Let's Talk About Judges part two

On one hand you have a judge who is following the LAW and others judges following who knows what.


 Our County Executive, Stevie Thunder is basically criticizing Judge Slobod for being "emotional" (there's that word again...If you disagree with him you're "emotional")
STEVE SAID: "...there's a lot of social pressure out there. It's a very sensitive issue...and if you really don't understand the nuts and bolts of the finances of it..."




This is wrong on some many levels including the most obvious one; that the judge decided the way she did because of fear of social pressure and social reprisals!


It is also wrong because the judge should base her decision not on what is expedient for you, Stevie Thunder, financially or otherwise, but on-wait for it-THE LAW!!! Is it a fundamental lack of understanding of what it is to follow the law, that is the root cause of your actions?


As mentioned in previous posts, your county attorney the Lazy Langdon, put forth his arguments without any documentation! (Does he have that same lack of understanding?) So here is your participation in the blame game again- it was the media! Was it the media that forced to you to blabber on the  way you did? You really would do more good for your next imaginary campaign by just being quiet. (Please don't think Auntie Alibi  didn't notice your preparations.)


And while your attorney Lazy Langdon and a legislator are "Republicans in Independence Party clothing" and while you and your sycophants are Republican, this is not about party but about bad behaviour, so don't try to blame politics either! And please note, the Good Republicans cringe when you are called Republican and the Good Democratic Party members are waiting for the sleepy, silent good republicans to join them in what is best for this county of ours.

Let's Talk About Judges part one

2014-05094 DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

In the Matter of Town of Woodbury, et al., appellants,

v Village of Kiryas Joel, respondent.

(Index No. 13-2877)

Motion by the appellants, inter alia, to enjoin the respondent from continuing

construction on a certain water pipeline pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated April 7, 2014.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition

thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is denied.

MASTRO, J.P., DILLON, MILLER and MALTESE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

 

 

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Will somebody explain how an illegally installed pipeline, one with no approvals from the appropriate agencies, gets the backing of the Appellate Division, Second Part.? Dear Nieces and Nephews, what is the connection? (No pun intended-ok, maybe alittle)