Sunday, May 29, 2016

Individual changes to amendments advertised on April 14 and April 21 2014 by CJER examined, revealing deception of public

In the first document below is the text of amendments that was submitted by Special CJER Solicitor Fareri to the Pocono Record, to be published in a Publlic Notice on April 14 and April 21, 2014.  The Record confirmed that it still has the submitted file today.  Colored ovals have been added to highlight that items to be added have double underline (tangerine), and items to be removed are shown with strike through (lime green).  There are 23 items with double underline, and 13 with strike through.

In the second document, the advertisement as printed is shown.  The Record substituted single underlining for double, and there is no indication that this was authorized.  The items that were to be double underlined have been circled in yellow, and the items to be removed and displayed with strike through have been circled in lime green.

Note that a key has been added to both documents, something neither the planning consultant or the CJER Special Solicitor saw fit to do to explain to the reader what was changing and how.  The Municipalities Planning Code requires the municipal solicitor, James Fareri of Newman Williams in this case, to advertise amendments and amendments that substantially alter pending amendments.

A very significant discrepancy exists; of all the change notations, the only two that were inexplicably not printed were the underlining of manufacturing, light, and the strike through of industry.   These should appear in the lower document in the area circled in red, but do not.  Yet these two notations were contained in the file received by the Record (top document). The probability this was an error by the Record  is 1/23*1/13 = 1/299 = 0.3%, meaning the probability it was intentional is 99.7%.  Could this be related to why Mr. Fareri has advised CJERP members not to discuss what happened in 2014?

The Monroe County Planning Commission and CJER appear to have been overwhelmed by the excitement of the moment in April 2014, because the evidence suggests that the supplemental amendments added after March 27, 2014 were not reviewed by either one or the CJER solicitor.  CJER was so confident that they cancelled their April 2014 meeting at which they possibly could have identified major problems (improper advertising, amendments not reviewed by CJER townships, amendments never authorized, amendments not reviewed by county planners) prior to the May 1 adoption.  But who was so caught up in their personal euphoric crapulence that they would request the Record make this unauthorized change to what was submitted? Who cared so much about the amendment being passed that they risked changing a Public Notice that nobody reads?

No comments:

Post a Comment