Property Rights Foundation of America®

August 8, 2003
The Press
Ellenville, New York

To the Editor.

I attended another Village Board meeting tonight even though I was late because it seemed important to bring out in a public forum wider than my personal circle what two separate sources had informed me of, independently, within four days of each other — that police person(s) had been seen entering or exiting rental units when neither tenant nor landlord were present.

It sounds very far-fetched and is extremely difficult for me to believe too. And my own gut reactions are saying to me strongly, "No, this couldn't possibly be so." "This is absurd; the witnesses must have had an insidiously bogus agenda of some sort to be bouncing something like this so hard off the wall."

Problem is there were two separated stories neither one knowing of the other until my own serendipitous (accidentally) intervention hearing them; and the coincidence is strengthened too powerful not to respond because of their having both been reported within such a short space of time (no wide enough time separation to allow conclusion of mere coincidence).

If there is even a shred of truth to either or both of the stories such would be an extreme infringement on our personal liberties as every American would unanimously agree upon no matter of what upbringing.

Yet again, on the other hand, it's too far out to be true. Even our new police chief giggled and openly laughed at length over it as if to say to everyone at the meeting, "how foolish, how absurd, you expect me to take that seriously, even for a moment?" To his credit he did say he would inquire of the next policemen in line of it.

When I criticized the new police chief for giggling openly (too long I might say to allow it being an impulsive, spontaneous laugh rather than a falsely contrived laugh intentionally meant to shunt the attention of the audience away from the realization that it would make national news were it true) a woman stood up and the moderator immediately gave her permission (gladly) to interrupt me.

She stood up angrily denouncing me for insulting the police chief. Eh?: what? How's that again? I got accused of insulting the police chief when it was he who laughed scornfully and contemptuously at me? Wouldn't it in a sane world be me who felt insulted?

Upon thinking it through I realized a possible explanation — a scatterbrain (a person incapable of serious, connected thought) — her pseudo-reasoning being that my reporting an illegal incident was a slur on the police chief's character. By her way of reasoning anyone who reports a crime is insulting the police. [sic] Quod erat demonstratum, by her way of reasoning no one should report crime because by doing so you would be insulting the police chief.

This, to me, would be laughable except for the realization or the fact that there are those out there whose capacity for logical reasoning is so incapacitated, and yet nevertheless wantonly act out brazenly from such a source.

The point really being if it is indeed true that police locally actually are entering people's homes without permission without people being there and without warrant something must be done to stop it. I consider the police chief's snickering laughter at the idea very weirdly inappropriate, ominously so, 911 or not.

"For evil to triumph 'tis enough for the good to be silent." - Edmond Burke.

Oops! I almost forgot, Village Board meetings are "La La Land" where only good news is allowed, a Panglossian (blindly or naively optimistic) place harboring no critical thoughts or statements.

Paul T, Johnson
Ellenville & NYC

Back to:
Defending Landlords Rights - New York Paul T. Johnson's Small Landlord's Commentaries PRFA Home Page

© 2003 Property Rights Foundation of America ®
All rights reserved. This material may not be broadcast, published, rewritten or redistributed without written permission.