Ned Lang’s response to Town of Tusten attorney Clemente
On July 19, 2012 the Town of Tusten code enforcement officer Gary Amberbach came to my office and served me with five additional violations concerning graphics on a licensed motor vehicle, construction equipment stored on commercial property, an unlawful election sign and two other bogus violations concerning portable and political signage. I was arraigned again in the Town of Cochecton court as both of our judges properly recused themselves, and I was facing criminal charges and civil fines similar to the ones described above, as a result of the Town of Tusten’s continued selective and discriminatory enforcement of the zoning law. In order to properly defend myself, I hired an outstanding attorney, who is well versed in the defense of individuals who choose to express their First Amendment rights and in confronting towns that have passed laws that violate one of the foremost rights that each American has, which is our First Amendment right. In fact, in this attorney’s opinion, which he placed before both courts, numerous provisions of the signage laws contained within our zoning laws are blatantly unconstitutional and should be removed.
In conclusion, Clemente did choose to continue to pursue two separate actions in two separate courts over the course of the last year and a half, executing a specific and vindictive agenda against me in the most malicious and irresponsible way. Recently, the Town of Tusten was forced to drop the prosecution of both cases against me because in the first instance the code enforcement officer was not a U.S. Citizen and in the second case, because Clemente allowed the town to enact new zoning without any description of penalties for the violation of the zoning laws. Clemente states in his editorial letter to the editor that, “It is irresponsible for this newspaper to be quoting law from an individual, who is a septic pumper with a high school diploma, stating conclusions of law such as conflict of interest and selective enforcement when he is not schooled in law, nor has the expertise or legal knowledge upon which to base legal conclusions that he constantly asserts.”