Law
Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.
John J. Tormey III, PLLC
1636 Third Avenue, PMB 188
New York, New York 10128 USA
(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
jtormey@optonline.net
https://www.tormey.org
REQUEST UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (“FOIL”)
Saturday, April 5, 2025
VIA FAX: 1-845-638-5196, U.S. MAIL, and E-MAIL via WEB-FORM:
https://www.rocklandcountyny.gov/departments/law-county-attorney/freedom-of-information-law-foil
Allison Weinraub, Commissioner (D)
The Board of Elections in the County of Rockland (RCBOE)
11 New Hempstead Road
New City, New York 10956 USA
VIA FAX: 1-845-638-5196, U.S. MAIL, and E-MAIL via WEB-FORM:
https://www.rocklandcountyny.gov/departments/law-county-attorney/freedom-of-information-law-foil
Patricia Giblin, Commissioner (R)
The Board of Elections in the County of Rockland (RCBOE)
11 New Hempstead Road
New City, New York 10956 USA
Re: FOIL Request – 2025 Piermont, New York Petitions – Michael Emerson Wright
Dear Commissioner Weinraub, and Commissioner Giblin:
This is a FOIL request in follow-up to my yesterday FOIL.
Thank you, Commissioner Giblin, for your time on the phone yesterday, and for producing, yesterday and so immediately under FOIL, the fourteen (14) pages of petitions relating to Michael Emerson Wright (“Wright Petitions”). As you know, Mister Wright is an incumbent member of the Piermont, New York Board of Trustees. I gather that Trustee Wright is now seeking to run in a Democratic primary towards his hope of re-election. Piermont, as you know, is a village situated within the Town of Orangetown.
Commissioner Weinraub, other residents of the Town of Orangetown and I are aghast at the obvious manifold defects in the petitions apparently submitted in support of Trustee Wright by Barbara Scheulen of the Piermont Democratic Committee (PDC), by Mark Silberstein, by Susan S. Witte, by Donald H. Guyton, by Trustee Wright himself, and by disgraced Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker. The petition pages are annexed hereto as attached/enclosed as Exhibit “A” through Exhibit “N”, respectively, for your reference, and incorporated by reference herein. Please note that this is not only a FOIL request. This is also a demand for an immediate investigation by your Board of Elections in the County of Rockland (RCBOE) into the clearly failed effort to submit the Wright Petitions to RCBOE as reflected in Exhibit “A” through Exhibit “N” hereto.
I am an attorney in New York, and a citizen and resident of the Town of Orangetown and the County of Rockland. Under the New York State Freedom of Information Law:
http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/foil2.html
and, as may be applicable, its state, federal, and other counterparts, including without limitation New York Public Officers Law, Article 6, Sections 84-90, and Title 5 of the United States Code, Section 552 (collectively herein referred to as “FOIL”), request is hereby made that each of you provide to this, my law office, full and complete copies of each and every document and other item of material dated, generated, or otherwise materializing from January 1, 2025 forward to the present day (collectively, “Records”) which may be at all responsive to the following requests:
1. “Peirmont”[sic]. You will first note that at the top of Exhibit “A”, titled “Petition Receipt 2025”, someone, presumably either you, Commissioner Weinraub, or perhaps Piermont Democratic Committee operative Barbara Scheulen herself, appears to have correctly circled the word “Village” but then misspelled the name of the “Village” as “Peirmont”[sic]. As I am aware of no municipality, jurisdiction, or other location within Rockland County, New York actually named “Peirmont”[sic], request is hereby made for any and all RCBOE Records which may identify “Peirmont”[sic] as a real location as opposed to simply the fantasy projection of someone’s overactive imagination and mind. I note here that on the equivalent “Petition Receipt 2025” forms submitted for Piermont candidates Mitchell, Gordon, and McCabe, a correctly-spelled “Piermont” was identified as the “Village” to which those latter candidacies pertain. Perhaps Trustee Wright is intending to run for re-election in a parallel universe or a different astral plane. In any event, I am seeking all Records relating to this garish SNAFU.
2. Sensitivity. With respect to Item #1 immediately hereinabove, I also want to be careful and sensitive to the possibility that someone may have mistakenly inscribed “Peirmont”[sic] on Exhibit “A” due to dyslexia or some other form of medical condition, while at the same time respecting their privacy and whatever HIPAA-esque protections may apply. Accordingly, I am also requesting all Records of a non-confidential nature - if any - which may have previously disclosed any dyslexia or other medical condition of any individual and which would tend to explain the apparent transposition of the letters “e” and “i” in the errant misspelling of “Peirmont”[sic] in Exhibit “A”.
3. Blank Forms. Next, I am requesting the blank “Petition Cover Sheets”, the blank “Designating Petition” forms, and the blank “Petition Receipt 2025” forms which were apparently forwarded, furnished, or otherwise made available to either the PDC or else to any individuals in connection with the Wright Petitions or Exhibit “A” through Exhibit “N” hereto, including without limitation to any of the following individuals:
A. Barbara Scheulen.
B. Michael Wright.
C. Noreen Myers-Wright.
D. Richard Owen Burns alias “Rob Burns” alias “Dick Burns”.
E. Daniel Spitzer.
F. Mark Silberstein.
G. Susan S. Witte.
H. Donald H. Guyton.
I. Bruce Tucker.
J. Margaret Grace.
Again, I am not seeking these Records in the form that they were apparently later filled-out and submitted to RCBOE – I have those already, thanks to you yesterday. Rather, I am now seeking the blank “Petition Cover Sheets” used as templates, blank “Designating Petition” forms used as templates, and blank “Petition Receipt 2025” forms used as templates - in the exact form as initially forwarded, furnished, or otherwise made available to the PDC and above-listed individuals, including without limitation any accompanying instructions, e-mails, other correspondence, and other writings.
4. Name Strike-Throughs. Additionally, I am seeking all Records which may tend to explain the circumstances under which and reasons why the names “Rondi Casey”, “Mark Silberstein”, and “Barbara Scheulen” were sloppily crossed-out in Exhibit “C”, Exhibit “G”, and Exhibit “H”, respectively - including without limitation any instructions, e-mails, other correspondence, and other writings relating thereto.
5. Address Strike-Through. Additionally, I am seeking all Records which may tend to explain the circumstances under which and reasons why the address corresponding to a wholly-indecipherable signature at Line #6 of Exhibit “J”, was crossed-out and changed from “130 Piermont Pl” and replaced by “Crescent Rd” - including without limitation any instructions, e-mails, other correspondence, and other writings relating thereto.
6. Indecipherable Signatures. Finally, for now, I am seeking all Records which may tend to identify the actual names of the individuals who apparently sought to affix their signatures to the attached/enclosed Wright Petitions - because, at minimum, the following sixty-eight (68) signatures are illegible and indecipherable:
Exhibit “C”: Lines 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11.
Exhibit “D”: Lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.
Exhibit “E”: Lines 1, 2, 3.
Exhibit “F”: Lines 3, 4, 5, 9, 10.
Exhibit “G”: Lines 3, 5.
Exhibit “H”: Lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
Exhibit “I”: Lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Exhibit “J”: Lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Exhibit “K”: Lines 1, 11.
Exhibit “L”: Lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Exhibit “M”: Lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
Exhibit “N”: Lines 6, 8, 9, 11, 12.
I find it appalling that at least sixty-eight (68) signatures on the Wright Petitions submitted to RCBOE, are illegible and indecipherable. The candidates opposing Trustee Wright are absolutely entitled to know the identities of these sixty-eight (68) apparent signatories, and are absolutely entitled to be given the meaningful opportunity to verify their respective identities and respective residences within the Village of Piermont.
7. E-Mails And Correspondence. Additionally, I am seeking all other Records of any e-mails, memos, notes, correspondence, documents, or other writings to, from, referencing, or otherwise relating to the Wright Petitions.
8. All Other Records. Additionally, I am seeking all other Records of any other kind or nature relating to the Wright Petitions.
9. Definition Of “Records”. “Records” should be construed in the broadest sense and manner possible and should include “any information kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced by, with or for (your agency or office)... in any physical form whatsoever...” (FOIL,§86[4]) including without limitation all audio recordings, blog posts, correspondence, data maintained electronically, data, e-mails, executive summaries, extracts, faxes, instant messages, Internet posts, letters, log-book entries, memos, paper records, personal messages, social media communications, spreadsheets, summaries, synopses, telephone records, test-reports, visual recordings, and any other materials:
http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/foil2.html#s86
10. Headings And Subheadings. The headings and subheadings used in this letter are for convenience of reference purposes only, and should not be construed to be words of limitation or otherwise of any substantive significance relative to these FOIL requests.
11. Costs. If there are any copying or other fees for this, please let me know what they are and how they are calculated, before filling the request and forwarding the Records to me. As this FOIL should be considered a matter of public importance, and as its results will be shared with the general public and published, I am asking that any otherwise-applicable fees be waived for this document-production. I am also asking that all documents be provided to me electronically to the full extent possible, so as to obviate the need for any photocopying expense.
12. Denials And Appeals. In the event that any portion of my request is denied, please inform me of each of the specific reasons for any such denial in writing - and provide me with the name, address, and other contact information of the person or entity to whom an appeal should be directed.
13. Additional Requests. These FOIL requests are not intended to be exhaustive, and I may make additional and follow-up requests.
I will appreciate a response from each of you, your respective offices, and RCBOE, as soon as possible. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.
Respectfully, and with thanks,
John J. Tormey III, Esq.
cc:
VIA FAX: 1-518-474-1927, U.S. MAIL, and E-MAIL:
coog@dos.ny.gov
NYS Committee on Open Government (COOG)
Department of State
One Commerce Plaza, 99 Washington Avenue, Suite 650
Albany, New York 12231 USA
John J. Tormey III, PLLC
1636 Third Avenue, PMB 188
New York, New York 10128 USA
(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
jtormey@optonline.net
https://www.tormey.org
REQUEST UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (“FOIL”)
Saturday, April 5, 2025
VIA FAX: 1-845-638-5196, U.S. MAIL, and E-MAIL via WEB-FORM:
https://www.rocklandcountyny.gov/departments/law-county-attorney/freedom-of-information-law-foil
Allison Weinraub, Commissioner (D)
The Board of Elections in the County of Rockland (RCBOE)
11 New Hempstead Road
New City, New York 10956 USA
VIA FAX: 1-845-638-5196, U.S. MAIL, and E-MAIL via WEB-FORM:
https://www.rocklandcountyny.gov/departments/law-county-attorney/freedom-of-information-law-foil
Patricia Giblin, Commissioner (R)
The Board of Elections in the County of Rockland (RCBOE)
11 New Hempstead Road
New City, New York 10956 USA
Re: FOIL Request – 2025 Piermont, New York Petitions – Michael Emerson Wright
Dear Commissioner Weinraub, and Commissioner Giblin:
This is a FOIL request in follow-up to my yesterday FOIL.
Thank you, Commissioner Giblin, for your time on the phone yesterday, and for producing, yesterday and so immediately under FOIL, the fourteen (14) pages of petitions relating to Michael Emerson Wright (“Wright Petitions”). As you know, Mister Wright is an incumbent member of the Piermont, New York Board of Trustees. I gather that Trustee Wright is now seeking to run in a Democratic primary towards his hope of re-election. Piermont, as you know, is a village situated within the Town of Orangetown.
Commissioner Weinraub, other residents of the Town of Orangetown and I are aghast at the obvious manifold defects in the petitions apparently submitted in support of Trustee Wright by Barbara Scheulen of the Piermont Democratic Committee (PDC), by Mark Silberstein, by Susan S. Witte, by Donald H. Guyton, by Trustee Wright himself, and by disgraced Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker. The petition pages are annexed hereto as attached/enclosed as Exhibit “A” through Exhibit “N”, respectively, for your reference, and incorporated by reference herein. Please note that this is not only a FOIL request. This is also a demand for an immediate investigation by your Board of Elections in the County of Rockland (RCBOE) into the clearly failed effort to submit the Wright Petitions to RCBOE as reflected in Exhibit “A” through Exhibit “N” hereto.
I am an attorney in New York, and a citizen and resident of the Town of Orangetown and the County of Rockland. Under the New York State Freedom of Information Law:
http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/foil2.html
and, as may be applicable, its state, federal, and other counterparts, including without limitation New York Public Officers Law, Article 6, Sections 84-90, and Title 5 of the United States Code, Section 552 (collectively herein referred to as “FOIL”), request is hereby made that each of you provide to this, my law office, full and complete copies of each and every document and other item of material dated, generated, or otherwise materializing from January 1, 2025 forward to the present day (collectively, “Records”) which may be at all responsive to the following requests:
1. “Peirmont”[sic]. You will first note that at the top of Exhibit “A”, titled “Petition Receipt 2025”, someone, presumably either you, Commissioner Weinraub, or perhaps Piermont Democratic Committee operative Barbara Scheulen herself, appears to have correctly circled the word “Village” but then misspelled the name of the “Village” as “Peirmont”[sic]. As I am aware of no municipality, jurisdiction, or other location within Rockland County, New York actually named “Peirmont”[sic], request is hereby made for any and all RCBOE Records which may identify “Peirmont”[sic] as a real location as opposed to simply the fantasy projection of someone’s overactive imagination and mind. I note here that on the equivalent “Petition Receipt 2025” forms submitted for Piermont candidates Mitchell, Gordon, and McCabe, a correctly-spelled “Piermont” was identified as the “Village” to which those latter candidacies pertain. Perhaps Trustee Wright is intending to run for re-election in a parallel universe or a different astral plane. In any event, I am seeking all Records relating to this garish SNAFU.
2. Sensitivity. With respect to Item #1 immediately hereinabove, I also want to be careful and sensitive to the possibility that someone may have mistakenly inscribed “Peirmont”[sic] on Exhibit “A” due to dyslexia or some other form of medical condition, while at the same time respecting their privacy and whatever HIPAA-esque protections may apply. Accordingly, I am also requesting all Records of a non-confidential nature - if any - which may have previously disclosed any dyslexia or other medical condition of any individual and which would tend to explain the apparent transposition of the letters “e” and “i” in the errant misspelling of “Peirmont”[sic] in Exhibit “A”.
3. Blank Forms. Next, I am requesting the blank “Petition Cover Sheets”, the blank “Designating Petition” forms, and the blank “Petition Receipt 2025” forms which were apparently forwarded, furnished, or otherwise made available to either the PDC or else to any individuals in connection with the Wright Petitions or Exhibit “A” through Exhibit “N” hereto, including without limitation to any of the following individuals:
A. Barbara Scheulen.
B. Michael Wright.
C. Noreen Myers-Wright.
D. Richard Owen Burns alias “Rob Burns” alias “Dick Burns”.
E. Daniel Spitzer.
F. Mark Silberstein.
G. Susan S. Witte.
H. Donald H. Guyton.
I. Bruce Tucker.
J. Margaret Grace.
Again, I am not seeking these Records in the form that they were apparently later filled-out and submitted to RCBOE – I have those already, thanks to you yesterday. Rather, I am now seeking the blank “Petition Cover Sheets” used as templates, blank “Designating Petition” forms used as templates, and blank “Petition Receipt 2025” forms used as templates - in the exact form as initially forwarded, furnished, or otherwise made available to the PDC and above-listed individuals, including without limitation any accompanying instructions, e-mails, other correspondence, and other writings.
4. Name Strike-Throughs. Additionally, I am seeking all Records which may tend to explain the circumstances under which and reasons why the names “Rondi Casey”, “Mark Silberstein”, and “Barbara Scheulen” were sloppily crossed-out in Exhibit “C”, Exhibit “G”, and Exhibit “H”, respectively - including without limitation any instructions, e-mails, other correspondence, and other writings relating thereto.
5. Address Strike-Through. Additionally, I am seeking all Records which may tend to explain the circumstances under which and reasons why the address corresponding to a wholly-indecipherable signature at Line #6 of Exhibit “J”, was crossed-out and changed from “130 Piermont Pl” and replaced by “Crescent Rd” - including without limitation any instructions, e-mails, other correspondence, and other writings relating thereto.
6. Indecipherable Signatures. Finally, for now, I am seeking all Records which may tend to identify the actual names of the individuals who apparently sought to affix their signatures to the attached/enclosed Wright Petitions - because, at minimum, the following sixty-eight (68) signatures are illegible and indecipherable:
Exhibit “C”: Lines 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11.
Exhibit “D”: Lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.
Exhibit “E”: Lines 1, 2, 3.
Exhibit “F”: Lines 3, 4, 5, 9, 10.
Exhibit “G”: Lines 3, 5.
Exhibit “H”: Lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
Exhibit “I”: Lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Exhibit “J”: Lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Exhibit “K”: Lines 1, 11.
Exhibit “L”: Lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Exhibit “M”: Lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
Exhibit “N”: Lines 6, 8, 9, 11, 12.
I find it appalling that at least sixty-eight (68) signatures on the Wright Petitions submitted to RCBOE, are illegible and indecipherable. The candidates opposing Trustee Wright are absolutely entitled to know the identities of these sixty-eight (68) apparent signatories, and are absolutely entitled to be given the meaningful opportunity to verify their respective identities and respective residences within the Village of Piermont.
7. E-Mails And Correspondence. Additionally, I am seeking all other Records of any e-mails, memos, notes, correspondence, documents, or other writings to, from, referencing, or otherwise relating to the Wright Petitions.
8. All Other Records. Additionally, I am seeking all other Records of any other kind or nature relating to the Wright Petitions.
9. Definition Of “Records”. “Records” should be construed in the broadest sense and manner possible and should include “any information kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced by, with or for (your agency or office)... in any physical form whatsoever...” (FOIL,§86[4]) including without limitation all audio recordings, blog posts, correspondence, data maintained electronically, data, e-mails, executive summaries, extracts, faxes, instant messages, Internet posts, letters, log-book entries, memos, paper records, personal messages, social media communications, spreadsheets, summaries, synopses, telephone records, test-reports, visual recordings, and any other materials:
http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/foil2.html#s86
10. Headings And Subheadings. The headings and subheadings used in this letter are for convenience of reference purposes only, and should not be construed to be words of limitation or otherwise of any substantive significance relative to these FOIL requests.
11. Costs. If there are any copying or other fees for this, please let me know what they are and how they are calculated, before filling the request and forwarding the Records to me. As this FOIL should be considered a matter of public importance, and as its results will be shared with the general public and published, I am asking that any otherwise-applicable fees be waived for this document-production. I am also asking that all documents be provided to me electronically to the full extent possible, so as to obviate the need for any photocopying expense.
12. Denials And Appeals. In the event that any portion of my request is denied, please inform me of each of the specific reasons for any such denial in writing - and provide me with the name, address, and other contact information of the person or entity to whom an appeal should be directed.
13. Additional Requests. These FOIL requests are not intended to be exhaustive, and I may make additional and follow-up requests.
I will appreciate a response from each of you, your respective offices, and RCBOE, as soon as possible. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.
Respectfully, and with thanks,
John J. Tormey III, Esq.
cc:
VIA FAX: 1-518-474-1927, U.S. MAIL, and E-MAIL:
coog@dos.ny.gov
NYS Committee on Open Government (COOG)
Department of State
One Commerce Plaza, 99 Washington Avenue, Suite 650
Albany, New York 12231 USA
