this is 1984 all over again. People are getting hauled to court and the whole point of it is to keep you from criticizing them or the democrats. If you run your mouth you will find the lawyers fist in it. that is what I am saying. I hear this was tried with Kelly Rinesmith too somehow and Judy D's lawyer Delorenzo sued her on behalf of Paul Brown or someone for slander too. Someone care to fill in the blanks since I dont know them all? But this is becoming the way to keep the critics shut up and the M's have done it in a grand way. Read the papers!
I know what you are saying and I have read all of the papers. So what you are saying is that IF the Mallozi's have NOT been paying their fair share in taxes regarding their sewers....we just have to shut up? I don't buy that one! This has nothing to do with politics...this is just residents wanting to know if Mallozi's have been given a pass on this.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
I don't think anyone is attacking the Mallozzi family or discredit their business. They have worked hard and have created successful businesses and offer great service and food. I don't think that anyone will dispute that.
After reading these posts, I just see Rotterdam residents wanting to know if Mallozzi's Restaurant is hooked up to the public sewer system and if they are paying for that service. I don't see that as defaming or threatening. I see it as people seeking information that should be available to them.
It's simple, if Mallozzi's Restaurant is hooked into the public sewer system, than they should pay for that service. If they are paying or they are not hooked into the public sewer system, than there is no issue.
When an agency receives a request, §89(3) of the Freedom of Information Law requires that it has five business days to grant or deny access in whole or in part, or if more time is needed, to acknowledge the receipt of the request in writing. The acknowledgement must include an approximate date that indicates when an agency will grant or deny the request. The date must be reasonable under the circumstances of the request, and in most instances, it cannot exceed twenty additional business days. If more than twenty additional business days is needed, the agency must provide an explanation and a date certain within which it will grant or deny the request in whole or in part. That date, too, must be reasonable in consideration of the facts (i.e., the volume or complexity of the request, the need to search for records, or the obligation to review records to determine rights of access).
NOTE: for an in-depth explanation, see also, What's New - Explanation of new time limits for response.
Because an electronic request may be sent at any time, for purposes of determining the date of receipt and the required response time frame, an email request is determined to have been received on the first business day on which it was received during normal business hours. For example, if an email request is sent at 6 pm on Tuesday, it is deemed to have been received at 9 am on Wednesday.
A failure to comply with any of the time limitations imposed by law would constitute a denial of a request that may be appealed in accordance with §89(4)(a) of the Freedom of Information Law. That provision states that an appeal must be made within thirty days of the denial. The appeal should be made to the person designated by the agency to determine appeals or the chief executive of the agency.
The agency is required to respond to the appeal within ten business days of the receipt of the appeal by granting access to the records or fully explaining the reasons for further denial in writing. If a determination on the appeal is not rendered within ten business days, the failure to do so constitutes a denial of the appeal. In that circumstance, you may initiate a proceeding to challenge the denial of access under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules
Hmmm. Time to get on their case I guess. Wonder if they're making any changes to the records - or if they're going to deny access.
Thanks Rene.
Hey MT...did you ever hear anything back on this?
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Logged
