? ATH and the rest of the clown car... Sordi should have never been hired in the first place. His track record and the fact that he currently lives in Nesconsett are two huge red flags. God only knows how ATH got "hooked up" with this guy
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 9, 11 3:19 PM
I think she is accountable. I intend to send her a written requst for an explanation about how something like this was dropped and what she is going to do to prevent future lapses.
By Peconic Sunset (8), Southampton on Feb 9, 11 3:25 PM
This is the new "American Dream." Do something unintelligent and make a ton of money of it...$70 million...at least she'll be able to afford to live out in the East End.
By BaymenNYC (59), Manhattan on Feb 9, 11 5:11 PM
2 members liked this comment
"This is the new "American Dream." Do something unintelligent and make a ton of money of it...$70 million...at least she'll be able to afford to live out in the East End."

Best post in this thread!
By RealityFirst (597), Bridgehampton on Feb 9, 11 5:15 PM
"This is the new "American Dream." Do something unintelligent and make a ton of money of it...$70 million...at least she'll be able to afford to live out in the East End."

Best post in this thread!
By RealityFirst (597), Bridgehampton on Feb 9, 11 5:15 PM
*off

@Reality...glad ya liked it. This type of nonsense drives me nuts.
By BaymenNYC (59), Manhattan on Feb 9, 11 6:05 PM
The Town Supervisor is responsible for managing the Town Attorney. It is why while it is not officially his or her final decision on who to hire, they typically have been given deference by the Town Board on his or her choice.
Turkey you just shred your last bit of credibilty with your call today for the end to the perpetual campaign, given how relentlessly you and your gang have waged it on behalf of your party and Supervisor.
By DJII13 (155), Hampton Bays on Feb 9, 11 5:11 PM
Yes, she is responsible for managing the Town Attorney, and in this case, for hiring the guy in the first place.

Why? What's the correction? You always seem to know :stuff," DJII13. Please fill us in.
By Frank Wheeler (1805), Northampton on Feb 9, 11 8:43 PM
While she may have hired, him, she's not responsible for managing his calendar - that responsibility falls to the attorney ONLY.

Sordi is the lone person responsible for this inexcusable neglect.
By CoweeDewey (110), East Quogue on Feb 9, 11 9:44 PM
Don't try to kid the people, DJ -- I never had any credibility with you, and I never will, because that's a partisan thing for you. The fact is, though, that of course we've fought our corner and waged the perpetual campaign, and so has the other side, right along. Both sides basically have to do that, as long as the Supervisor's term is just two years. That's my point -- if we lengthen it to four years, maybe we get rid of the perpetual campaign.
By Turkey Bridge (1888), Quiogue on Feb 13, 11 4:43 PM
Let's look at this rationally.

When she was arrested, it was not the first time she was asked by base personnel to "cease, and desist" in her behavior. In fact, she repeatedly "played with fire".

But, hey, this is America, Jack. IF you have the right lawyer, blatant stupidity pays heavy dividends...
By Mr. Z (10704), North Sea on Feb 9, 11 7:18 PM
2 members liked this comment
Yes, She brought this on herself. The arrest never would have happened if she listened. She was told several times by base personal that she could not take photographs there. It is stated in the initial article reguarding her arrest on August 5, 2009. With the results of 9-11 any normal American would have said sorry to the ANG personal and understood the reasoning for the request without question. She should be paying Southampton taxpayers for her stupidy not the otherway around.
By lifesaver (116), speonk on Feb 10, 11 8:44 AM
No, I do NOT "like" your comment -- I just clicked on the wrong button.

The fallacy of your position, Lifesaver, is that all charges were dropped against the Genovese woman. That means that she should never have been arrested in the first place.

You can call her names and deplore what she did, but at the end of the day she did nothing wrong, and should never have been arrested.

Questioned? Yes! But her firearms were legally possessed, not displayed in a threatening manner, ...more
By Frank Wheeler (1805), Northampton on Feb 10, 11 2:33 PM
The fact that a person is not charged with a crime, or that charges are subsequently dropped, says absolutely nothing about the appropriateness or legality of the arrest itself.

People are lawfully arrested every day in this country and ultimately set free without charges or conditions. That is not a legal basis for a civil rights lawsuit.
By ex-pat (49), East Quogue on Feb 10, 11 2:54 PM
By the way, there is no difference between "detained for questioning" and "arrested." Both are seizures. A person is either free to go or they are not. If they're not free to go, they're under arrest. If they are free to go, they're not. You don't need to be charged with a crime to be lawfully seized.
By ex-pat (49), East Quogue on Feb 10, 11 2:57 PM
Someone seems to have hung out his shingle on this forum -- and I'm alright with that. I try to chose my language carefully, and now I'll have to work harder,

My impression -- subject to ex-pat's correction, of course -- is that someone "under arrest" is not "free to go," but that someone, not "detained" but "stopped for questioning," would be free to go upon asserting his or her intention to do so.
By Frank Wheeler (1805), Northampton on Feb 10, 11 3:06 PM
If we're going to get technical about it, ex-pat is wrong - "arrest" and "detained" are different.

Arrest means you are taken into police custody, and are typically restrained (handcuffed, put in cell). Detained for questioning is temporary and does NOT involve being taken into custody or being restrained.
By CoweeDewey (110), East Quogue on Feb 10, 11 5:24 PM
Boil this down in the crucible, and the fact remains is had she sought PERMISSION from base authorites, to take photos for her "project", it would have been a non-issue.

She REPEATEDLY CHOSE to disregard base protocol.

"Had Woody gone straight to the police, none of this would have happened."

~ Walter Lantz
By Mr. Z (10704), North Sea on Feb 11, 11 6:14 PM
P.S.

She REPEATEDLY was asked by base personnel NOT to photograph the area.

Not once, not twice, and roughly the FOURTH time she was caught with a camera near the base, she was taken into custody.

Seems to me, they probably gave her "three strikes", with a trunk full of guns, and ammo in the vehicle. In addition, she blogged questionable material from a psychological standpoint on MySpace, which at the time was barely one step above being the dirty dive bar bathroom wall ...more
By Mr. Z (10704), North Sea on Feb 11, 11 6:30 PM
Between this and Anna's pick for Comptroller with IRS liens, she's not showing the greatest judgement choosing people for positions that are a reflection on the Supervisor
By southfork11960 (14), Southampton on Feb 9, 11 9:14 PM
All in all ATH is not having a good week. She will never recover.
By EastEnd68 (888), Westhampton on Feb 9, 11 9:36 PM
How is her struggle worth $70 million.

By dogfacejones (80), Southampton on Feb 10, 11 8:13 AM
What number would you put on it if it were you?
By ICE (1214), Southampton on Feb 12, 11 6:07 PM
This is routine operating procedure for the Southampton Town Attorney's Office. They regularly do not respond within the allowable periods provided by state law. They seem to think they are above the law. This has been the case under direction of Town Attorney Joseph Lombardo.

Before everyone jumps on Attorney Sordi, be aware that head Town Attorney Lombardo was aware or should have been aware of the case all along. You must also realize that the Town's attorneys are generally young ...more
By localspud (4), Southampton on Feb 10, 11 8:41 AM
Stpo bringing other Attorney's into this - it starts and stops with Sordi. He is the top dog and is quite "seasoned" after coming from Nassau County and being in private practice for a couple decades. He may have had a personal issue, but that should not have prevented him from doing his job and if it did it was up to him to delegate it.

It will not result in the Town paying millions - it just results in the Town looking like incompetant buffoons. A fine choice ATH... can't believe I ...more
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 10, 11 9:23 AM
The more I think about what transpired at that day at the meeting the more I feel the whole drama was political theater. From the resident complaining, the Nuzzi inquiry,and the Malone explosion, indignation, purple-faced veins popping out scenario. No wonder ATH shifted the discussion to Executive session.

Based on what I've learned from some of the posts above, its apparent that Malone, an attorney himself as he tells, may have exaggerated the gravity of the situation to make an impression. ...more
By V.Tomanoku (677), southampton on Feb 10, 11 1:23 PM
I have to agree. Sounds like nothing more than political grandstanding.
By dagdavid (646), southampton on Feb 10, 11 1:39 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By Frank Wheeler (1805), Northampton on Feb 10, 11 2:23 PM
Aw, c'mon, one little wordplay! Golly! Who griped, DagDavid?
By Frank Wheeler (1805), Northampton on Feb 10, 11 3:21 PM
Not true localspud
1. This is not routine operating procedure for SH
2. The town attorney Michael Sordi is not that young, he's not a 30-or 40 year old for sure.
3. Joe Lombardo is not the head attorney, no such thing as head attorney.
Really you have no idea what you are talking about, the rest of you comments are just plain BS.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Feb 10, 11 6:38 PM
Political Theater??
Typical comment from a democrat Anna Throne-Holst supporter.
Same goes for the political granstanding comments below.
How blind some people are.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Feb 10, 11 6:42 PM
Rage rep, you have got to be the angriest person alive! Your misery will surely devour your soul, but on the meantime allow me to further anger and correct you: Anna Holst is NOT a democrat, butan independent. I am also independent and I always support the mist progressive and thoughtful candidate (that person has neverbeen a republican especially now that the baggers have control of their minds). I am NOT an Anna supporter. I would be happy tosee her go and take every current board member with ...more
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 10, 11 7:36 PM
Excuse my typos using a mobile device.
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 10, 11 7:38 PM
@ Reg Rep. FYI, I'm not an ATH supporter. Never voted for her. So far I have no preferences. I just have an open mind when I see a well orchestrated piece of drama.
By V.Tomanoku (677), southampton on Feb 10, 11 8:24 PM
Razza re-read your 283 comments. They are filled with anger, if you can't see how angry you sound, you have a very serious problem.
If you don't think that Anna is a true democrat you are mistaken.
She is a democrat through and through. She registered indepentent to make sure she gets that line in this years election. She will get the dem line and the indy line. You may not be a Anna supporter but your comments show that you are not only a sicko but you do lean to the left and are a huge ...more
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Feb 10, 11 10:49 PM
OK so you say you didn’t vote to ATH, only you know that for sure.
In your post of Feb 10, 1:23 p.m. you sure do sound like a ATH sympathizer. I don't believe this was orchestrated, Anna was clearly trying to cover up for the town attorney. She should have made the board members aware that this could be a problem. She covered it up because the Town Attoney hire was her choice. If he messed up it could make her look bad. ATH does not like to look bad ever.
Talking about well orchestrated ...more
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Feb 10, 11 11:21 PM
OK fine this is your perspective on the situation. I just try to find other one. our a partisan and I respect that. I suppose I'm more skeptical. If you read up to my initial comments on this thread, based on my knowledge then I was critical of ATH and the Attorney. As I learned more about the situation my opinion changed, except the one I criticize Malone for his theatrics.

What I remember of the MTA brouhaha was that ATH wanted to upgrade the public on the status of the lawsuit in ...more
By V.Tomanoku (677), southampton on Feb 11, 11 8:08 AM
A "sicko"? Well, that's not very nice, rage. I "lean to the left"? Duh! As for being a Bishop supporter - we won!

By the way, you re-read all of my 238 comments? Surely you can find something better to do with your time, but, nevertheless, I am sincerely flattered. I tried to do the same for you, but I couldn't get past the first five. Thanks.
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 11, 11 8:19 AM
1 member liked this comment
OUCH! Regrep, you have been served!
By peoplefirst (787), Southampton on Feb 11, 11 1:54 PM
The Raz 5351
Congratulations you can count to 5.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Feb 11, 11 8:51 PM
To those who object to my pointing out the clownish behavior of our cops, may I point out that "I" didn't make this stuff up.

Outside of readers in NY, NJ and CA, citizens reading of this arrest are simply dumbfounded by the realization that police departments (I refer herein to the STPD and The Suffolk Cnty Sheriffs Dept., specifically) can behave this way without being spanked and sent to bed without supper.
By highhatsize (3792), East Quogue on Feb 10, 11 5:23 PM
1 member liked this comment
We don't object to your "pointing it out" we object to your incessant whining about them.
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 11, 11 8:20 AM
I think that 27East should get rid of the comments feature on their website. It just encourages all of the crazies to vent and make fools out of themselves. Wow, there's a lot of hatred in the Hamptons. You should all take a walk on the beautiful beaches up there.

From Miami
By Old School (22), Southampton on Feb 10, 11 8:04 PM
Case in point.

Besides, if they shut it down, where would you go to post your 19th comment?

By CoweeDewey (110), East Quogue on Feb 10, 11 8:22 PM
No one discusses politics, or real issues anymore over a pint of ale, or grog like the Continental Congress the night before, or after a session.

This is a good, solid outlet for ANYONE to speak what they think, or feel. And, who knows, maybe LEARN a thing or two from someone else along the way.

"Knowledge speaks, but Wisdom listens."

~ Jimi Hendrix
Feb 11, 11 6:18 PM appended by Mr. Z
But she's a "victim". B.S.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By Mr. Z (10704), North Sea on Feb 11, 11 6:18 PM
Freedom of Speech has many opponents and detractors.

Let them flail on.
By PBR (4883), Southampton on Feb 10, 11 8:33 PM
The first amendment protects you from persecution from the government. An Americans right to spew crap on a privately owned blog is NOT protected by the first amendment. Why is there such a basic misunderstanding of constitutional rights by those who are the quickest to claim its protections?
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 10, 11 8:46 PM
razza5351, please read the First Amendment, which frees you to evacuate your diarrhea here!

[As you said, "spew crap."]

Is there something about his noble text which needs clarification?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yes, ...more
By PBR (4883), Southampton on Feb 10, 11 8:59 PM
Hah!
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 10, 11 9:09 PM
Hah So!
By PBR (4883), Southampton on Feb 10, 11 9:13 PM
To all you phony constitutionalists, again, the first amendment does not apply to your rights to make an a-- of yourself on a private blog. No matter how angry or patriotic you might be.
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 10, 11 9:14 PM
Correct, please check your feces.
By PBR (4883), Southampton on Feb 10, 11 9:17 PM
If the post above is deleted as inappropriate, please check your diapers razza5351.
By PBR (4883), Southampton on Feb 10, 11 9:26 PM
"please check your diaper", "feces", "diarrhea" - do you have some sort of poo fetish?
By razza5351 (551), East Hampton on Feb 10, 11 9:31 PM
razza, YOU are the one who introduced the phrase "spew crap" or do you lack a memory?
By PBR (4883), Southampton on Feb 10, 11 9:36 PM
Thanks, PBR, I needed a good chuckle...
Feb 11, 11 6:16 PM appended by Mr. Z
I also meant to ask what OS your netbook is running. If it's W7 starter, or XP, you can use a USB flash drive to speed it up. XP is a little more complex, and W7 uses a feature called "ReadyBoost". Basically, the netbook uses the flash (thumb) drive like it's RAM memory. If it's XP, I'll outline the steps, if need be. :-)
By Mr. Z (10704), North Sea on Feb 11, 11 6:16 PM
never should any government agency be able to tread on any of our constitutional freedoms.Had this woman of broken any laws she would still be in jail and the door to this lawsuit would have never been open. History has proven that to violate ones civil rights usually results in a substantial monetary award. This case shows that the town has dropped the ball in this case from the beginning and perhaps they should be reviewing personnel and policies after this debacle. Anyone that makes a 70,000,000 ...more
By frank84 (10), hampton bays on Feb 10, 11 8:58 PM
1 member liked this comment
to razza5351:

Gee. I would think that pointing out that the Town is facing a $$70M lawsuit because one police force is bored and another feels unappreciated is just the sort of stuff that an informed citizen would want to know.

This is a wholly different topic from my usual observation that the STPD is stupendously overpaid, insubordinate and inept. Perhaps you were confused.
By highhatsize (3792), East Quogue on Feb 11, 11 11:01 AM
I hear Mr. Sordi has cleaned out his desk and left Town Hall.
By goldenrod (505), southampton on Feb 11, 11 11:06 AM
The Beach Blogger just reported that the Town Board has accepted his resignation effective today, and that the vote was 3-0 with Nuzzi and Malone abstaining.

Wonder that THAT's about?!
By Frank Wheeler (1805), Northampton on Feb 11, 11 4:49 PM
Something stankier than the Kabot debacle, perhaps?
By Mr. Z (10704), North Sea on Feb 11, 11 6:21 PM
I hope she gets every penny of that $70,000,000 after her lawyers take their third. Maybe then those who abuse the law from behind the safety of a badge, will find some integrity and honor the oath they took as police/sheriffs......
By ICE (1214), Southampton on Feb 12, 11 6:06 PM
1 member liked this comment
The signs are obviously posted around the base.

NO PHOTOGRAPHY.

She was detained under suspicion, for repeatedly violating that policy, AND, her internet rantings did not help. Under the "Patriot Act", it was permissible to detain her for psychiatric evalutation.

From Wiki:

"The Act dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign ...more
By Mr. Z (10704), North Sea on Feb 13, 11 5:24 PM
3 members liked this comment
Those signs have been there since I was a boy. They pertain to the time when it was an airforce base housing interceptors for Russian bombers. I doubt if they have any legal force now. I know that there still were rusty signs along the barbed wire periphery fence in the '90s that threatened to "shoot tresspassers on sight". I'm pretty sure that they were superannuated as well but perhaps I was just lucky.
By highhatsize (3792), East Quogue on Feb 13, 11 7:20 PM
Cold War, War on Terrorists, regardless, this country is in a state of war.

In this case, I would not venture to postulate that "rules are like bones...".
By Mr. Z (10704), North Sea on Feb 13, 11 7:39 PM
1 member liked this comment
Thats correct
By local 84 (333), riverhead on Feb 16, 11 4:06 PM
My opinion of your lack of credibilty is not a partisan thing, it is a hypocracy thing. You can't be part and parcel of the continual campaign flailing away at the Republicans on the board, and then bemoan it's existence when it's your ox being goared. Supervisor Throne Holst has repeatedly stepped in it as of late, probably assuming she had immunity so long as you and the others would be there at the podium to drown out any legitmate criticism.
By DJII13 (155), Hampton Bays on Feb 14, 11 1:48 PM
And, DJ, are you saying that the Republicans on the Town Board and their friends aren't continually flailing away at ATH and Bridget Fleming? Speaking of "hypocracy," for someone who accuses others of positing alternative reality, you're doing a lot of it yourself. The perpetual campaign goes both ways, DJ, and yes I can bemoan its existence, even if I participate, just as General Sherman could say that war is hell.
By Turkey Bridge (1888), Quiogue on Feb 15, 11 10:45 AM
Typically Turkey I am pointing you back to what reported in the press. If you deem that alternate reality, so be it. And last I checked you all were complaining that the Republicans on the board were not saying anything, so how you leap to them flailing away is beyond me. Hard to see how my suggesting the supervisor has stepped in it as of late by being caught at least twice in the last few weeks "Clintoning" the truth, is alternative of what has actually happened, but hey, believe what you want ...more
By DJII13 (155), Hampton Bays on Feb 15, 11 1:52 PM
You mean "Roveing" the truth, DJ? Let's not deteriorate into childish word games. Seriously, do take a look at the tapes of the last few Board meetings, and you'll see what I mean by the Republican and Conservative Board members jumping all over the Supervisor, and you'll also see ATH's own response to the charges of deception. As you say, believe what you want to believe.
By Turkey Bridge (1888), Quiogue on Feb 15, 11 11:51 PM
WHy was she taking pictures when property was clearly posted "NO PICTURES" ? She is a person to be investigated thoroughly.
By joan s (53), hampton bays on Feb 15, 11 8:25 PM
As I recall, didn't she set her MySpace profile to "private", IMMEDIATELY after being released from custody?

You should have read it before it went incognito.

Might well change how, and what you see here...
By Mr. Z (10704), North Sea on Feb 15, 11 11:03 PM
I was taking photographs in the same spot a bit before this fiasco went down, I wanted some pictures of the helicopter so I parked across the street, stood next to my car and began to snap a few off - about 5 minutes into this a man from the base approached me and told me that I couldn't be there taking pictures. So I left.
I didn't argue due to the fact that I'd already taken the pictures, but I was on public property...
Also its easy enough to take a crisp image as you drive by at 30 ...more
By dogfacejones (80), Southampton on Feb 17, 11 8:00 AM
I wonder if you'd be allowed to sit across the street and sketch or paint an image of the base.
By dogfacejones (80), Southampton on Feb 17, 11 8:02 AM
The fact is that taking pictures of the National Guard base is NOT prohibited, regardless of the signs to the contrary. They are superannuated and were put in place in the 'fifties when there was a US Airforce interceptor base on the other side of the cyclone fence. They should be removed so that a travesty of this sort doesn't recur. I don't doubt that such a behavior can be illegal if it is part of an inchoate "conspiracy" but the signs are unnecessary.

"Sketching" the National Guard ...more
By highhatsize (3792), East Quogue on Feb 18, 11 2:54 PM
to Mr. Z:

I am one of the people who has the privilege of access to Ms. Genovese's MySpace site. (I didn't know it was private.)

Say what you will about her, one thing that is clear is that she bleeds red, white and blue. Every security agency in the country discovered that in the eight hours that she was held without charge.

Deputy Sheriff Carracappa charged here thereafter purely for personal reasons of low self-esteem.
By highhatsize (3792), East Quogue on Feb 18, 11 3:03 PM
For someone who "bleeds Red, White, & Blue", her frivolous sum vetted against her fellow citizens, and taxpayers of this town says otherwise.

The buck stops with her neighbors, should she "win".

If she were so patriotic, all she would seek is the condemnation of her "treatment", and damages due from the RESPONSIBLE parties. NOT her fellow citizens.
By Mr. Z (10704), North Sea on Feb 19, 11 11:33 AM
1 member liked this comment
to Mr. Z:

Tort law is the cesspool of the legal system. If one wants redress from a public official, the only way to proceed is via the tort structure. This means that Ms. Genovese sues everyone, however tangentially involved, for a staggering amount of money.

The procedure from here on will be thus: Ms. Genovese's lawyers will talk to the Respondents' lawyers. All the Respondents who are genuinely innocent will be let off the hook in exchange for corroborative testimony against ...more
By highhatsize (3792), East Quogue on Feb 19, 11 12:32 PM
1 member liked this comment
It would seem this is not applicable?

"Ground or aerial photographs, sketches, or graphic representations of classified military equipment or installations designated as restricted areas is punishable by law (18 USC 795). Reproducing, publishing, or selling this type of material is also punishable by law unless the photograph, sketch, or graphic representation indicates it has been reviewed and cleared for release by proper authority. The proper authority is generally the Public Affairs ...more
By Mr. Z (10704), North Sea on Feb 19, 11 1:52 PM
to Mr. Z:

My guess is that nothing on the airport property has been classified since the Air Force left town. Hence, the lack of charges.
By highhatsize (3792), East Quogue on Feb 19, 11 4:46 PM
1 member liked this comment
What "classified military equipment or installations" would be visible from" the Riverhead Road (public property)?

You can't make this stuff up!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ -- good night.
By PBR (4883), Southampton on Feb 19, 11 6:56 PM
"OR installations designated as restricted areas"?
By Mr. Z (10704), North Sea on Feb 19, 11 8:04 PM
Torts is not the cesspool of the legal system - it serves a vital function by imposing on each of us a duty of care not to harm or injure others. The problem lies with the attorneys who abuse it.

While not necessarily applicable to this case, the reason I think lawyers get a bad rap is that there are too many lawyers, and not enough legitimate cases to go around. They've all got to make a living, so those at the bottom of the food chain take anything that comes their way. As long as ...more
By CoweeDewey (110), East Quogue on Feb 19, 11 5:58 PM
to CoweeDewey:

Torts as practiced in this country IS the cesspool because of the "American Rule" that states that every litigant pays his own legal costs win or lose. This allows entrepreneurial tort lawyers to extort money from respondents by threatening them enormous procedural expenses if they don't agree to a settlement.
By highhatsize (3792), East Quogue on Feb 19, 11 7:39 PM
The American Rule is not part of tort law. Again, it's not tort law, its the unscrupulous PI attorneys who abuse the system that are the problem. Tort law has a vital purpose - are you proposing that we'd be better off without it?

Regarding the American Rule, as I'm sure you know, it's got its purpose as well - namely, encouraging people to enforce their rights in court without fear of having to pay the other side's fees. Both rules (English v American) have their advantages/ disadvantages. ...more
By CoweeDewey (110), East Quogue on Feb 21, 11 3:14 PM
The American Rule (aka the "everywhere else but in America Rule") got its start after the Revolutionary War when the Tories still had most of the money and (ergo) were winning all their court cases and having their court costs paid by the Revolutionaries. It was a pragmatic decision that had disastrous consequences.

In no other jurisdiction in the world does the American Rule hold sway. It isn't a British/American dichotomy. it's a Rest of the World/American dichotomy.

To claim ...more
By highhatsize (3792), East Quogue on Feb 22, 11 12:56 PM
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're against unscrupulous PI attorneys who bring baseless suits hoping to force the other side into settlement because they'll incur astronomical fees fighting the suit. If so, I'm on board.

What I'm not on board with is arguing that our society would be better off without tort law. It's a ridiculous proposition. Apparently you believe that everyone will just 'do the right thing' if there's no threat that they'll have to pay for their wrongdoing?

I ...more
By CoweeDewey (110), East Quogue on Feb 23, 11 3:38 PM
to CoweeDewey:

Sorry to have been unclear. I am not advocating the elimination of tort law, just of the American Rule.

Moreover, as a good democrat, I see the benefit of a system that allows the poor to challenge the wealthy.

However, in reality, what has developed is a system wherein extortion rather than fairness is the governing principle.

Neither the plaintiff nor the respondent enters a tort action with any intention of getting a jury determination of a ...more
By highhatsize (3792), East Quogue on Feb 24, 11 12:45 PM
You know what picture I keep seeing?

A person who teased a dog repeatedly, got bit by said dog, and sues the owner for being bit.
By Mr. Z (10704), North Sea on Feb 19, 11 8:08 PM
gurney's, new year's eve, celebration, montauk