Rutter Issue:

What makes this issue so offensive is the fact that it was accomplished by a coordinated effort by people in positions of power who put their own personal and political interests before their oaths of office, promise to the people to follow the will of the people which is the law legislated by the representatives to the people.

As we see in the news it some times takes over a year to reach the point where crimes are addressed and adjudicated, this is no different. The passing of time in Civil Rights Cases does not diminish accountability though, tolling does not begin.

On Monday, April 9, 2012 town attorney Kent Woloson, properly, sent an e-mail to: Joseph Hauryski, Chair of Legislature; Mark Alger, County Administrator; Shawn Corey, Assistant District Attorney; confronting them with Real Property Tax Law, Article 5, Title 1, Section 500, subsection 2; which contains the process for resolving town boundary disputes and establishes that a legislated town boundary cannot be moved without a court order. Two rulings from the States highest court established this before the law was legislated; the La Porta case was used by the board of Equalization and Assessment in support of the law. The response,(Allen Reed), was, take the BOE decision to court. Citizens should see this is a criminal matter of conspiracy, even the Real Property Tax Director met with town officials, informally impromptu, to see if a movement of the town line could be justified. However, NO COURT ORDER, NO RELOCATION OF BOUNDS. 228, County law. Further, in Jennings v Watt and La Porta v Village of Philmont, the Courts recognized the towns treatment of property in question to affirm which town had jurisdiction, the Rutter residence appears (now, still) on the Town of Corning assessment rolls. The Highway post is vacant by definition of Public Officer’s Law section 30.

If officials can ignore this law, they can do the same with all laws what so ever which is at the heart of our socioeconomic problems today local to nationwide.

Dan Stuart

If you refer to the post regarding Art 8, sec 10 of the ny constitution you will see that keeping the assessments at 100% also keeps the levy limit at its max giving our school dist the ability to continue its spending spree. The previous board enacted this policy, do not take it out on the Assessors. Further, if the State is promulgating policies that inflict urban market values on us, we should isolate who is in charge and attack that person, it may be Cuomo himself.

This is from NY.gov
Equalization rates

An equalization rate is New York State's measure of a municipality's level of assessment.
Total assessed value of municipality
------------------------------------------------ = equalization rate
Total market value of municipality

Equalization rates are percentages

For example:

Equalization rate = 100
Town is assessing property at 100% of market value
Most likely a reassessment was conducted in recent years
Your property's assessment should be roughly its market value (the price for which you could sell your property)
Equalization rate < 100
Overall property in the town is assessed less than market value
The lower the equalization rate, the longer it has probably been since the last reassessment
Equalization rate of 43 means overall property in the town is assessed at 43% of market value
Equalization rate > 100
Overall property in the town is assessed higher than market value
Property values may have decreased since the last reassessment, but assessments were not adjusted downward

Find your equalization rate

In order to contest your assessment, you will need either your equalization rate or residential assessment ratio. You can find both of these numbers from our Municipal Profiles Web site - search or select your county or municipality and select "Current Equalization Information" or "RAR Information."

Why equalization rates are necessary in New York State:

Each municipality determines its own level of assessment (this is in contrast to most states that require one level of assessment statewide)
Hundreds of taxing jurisdictions - including most school districts and counties - do not share the same taxing boundaries as the cities and towns that are responsible for assessing properties

In order to distribute school district or county taxes among multiple municipalities, the level of assessment of each municipality must be equalized to full market value.
Total assessed value of municipality
------------------------------------------------ = full market value of municipality
equalization rate for municipality

Once the full market value of each municipality is determined, the school district or county can determine how much in taxes should be collected from each municipality.
If all municipalities assessed property at 100% of market value, equalization rates would not be necessary.

Most of the state's more than 700 school districts distribute their taxes among segments of several municipalities, many of which have different levels of assessment. The number of municipal segments in a school district ranges from one to as many as fifteen.

For an example of school tax distribution using equalization rates, see below.

Equalization rates do not correct unfair assessments within a municipality

Equalization rates measure the level of assessment for the entire municipality. They are not intended to correct unfair individual assessments in a city or town. The assessor has the primary role in ensuring the fairness of individual assessments. The more frequently properties are reassessed based on current market values, the more likely it will be that assessments are fair. Property owners also have a role to ensure their individual assessments are fair.

Equalization rates are based on local data

Assessment rolls include the municipal level of assessment (LOA) - typically listed as the "uniform percentage of value." We determine equalization rates by analyzing the LOA. Based on national standards, we review the LOA to determine if it is within adequate tolerances to be used as the equalization rate. In municipalities where we cannot confirm the LOA, we use our own independent estimate of total market value to determine the equalization rate.

Other uses of equalization rates:

establishment of tax and debt limits
allocation of costs, such as for jointly operated hospitals among participating localities or an injury to a volunteer firefighter, etc.
determination of state assessments (special franchise) or approval of local assessments (state-owned land)
determination of ceilings (railroad and agricultural values) and exemptions
determination of level of STAR exemptions
apportionment of sales tax revenues and joint indebtedness
as evidence in court proceedings on the issue of assessment inequity and small claims assessment review hearings

An example of school tax distribution

School District AB needs to raise $1 million through property taxes (thus, a levy of $1 million). The district contains all of Town A and all of Town B. Each town has a total assessed value of $10 million. If the $1 million tax levy simply were allocated on the basis of the assessed values, the taxpayers in both towns would evenly split the levy, with each town paying $500,000.

However, the two towns have different levels of assessment. Town A has an equalization rate of 33.33 and Town B has an equalization rate of 50.00.

Towns A and B need to be equalized in order to fairly distribute the school tax levy:
Town A Town B
Assessed Value (AV) of each Town $10 million $10 million
Equalization Rate of each Town 33.33 50.00
Market Value of each Town $30 million $20 million
Market Value of School District AB = $50 million
Percent of Market Value (and, therefore, percent of levy)
for each Town 60% 40%
Tax Levy to be raised from each Town $600,000 $400,000
Tax Rate for each Town (Tax Levy ÷ Assessed Value) x 1000 $60 per $1000 AV $40 per $1000 AV

The change in a town's total market value relative to other towns in the same school district (or county) can cause the town's share of the tax levy to increase or decrease. If one municipality's market value increases, but all the other municipalities in the taxing jurisdiction increase to a larger degree, then the first municipality's share of the tax levy will decline.
Updated: October 14, 201

Limitations on amount to be raised by real estate taxes for
local purposes; exceptions.
Laws of New York Help
Search Word or Phrase
Return to: Main Menu Laws Menu CNS Contents


§ 10. Hereafter, in any county, city, village or school district
described in this section, the amount to be raised by tax on real estate
in any fiscal year, in addition to providing for the interest on and the
principal of all indebtedness, shall not exceed an amount equal to the
following percentages of the average full valuation of taxable real
estate of such county, city, village or school district, less the amount
to be raised by tax on real estate in such year for the payment of the
interest on and redemption of certificates or other evidence of
indebtedness described in paragraphs A and D of section five of this
article, or renewals thereof:
(a) any county, for county purposes, one and one-half per centum;
provided, however, that the legislature may prescribe a method by which
such limitation may be increased to not to exceed two per centum;
(b) any city of one hundred twenty-five thousand or more inhabitants
according to the latest federal census, for city purposes, two per
centum;
(c) any city having less than one hundred twenty-five thousand
inhabitants according to the latest federal census, for city purposes,
two per centum;
(d) any village, for village purposes, two per centum;
(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section, the city of New York and the counties therein, for city
and county purposes, a combined total of two and one-half per centum.
The average full valuation of taxable real estate of such county,
city, village or school district shall be determined by taking the
assessed valuations of taxable real estate on the last completed
assessment rolls and the four preceding rolls of such county, city,
village or school district, and applying thereto the ratio which such
assessed valuation on each of such rolls bears to the full valuation, as
determined by the state tax commission or by such other state officer or
agency as the legislature shall by law direct. The legislature shall
prescribe the manner by which such ratio shall be determined by the
state tax commission or by such other state officer or agency.
Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to restrict the
powers granted to the legislature by other provisions of this
constitution to further restrict the powers of any county, city, town,
village or school district to levy taxes on real estate.

Meghan Foley, Wall St. Cheat Sheet8:30 a.m. EDT May 11, 2013

Story Highlights
• Bubbles in farmland prices and student debt are risk to economy, bankers warns
• They have parallels to housing bubble, key cause of Great Recession
• Ultralow rates pushing investors to seek returns on higher-risk investments
A group of bankers have just dumped two more problems on the Federal Reserve's plate.
The Federal Advisory Council, made up of 12 bankers who meet quarterly to advise the central bank, warned that farmland prices are inflating "a bubble" and growth in student-loan debt has "parallels to the housing crisis," which was the primary cause of the Great Recession in the U.S.
Their alarm comes at a time when financial heavyweights on the Federal Open Market Committee, the Federal Reserve's policy-making arm, are debating whether the benefits created by their monthly purchases of $85 billion in bonds outweigh the risk of financial instability.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has argued time and again that the program is essential to the economic recovery, but others are less convinced. Fed Governor Jeremy Stein and Kansas City Fed President Esther George have raised concerns the extended period of low interest rates is increasing the risk of asset bubbles.
"Agricultural land prices are veering further from what makes sense," noted the minutes of the FAC's Feb. 8 gathering, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg news service through Freedom of Information Act requests. "Members believe the run-up in agriculture land prices is a bubble resulting from persistently low interest rates."
As for student loans, recent growth has pushed debt levels to nearly $1 trillion, meaning it "now exceeds credit-card outstandings and has parallels to the housing crisis," the council said after its Feb. 3, 2012, meeting. The bankers told the FOMC that student lending exhibited characteristics similar to those seen in the housing crisis, including "significant growth of subsidized lending in pursuit of a social good" — in this case, higher education rather than expanded home ownership.
Just as the mortgage lending boom pushed home prices upward, student loan lending has put upward pressure on tuition. The bankers said both examples showed a "lack of underwriting discipline."
Bernanke has dismissed parallels between student lending and the subprime mortgage crisis. "I don't think it's a financial stability issue to the same extent that, say, mortgage debt was in the last crisis because most of it is held not by financial institutions but by the federal government," Bernanke told a Bloomberg reporter on Aug. 7.
After the Fed first lowered its target interest rate to near zero in December 2008, the central bank promised to keep it at that level until the unemployment rate — currently at 7.5%, drops to 6.5% or the annual inflation rate rises above 2%. The Fed has also launched three rounds of bond purchases, called quantitative easing, which have pushed its balance sheet to a record $3.3 trillion as of May 1.
The QE spending's impact on farmland prices is being documented by regional Fed banks, particularly across the Midwest's corn belt. The Chicago Fed said the value of irrigated cropland in its district rose 16% in 2012, while the Kansas City Fed reported a 30% jump in the same period.
"Investors who are seeking a positive return on their funds have shied away from bond markets," the council said, according to a Bloomberg story. Instead, they opted for real estate "as both a hedge against inflation and a means of achieving better than the negative real return associated with fixed-income securities."
Increases in land prices have continued even as commodity prices have weakened. Since hitting a record high in March 2011, the S&P GSCI agriculture index, a broad measure of price pressures on commodities, has fallen 25%.
The FAC said it supports the central bank's monetary policy at their February meeting, noting that the recoveries in the housing and auto sectors have been "especially encouraging."
Yet, there have been "collateral consequences" of the current policy; the low-interest environment has pushed "many to seek higher returns by accepting greater interest rate or credit risk," the FAC's minutes said. "As the period of low rates is extended, these pressures have increased."
You can follow Foley on Twitter @MFoley_WSCS. Wall St. Cheat Sheet is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news and commentary. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY.

- The Daily Caller -
Fracking doesn’t pose health risks
Posted By Dr. Elizabeth Whelan On 7:07 PM 04/29/2013 In Opinion
While New York Governor Andrew Cuomo vacillates on whether to allow fracking in New York State, a coterie of publicity savvy activists posing as public health experts are spearheading a disingenuous crusade to prevent the exploitation of the vast quantities of natural gas trapped in shale thousands of feet beneath New York’s Southern Tier. The leaders of this movement, millionaires with estates in natural gas-rich areas, have thus far successfully manipulated public opinion and the media by linking fracking to water and air pollution.
But fracking doesn’t pollute water or air. No documented instances of adverse health effects have been linked to fracking, nor have any occurrences of groundwater contamination been confirmed from the more than 1 million wells that have been hydraulically fractured over the past 50 years. Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said as much last year when she was queried on this subject, and her former boss, President Obama, supports hydraulic fracturing.
Nevertheless, the fractivists want the process banned, or regulated into oblivion, in New York and anywhere else they can create controversy by press release. Their goal — far from benefiting public health, as they assert — is to impede the development of fossil fuels, so as to speed up their hoped-for transition to a post-fossil fuel economy.
They’re off-base. Fracking has the potential to not only create tens of thousands of new jobs in New York and across the country, but also make America one of the world’s leading energy exporters, and thus free us from our dependence on petro-despots in Venezuela and the Middle East. And natural gas is much cleaner than oil or coal — natural gas produces almost no smog- or asthma-causing particulates and has a much smaller carbon footprint than other fossil fuels. Replacing New York’s existing energy sources with natural gas would lower the disturbingly high rate of asthma among New York City children. If the activists get their way and fracking is regulated out of existence, the main victims will be these children, not oil and gas companies.
Fracking would improve the quality of life of all New Yorkers. Perhaps the biggest potential beneficiaries of fracking, besides New York children, are the small landowners whose properties sit atop gas reserves. Just south of the Southern Tier in Pennsylvania, hundreds of farmers are leasing their land to energy companies. Income from those leases has saved countless farms from foreclosure. Fracking would be a huge boon to economically depressed areas of rural New York State.
Our society cannot afford to let elitist environmentalists posing as public health advocates hold sway over our economy. It’s time for New York to legalize fracking.
Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is the president of the American Council on Science and Health.

Court Rules Election Fraud Got Obama On The Ballot In 2008
John Hawkins
Democrats keep telling us that there’s no reason to worry about securing the ballot or checking voter ID because fraud happens so seldom that it’s practically inconsequential. Tell that to a jury in Indiana that just ruled both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton only got on the Indiana primary ballot in 2008 because of election fraud
A jury in South Bend, Indiana has found that fraud put President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election. Two Democratic political operatives were convicted Thursday night in the illegal scheme after only three hours of deliberations. They were found guilty on all counts.
Former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic party Chairman Butch Morgan Jr. was found guilty of felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and forgery, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe was found guilty of felony forgery counts and falsely making a petition, after being accused of faking petitions that enabled Obama, then an Illinois Senator, to get on the presidential primary ballot for his first run for the White House.
You may be wondering how they pulled this off.
Well, as Rick Nees explained “page after page of signatures (were) all in the same handwriting.” However, nobody picked up on it, “because election workers in charge of verifying their validity were the same people faking the signatures.”
Now, in Steuben County relative to Rutter, we have a Board of Elections using a deceptive, if not fraudulent survey not based on an official map of Caton to justify a move of the town line and include a property from the Town of Corning in the Caton assessing unit in violation of Real Property Tax Law Art 5, title 1 sub section 500, and the precedents set by Jennings v Watts and La Porta v Village of Philmont. This is racketeering people, tolling of time does not begin and it is ripe for investigation and adjudication ongoing, USC 18.

GRAB YOUR WALLETS CAUSE YOUR NEW ASSESSMENTS ARE ON THERE WAY.INFORMATIONAL MEETING @ FIRE HALL SOUNDS LIKE ALOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING. HAVE HEARD THERE ARE MANY BEING MAILED.HMMMM HIGHER TAX ASSESSMENTS?????? CAN WAIT TILL NEXTELECTION!!

Thank you, Marty for the compliment. I was only a couple of minutes away when I heard the call. You and your family are "welcome" Glad to know everyone was ok.

I would like to make a very special "thank you" to your town constable Mike Smith....on Monday, March 18, 2013 my daughter was on her way to her grandparents house on Tannery Creek Road in the Town Of Caton when she was involved in an accident right outside the Town lines. Mike hearing it was a mva close to the town line went to check on the occupants of the vehicle being another officer was responding but still a ways out due to weather and lots of other accidents. I was so thankful to pull up on the scene and see Mike Smith there talking to my daughter and grandbabies. I was on way home from dentist so because yes as a mom and a grandma of the children in that car .....and yes an unborn grandchild too, you need to make sure they are ok. I am not sure if Mike was on duty or just out because of the horrible road conditions.....thanks so much Mike I know it made all of us feel better to see someone there with her!

Things look kinda boring out in da sticks

I see the Caton Town signs are being relocated to the north of their previous locations while officials are claiming they are in the original locations. One fraud leads to others.

It appears that Caton never submitted a zoning map to the Department of State when it enacted its zoning laws, if they did not do these laws have the effect of law.

After referring directly to the State Ag and Market Law, it is clear the legislature wanted the State and County to regulate Agriculture leaving towns to actual issues of health and safety.

Here is a portion of the County Charter Law, Peggy should have warned us about this as Chelsea advised the Planning Committee. It is clear the County Legislature will have Russian Polit Bureau control. Will they have the ability to confiscate gas well profits from towns or even prevent taxpayers from contracting and selling mineral rights, we should not give them the chance.
Municipal Home Rule


§ 33-a. Transfer of functions or duties of local governments and
districts. 1. Subject to restrictions in the constitution, in this
article or in any other applicable law, the board of supervisors of any
county may, by local law, transfer functions or duties of the county or
of the cities, towns, villages, districts or other units of government
wholly contained in such county to each other, or for the abolition of
one or more units of government, including but not limited to offices,
departments or agencies thereof, when the level and quality of ongoing
services of all their functions or duties are transferred.
2. Any such local law, or an amendment or repeal of one or more
provisions thereof which would have the effect of transferring or
abolishing a function or duty of the county or of the cities, towns,
villages, districts or other units of government wholly contained in the
county, shall not become operative unless and until it is approved at a
general election or at a special election, held in the county by
receiving a majority of the total votes cast thereon: (a) in the area of
the county outside of cities and (b) in the area of cities of the
county, if any, considered as one unit, and if it provides for the
transfer of any function or duty to or from any village or for the
abolition of any office, department, agency or unit of government of a
village wholly contained in the county, it shall not take effect unless
it shall also receive a majority of all the votes cast thereon in all
the villages so affected considered as one unit. Such a local law,
amendment or repeal thereof, shall provide for its submission to the
electors of the county at the next general election or at a special
election, occurring not less than sixty days after the adoption thereof
by the board of supervisors.

The lines are drawn, tn / pe one is official, one is not. One is based on easements and deeds one, thin air.

way to go to our OWN Caton Constable and State Troopers !!!!! Nice Job on taking down an ACTIVE meth lab in town

For anyone wanting to see the Rutter survey it can be picked up at the Steuben County courts. I think you will have to pay 10.00 to recieve it but it is recorded in the Courts. But if you dont want to pay for a building premit on a building that has been being build for 7 months. I guess you wouldnt pay 10.00 for somone else survey. My opinion 7 months you should have fines and made to tear down the building. But of course that is just my opinion.
Rutter residence taxes are paid in Corning and Caton. House was transfered back to Caton back in March and Caton assessing unit disputed it. Why cause it belongs to the HWY Superintendent. Iam understanding that Caton got property's transfered from Chemung. Did our Assessing unit dispute them??? No cause they dont belong to the HWY Superintendent. Why would they that means more tax money for Caton....
Just feel for the Tax Payers of Caton. If Dan wants this taken too court on a wild goose chase/head hunt. Then I really think the money should come out of his pocket not the Tax Payers.
The town already has a Town Attorney, We dont need another that doesnt have a education in law or a License too use it.

Towns that have the ability to do assessments are Assessing Units. When this issue is presented to Statewide representatives their first question is, where does he pay taxes, which is exactly right. The legislature has enacted the law addressing boundary disputes around assessing and taxation. The Board of Elections regarding the challenge of elector status has separated town jurisdiction into components, taxation and voting, this is not remotely credible citing election laws restriction on election districts extending from one town into another.


The issue of where the Rutter dwelling is, is not a dispute recognized by the court as an individual does not have standing. Further, the law that prevented the assessing information for your property from being included in the Caton Assessing unit was passed in 1980, had both assessing units had a claimed administration over the property it would have been resolved then. The issue here is the refusal by the Election Commissioners to recognize the legitimate town boundary based on a survey which was prohibited by RPT law from disturbing the town boundary.

I believe a real legal opinion will create an atmosphere to promote action, legal citation and probability of success.

The law legislated to prevent this has failed because of those with the responsibility to uphold it.

Only one person has ever stopped at the Rutter Residence to actually see where the Corning property actually is.The Corning property has absolutley no Road Frontage and the Corning property is 100 ft (plus)up the hill from the back of the house where it starts. Suvrey was pull off of two other surveys pins. Its about meets and bounds. And was done by three different Surveyors. Survey is black and white house in fact sits in Caton. Dan it is only your opinion that the house doesnt sit in Caton. You said it was going to Court. And everyone is getting sick of hearing about it. So put up or shut up. Take it to court like you said you was going too. .

I just want the proper procedure followed, the Rutter dwelling was not and is not in the Town Of Caton, the purported 911 map was established and filed with the Dept of State 7/24/00 is limited in scope. The title of the resolution is incorrect, it is titled Resolution establishing Official Map of Town, but the actual language is Official 911 Map of the Town of Caton and it goes no further than to address the naming of streets and assigning house numbers no mention of boundaries or borders is made. If there was a map with it, it was not provided to me by the Town or Department of State, I do know planning has one on-line.

Sorry this needs correcting from the Town,

Dan Stuart

It is now clear why the Evans survey follows the 911 map, what is curious is he claims to have followed field evidence to create a line

Dan Stuart
1.) Robert Rutter has owned the Caton property since 1993 and we have always known the house set in the Caton township. The Corning property belong to his deceased father. And had no funds or means to fight the Corning assessment. The caton address was used cause that was our address. And the Corning property was actually changed to 2110 for the Corning property three years ago by 911. Had always been 1858 Whiskey Creek Road. Actually all the utility bills still come 1858. So Robert did nothing wrong by claiming that address. And even now 911 has 2110 listed in the Caton township.
And it is our/and our Attorneys understanding that Caton disputed it according to the Corning Assessor.
2.) So tell us why you want Robert removed so bad! Is it cause he is getting roads done that hasnt been touched in 10 plus years. Or is it that he is putting his attention towards roads that need work.
3.) So if Robert Rutter is removed from HWY superintendent who controls the Highway dept? Town Board?
4.) Why do you continue to harrass Robert Rutter? Its not just about a Historical boundaries. And doesnt this fall under Work place harrassment? since this is Robert's Employment?
5.)Now you keep addressing Roberts residency that he has already proven.Why dont you tell us why you dont have a building permit?
6.) Glad to see it is finally going to court this is what we have been waiting on. Please let me inform you Robert Rutter is a Elected Town Official.This means the Town has to supply him with a Attorney and pay all the fees.

The Rutter residency has not been challenged in a meaningful way to date.

You are taxed in the Town of Corning because the historic boundary remains in effect. And, while you downplay the issue of Assessment, the legislature has incorporated the resolutions of town boundary disputes into the Real Property Tax Law. Since you have never been taxed by both municipalities, no dispute exists and the historic boundary remains leaving an individual lacking in standing to take the issue to court.

The Board of Elections Exceeded its authority when it recognized a survey which made no reference to the Official Town Map, but to a previous survey which mapped private property.

Deeds and taxes and other information is contained in the repository for the Town of Corning, the States highest court used this type of information as controlling over mapping, surveys.

When the barn was used as the address to establish elector status it created doubt. When Veronica Olin gave legal advise as to registering the survey it gave the appearance of impropriety.

When Ken Woloson referred to an email from Alan Reed and used it to influence the board even though this email was from the attorney in an opposing role representing the BOE and contained no case citations, it created suspicion.

When the Bureau of Public Integrity refused to investigate the issue and did not restate my complaint, referred me to court and did not sign the response, the janitor could have written the response, again this creates doubt.

So while Kay claims I have been ruled against the truth is that I have been referred to court and Attorney Woloson has used scare tactics to see that the board does not use its authority under Municipal Home Rule and Public Officers Law to properly resolve this issue.

I suppose, if I was advised to pay 5k for a survey to use as evidence of residency, I would be angry if such survey could not supersede town law and the Real Property Tax Law.

At some point this will go to court, it would be great to find a way to expose the players behind the scenes.

RICO

Dan Stuart

Ok Dan Stuart
1.) Between you and Ray this has been challenged now 3 plus times. With the final decision going for Robert Rutter. Dont you ever give up???
2.) Survey,Survey outweighs the decisions!
3.) Only reason the house is still being taxed in Corning is because our assessing unit disputed it! Come on why would the assessing unit dispute money. Robert did what he had to do to prove his residency. Bottom line. Get over!
4) Being a legal beagle is one thing.But tell me doesnt everyone in the Town of Caton need a building permit? So are you trying to avoid taxes yourself. You represent this town as a counical person.why are you any different?
4.) Robert has done a great job trying to help this town with the road improvements and serve his community. He has taken the term as being the HWY Superintendent and will go to what ever legal steps it takes to keep it..

May 13, 2012 CERTIFIED:

Steuben County Board of Elections
3 East Pulteney Square
Bath, NY 14810

Dear Sir(s):

1) I am challenging the ongoing voter registration of Robert L. Rutter Jr., 2110 Whiskey Creek Road as an elector for the Town of Caton, properly his residence is located in the Town of Corning.

2) Much investigation and correspondence, from officers and officials, have taken place in the determination of the town, administrative and voting franchise for 2110 Whiskey Creek Road, residence of Robert L. Rutter Jr. Since election district boundaries are coterminous with political subdivision boundaries, town election district(s) do not cross official town boundaries.

§ 4-100. Election districts; creation and alteration. 1. The State of
New York shall be divided into election districts which shall be the
basic political subdivision for purposes of registration and voting as
provided in this chapter.

3. a. Each election district shall be in compact form and may not be
partly within and partly without a ward, town, city,- - -

3) Below is the relevant part of Steuben County Sheriff’s Investigator, Eric R. Tyner reflecting the opinion of Steuben County Attorney Alan Reed in relation to the Caton Town boundary and the effect of the Evans’ survey:

FEBRUARY 29, 2012 - This writer received the written decision from County Attorney Alan
Reed as to the placement on the Coming / Caton town line, with specific attention placed to the
survey completed by James Evans on October 31, 2012. Reed's letter outlines the investigation
and sights the historic town line placement and legal issues surrounding the movement of such
town line without the order of a court of competent jurisdiction. The opinion provided by Reed
was directed to the Director of Real Property, Wendy Flaitz, and was an outline of the County's
opinion and stance on this matter.



This writer then made telephone contact with Flaitz at the Real Property Office
and she advised this writer that the tax rolls for 2013 would be finalized and that
the Rutter residence in question would continue to be taxed in the Town of Coming.

4) As the Steuben County Board of Elections has deviated from Election Law, Article 4 § 4-100, it has created an arbitrary standard for the Rutter situation separating coterminous lines, Town boundaries and election districts violating the equal protection of laws clause of the U.S. constitution. Recognizing Mr. Rutter, 2110 Whiskey Creek Rd. in the Town of Caton violates Election Law § 4-100 (3a) by extending Caton’s Election District into the Town of Corning for Mr. Rutter.

5) From New York Real Property Tax Law in relevant part:
§ 102. Definitions.
1. "Assessing unit" means: (a) a city, town, or county with the power
to assess real property- - -

6) From New York Town Law:
§ 2. Definition of town. A town is a municipal corporation comprising the
inhabitants within its boundaries, and formed for the purpose of exercising
such powers and discharging such duties of local government and administration
of public affairs as have been, or, may be conferred or imposed upon it by law.



7) From IN RE: Hall F. WILLKIE et al., Respondents, v. DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Appellant. -- October 23, 2008
Ordinarily, respondent's factual determinations are presumptive evidence of a petitioner's voting residence (see Election Law § 5-104[2];  Matter of Bressler v. Holt-Harris, 37 A.D.2d 898, 898, 330 N.Y.S.2d 565 [1971], affd. 30 N.Y.2d 529, 330 N.Y.S.2d 379, 281 N.E.2d 176 [1972] ). Here, however, no presumption arose because respondent did not apply the correct rule of law in determining the issue.

8) In the Evans survey is not controlling and the historic boarder remains. Since the BOE’s initial determination reinstating Mr. Rutter as a candidate for Highway Superintendent for the Town of Caton, (See February 14, 2012 memo to the Caton Town Board), it was discovered that a survey, absent judicial action, would not function to change a town boarder and that the historic boarder would prevail per Real Property Tax Law Article 500, Section 2; i.e. (LaPorto v. Village of Philmont, 39 N. Y. 2d 7, 346 N. E. 2d 503, 382 N. Y. S. 2d 703 (1976)).

Since election districts cannot be partially in and partially out of a town, are coterminous with the boundaries of towns, a survey absent judicial action cannot operate to relocate an administrative town boundary, this leaves no manner in which the Board of Elections can in good faith, determine that Robert L. Rutter, 2110 Whiskey Creek Road, Corning, NY, belongs in the Town of Caton Election District and/or Town of Caton for any purpose contained in the definition of a Town per New York State, Town Law.



2




Proposed resolution:

Historically Mr. Rutter’s residence at 2110 Whiskey Creek Road has been deemed part of the Town of Corning, this should be reinstated and affirmed per proper procedure of Election Law.

An investigation should be conducted disclosing the circumstances for the failure of the Board of Elections to come to a proper conclusion in this situation, and remedies to protect the voting franchises of subdivisions of government formulated and applied.

I look forward to your timely, good faith response and resolution to this important and unfortunate matter which continues to grow and involve more officers, authorities and organizations.

Sincerely,



Daniel H. Stuart

2001 NY Int. 78

June 14, 2001

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.

Steve S. Efron, for appellant.
Monique Ferrell, for respondent.
The League of Women Voters of New York City; New York Civil Liberties Union, amici curiæ.

WESLEY, J.:

Defendant John O'Hara, an attorney and frequent candidate for elective office, was convicted of seven crimes arising from his fraudulent filing of a false voter registration form and voting in five separate elections in an election district in which he did not reside. On appeal, defendant contends that the definition of voting residence contained in the Election Law is at odds with our recognition that in today's society, a person can have more than one residence. This case, however, turned on whether a second residence actually existed, not a choice between two. The court's charge correctly reflects the state of New York law and did not, as defendant now contends, direct a verdict against him.

All calls for HWY Department
524-6757 LEAVE A MESSAGE
Or Email
rob.rutter@aol.com Leave name and phone number.
I respond ASAP.
Missy I have not got any message from you on your road complaint at the Hwy Department.
Seems to be your biggest complaint is me working another job.
I just want to let everyone know. That the last two Superintendents both had 2nd jobs. I have to correct you about me only working Fridays. I am at the Hwy Dept daily(6 days a week) And the messages are checked daily.
Thanks Robert Rutter

Hello, I have recently heard that the Highway Superintendent for our town has a full time job in the Town of Orange. I found out about this because I haven’t been able to reach anyone about the roads and someone told me the only way to reach him was on Fridays as that is the only day he is in. I guess he works full time in this town. I still can’t reach him to talk to him. Can I go to a board meeting and talk to him or are the board meetings separate from the highway department? Thank you.

are there any revenue projects being takenon istead of taxing so high?

LOST DOG. I apologize if I am posting this in the wrong place, however we are desperate. Our 5 month old Newfoundland puppy was lost in the area yesterday. Her name is Lulu and she is an all black female. If anyone has any information about her please contact me at kosheba@gmail.com or 717.329.9428. Thank you.

Relevant part of Tyner investigation:

CONTACT WITH STEUBEN COUNTY REAL PROPERTY
JANUARY 26,2012
1
-

This writer was then provided with a large amount of historical maps in regards to this residence
I located on Whiskey Creek. This writer then made inquire to Flaitz as to where the property line
stood at this point in the investigation. Flaitz advised this writer that notification had been sent to the Coming and Caton Assessors that the line would be changing effect March 1, when the new tax roll in finalized, and Rutter's property would now be located in the Town of Caton. Flaitz did indicate that the Real Property Office felt this change was inaccurate, but they were required to make the change due to the filing of the new survey completed by Evans.
**************************************************************************
The Town Assessors could not legally make the change in assessing units as Director of Real Property, Flaitz advised Inv. Tyner, due to Real Property Tax Law, Article 500, section 2 which was specifically legislated to address disputed town boundaries caused by re-mapping in 1980. This law further states that the status quo or historical line would prevail. In the Bill Jacket, memos in support by official entities the State Board of Equalization and Assessment noted in the relevant part of its memo of support:

The premise of this proposal is that absent affirmative action and proof by the assessing unit newly asserting the right to assess property, the historical (i.e.,former boundary) will prevail (LaPorto v. Village of Philmont N.Y.2d 7, 346
N.E.2d 503, 382 N.Y.S.2d 703 (1976).

The line does not move, the towns do not dispute the historical bounds and the Board of Elections has no authority to determine town boundaries or give legal advice making surveys controlling over historic boundaries coupled with affirmative administrative control over the property in question. i.e. deeds recorded in the Town of Corning and taxes paid to the Town of Corning. The only dwelling residence is in the Town of Corning and there is no exemption in Public Officers Law for the Highway Superintendent, who is a policy maker, to live outside of the Town of Caton municipal corporation / community.

The ruling made by the Board of Election made a decision in manifest disregard of the law.

It is nice to see all the postings by people who don’t have the courage to stand up and justify their own opinions.

The Board of Elections has erred, the historic boarder remains absent court action by the party wishing to change it. See: La Porto v. Philmont, see bill jacket Real Property Tax Law Art 500 sec 2.

Did someone afraid to identify him or herself say fair play? Sorry, ask where the property taxes are being paid on the Highway Superintendent’s dwelling, only residence. And, don’t even blame an assessor, assessor’s are prohibited by law from changing properties from one assessing unit to the other absent judicial action since 1980. I wonder why this did not come up when Investigator Tyner met with Real Property?

So, get your books out put away your political agenda and find out what is right and yes this controversy gives me a bad attitude. I took an Oath to uphold the NY and US Constitutions and that means every law in the furtherance thereof. So, if this means I get voted out in four years so be it. Statewide mandates on local governments are unconstitutional too, don’t you think it is time for the little guy to stand up for his Constitution.

And, anonymous the right to post on this public forum is protected by the First Amendment.

Regarding the money issue, if we as a town are sued for 100k because we let this sham stand we can thank the Board of Elections and our lack of courage to address it.

Healthy vegetable plants for sale Get free plants buy 10 get 1 plant free. Offering beef steak tomatos, rutgers, broccoli, cucumber, bell peppers, mixed peppers, cauliflower. $1.50 each

Iam Really Sick of the Residency Issues and Dans Stuarts Behavior. And just so everyone knows Ray Riesback is spreading all over that he's coming back as Highway Superintendent. And he supposting has a Law Suite against the Town for 100,000. Cause us the people voted his butt out. Want to talk about Poor Sportmanship. And not to mention all the unpaid bills and the costly repairs he left behind. So yes Caton time to wake up!! Is Dan Stuart plan to bring him back. Is that what all of this is about. I have heard its been in front of the Board of Elections 4-5 times(Between Ray and Dan). And they have sided with Robert Rutter each time. I say let the man do his Job. We the people put him in there. Not Dan Stuart. And We The People Should Make Sure he Says and Dan Goes. Just a Opinion.

Wake up Caton Residents and smell the coffee!!! Be prepared to open your pocketbooks wide and spend your hard earned tax dollars on a foolish game initiated by council member Dan Stuart. I have only started attending meetings since November and am quite taken back by Mr. Stuarts rude and overbearing behavior at a public meeting. His goal is to oust the newly elected highway superintendent just to prove what? That the boundary line between Caton and Corning is not a hundred percent correct? Or does he have a hidden agenda? I think HE should foot the bill for some high cost lawyer just to prove nothing as he seems determined to do !!! Maybe he is the one that needs to go. By the time his four years are up, taxes will be doubled. This guy is trying to railroad everybody and he needs to be stopped.!!!!

Wake Up Call to the Tax Payers of Caton. Dan spells it all out. In his comment. He reall shouldnt be commenting on here and save it for the Town Meetings. He is way out of Line!!! Read his comment.

So, essentially the Steuben County Board of Elections has arbitrarily enacted a Town law expanding the residency requirement for Caton’s Superintendent of Highways position, invalidated our town line and authorized itself to jurisdiction over assessing unit disputes despite County Law 228 legislated specifically to adjudicate those issues.

Why would we dispute money!! The Rutter House/Property was moved to Caton to be Taxed due to survey. Our Assessing Unit DISPUTES MONEY. What are they disputing!!! This is money that would help the Town of Caton. Now due to the Investigation and Dispute the County Attorney gave it back to Corning. Why would they do that?? If Caton doesnt want it sure Corning going to take it. Are they Stupid!!

Dan accusing our Hwy Superindentent of Fraud is clearly Harrassment in my book. Robert Rutter is trying to help the Town. And our Town Board Assessors is taking away. And what is it going to cost the Town to get back our money. Court Cost,Attorney fees. And possible a Survey of the whole Town. I see higher taxes coming. People better make a stand its only been 3 months since the Election. What is it going to be a long 4 yrs? Not to mention the money involved. Very clear the Town Board is not going to work with our Town Hwy Superintendent. So how will we get in improvements of our Roads?

I think the Tax Payers need to take a stand and have Dan Stuart REMOVED from his chair. Before he cost The Town a boat load of money. REMOVE one bad Apple that is Spoiling the bunch.

Wow People we still on Residency kick. Which is been surveyed and proven that the house does in fact sit in the town of Caton. The man pays taxes in both Towns. Robert grew up in Caton(16years) and has lived in Caton for over 3 yrs now. And used his real address that he has paid taxes in Caton since 1997. It is the only entrance to the property. I would think that you should be worried about taxing the house not his Residency. And I not sure what Councilman would accuse without the facts. Not one I would Vote for. Dan Stuart you have a man more then qualified to do his job. All the drama you are starting isnt helping the situation of getting your roads fixed. My understanding the roads have been horrible for over a decade. How can Robert change them in 3 months. It will probably take another decade to get them straightened out. Robs interest is in improving the roads and saving tax payers money. Is yours???

We now have a highway supervisor that has previous highway experience and can operate and repair high way equipment. The previous super had no previous highway experience and could not operate or repair highway equipment.
So what is the real reason that four of our council men are trying to dis qualify him ?

Wow, so it’s true?! I have been hearing from different people that our new highway superintendent didn’t actually reside in our town, but if it’s coming from a town councilmen it must have some validation. If I had known his residency was in question, I may have voted differently. People have been saying that he hasn’t even lived near our town for over 40 years. Is this true? If so shouldn’t we have someone who knows the history of our roads? I’m sorry but if you don’t live in our town and haven’t been driving our roads then how could you care about fixing them the right way? Does he even know which roads are ours?

What is on my mind, Voter, Election and Residency Fraud
I am a town councilman and have an issue before me that is very disturbing. We have a Highway Supt., an elected position which requires residency in the political subdivision which is the town per Public Officers Law. Here is the rub, the man’s house is just over the border in the next town as evidenced by deed, tax maps and history of property tax payments. However, the requirements to be an elector, vote in town elections, for a town does not require property ownership so the individual in question first was designated an elector by the board of elections.

Here is what transpired at election time, the man involved does own property in both towns so he used his barn address, not fit for habitation, as his address for his designating petition. When the barn address was challenged he had a surveyor establish what is alleged to be the boundary of the towns North of where the line has historically been acknowledged and submitted the survey to the elections board which accepted it as controlling and the board deemed that the individual was qualified as a candidate for the position. But, the survey is not valid for the purpose of affecting the town boundaries and/or the related assessing units without a judicial process which is contained in Article 500 section 2 of the Real Property Tax Law leaving the individual to continue to pay taxes in the other municipal franchise/town while holding an elected position, which requires residency in this town/franchise.

So, essentially the Steuben County Board of Elections has arbitrarily enacted a Town law expanding the residency requirement for Caton’s Superintendent of Highways position, invalidated our town line and authorized itself to jurisdiction over assessing unit disputes despite County Law 228 legislated specifically to adjudicate those issues.

The end result, the current Highway Superintendent pays taxes as part of the Town of Corning franchise and holds office as part of the Town of Caton franchise and it appears as he could vote as part of either or both of these franchises. How does that make you feel about the up coming Presidential Elections? Call the county DA and ask how the investigation went.

22. The term "residence" shall be deemed to mean that place where a
person maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home and to which he, wherever temporarily located, always intends to return.

Assessing Unit: means a city, a town, a county having a county department of assessment with the power to assess real property

This is how it appears to be.

Re Hepburn Dog bite

14Mar12 Sow bear with twin yearling cubs was on our porch. One of the cubs put his nose on our French Glass Doors, and the mother showed no fear of humans. Her ears are tagged, but we couldn't read them. She and her twins left only when the dogs started to bark. We live on Bear Run Road off Thurber.

Has anybody witnessed any bears and/or coyotes near Ridgeview Acres (off Thurber Road)? Our large dog has some pretty big bites on him that we can't attribute to any other neighborhood dogs and we're trying to figure out what it might have been.

Robert Rutter has proved his residency along with winning the election. If Dan Stuart and the tax assessors continue to press the issue to try to remove Mr. Rutter from his position then I take it that our voting rights does not matter? We, the people voted Mr. Rutter in there and he is doing a fine job. I dont understand why someone would try so desperately to remove someone that is doing an excellent job and hes only been in his position for a couple of months! Sounds to me that Dan Stuart needs to get his mind back on track instead of wasting the towns people's money. Who's going to be paying for this investigation? WE ARE! Higher taxes because of someone wants to go on a wild goose chase? NO THANKS! The Board of Elections in Steuben county has agreed that Mr. Rutter resides in the town of Caton so why further the investigation? All its going to do is cost the town MORE MONEY and HIGHER TAXES on the towns people. Here's an idea, how about everyone signs a petition to remove Dan Stuart since apparently his mind is not in the best interests of the Town; if it were, he would stop trying to spend our money on wild goose chases.

hmmmmm, I think that dan stuart is not the only one, maybe town assers are in the same click. thats my opionion,whats your???

Rumor has it that Dan Stuart is wanting Robbie Rutter removed from Hwy Superintendent due to Residency. I voted for Robbie and think hes dong a great job. Everyone I have talked to is very pleased with him. I thought Robbie proved his Residency, why is Dan Stuart questioning it now, Election is over.

I heard we should all be attending town board meetings as apparently Dan Stuart's conduct is very unprofessional and worrisome to those of us not wishing to have our tax dollars spent on a wild goose chase. What is he up to?

I would like to know exactly what investigation that Dan Stuart is discussing on this message board. As a tax payer and voter, I have the right of knowing exactly what a Board member is trying to waste our money on...

I THINK THE TOWN BOARD HAS STEPPED INTO THE LEFT FIELD!GET BACK IN THE RIGHT 1 AND NOT IN YOUR OWN EITHER!

§ 51. General powers of town board.

In relevant part:

4. Making of studies and investigations as it deems to be in the best interests of the town and, in connection therewith, to obtain and provide for compensation for professional and technical advice, subpoena witnesses, administer oaths and require the production of books, papers and other evidence deemed necessary or material for any such study or
investigation.

Also note as I am a fiduciary and client of Mr. Wolosen, he violated the cannons of ethics by not directly answering my question.

Dan Stuart