Letters sent to Pittsburgh City Council District 2
and Pennsylvania District 42 State Senate
17 May 2005 Candidates

To City Council Candidates

From: Paul J. Sentner
          [address]

25 April 2005

Dear Candidate for Pittsburgh City Council District 2,

Your reply will be shared with the people of District 2.

You should be familiar with the matter of the more than 2-year Action involving thousands of targeted District 2 residential property owners which resulted in termination of the Neighborhood Improvement District (NID) and its WE-HAV home equity insurance scheme by City Council and the Mayor in September 2004.

This attempted scheme was perpetrated by the Mayor’s Office, and the District 2 Council Representative you are seeking to replace. The District 2 Representative was the only dissenting vote (against a far more than majority of his own constituency) on the actual approval of the Termination Request, BUT in every WE-HAV-related Council vote, the majority of Council, if not unanimously, supported the Councilman’s lead in WE-HAV matters, despite each member being more than once individually supplied with documentation revealing non-compliances with the State NID Act 130-2000.

A consequence of Council’s incredulous passage of Bill 5-2002 (illegitimately) establishing the NID and the WE-HAV scheme has been the discovery that the citizens of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, and the State, have no public protection against the failure of elected officials to adhere to the procedures of State laws, apparently no matter how obvious the transgression(s), unless their actions are outright criminal activity, or penalties are specifically written into each law. Various State departments have advised various targeted residents that the State simply “expects elected officials to follow the procedures of State laws”, and that (victimized) citizens could take the offending elected officials to court --which is not an affordable alternative especially for most individual citizens.

The Pittsburgh City Solicitor’s Office advised that its responsibility is to “defend the Mayor, Council, and the City”; it does not exist to defend the people from misbehavior by the Mayor, Council, or the City.

So far, it seems it may be up to citizens to turn up the facts which would give the District Attorney and/or the Attorney General’s offices, if not the Federal Justice Department, the incentive to pursue the complexities and sort out the nuances of the transgressions and prosecutable offenses of this matter.

Therefore page 2 of this letter is to ask whether or not, if you are elected, you will begin immediately to persist in introducing legislation on behalf of your District 2 WE-HAV-victimized owner-neighbors to set-right the inappropriate past actions of City Council members, and for the benefit of all citizens of Pittsburgh, if you will act to establish an elected City Ombudsman.

Thank you for you attention to this matter. Please put your reply into the mail by Saturday April 30.

Sincerely yours,

Paul J. Sentner --- Elliott
[phone]
Extensive WE-HAV related information is posted under “Bill No.5 Opposition” at www.pauljsentner.com

 sent to Pittsburgh City Council Dist.2 May 17 candidates        

To State Senate Candidates

From: Paul J. Sentner
          [address]

25 April 2005

Dear Candidate for Pennsylvania District 42 State Senator,

Your reply will be shared with the people of District 42.

You may be familiar with the matter of the more than 2-year Action involving thousands of targeted City Council District 2 residential property owners which finally resulted in termination of the illegitimately-established Neighborhood Improvement District (NID) and its WE-HAV home equity insurance scheme, in September 2004.

The attempted scheme was perpetrated by the Mayor’s Office, and the former City Council District 2 Representative who was also the only dissenting Termination vote, against the will of more than a majority of his own constituency.

Except for the approval of the Termination Request, every WE-HAV-related Council vote was passed, despite each member being more than once individually supplied with documentation revealing non-compliances with the State NID Act 130-2000.

A consequence of Council’s incredulous passage of Bill 5-2002 (illegitimately) establishing the NID and the WE-HAV scheme, has been the discovery that the citizens of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, and the State, have no public protection against the failure of elected officials to adhere to the procedures of State laws, apparently no matter how obvious the transgression(s), unless their actions are outright criminal activity, or penalties are specifically written into each law. Various State departments have advised various targeted residents that the State simply “expects elected officials to follow the procedures of State laws”, and that (victimized) citizens could take the offending elected officials to court --which is not an affordable alternative especially for most individual citizens.

The Pittsburgh City Solicitor’s Office advised that its responsibility is to “defend the Mayor, Council, and the City”; not to defend the people from misbehavior by the Mayor, Council, or the City.

It may be up to citizens to turn up the facts which would give the District Attorney and/or the Attorney General’s offices the incentive to pursue the complexities and sort out the nuances of this matter, as both Investigative Units have to date, only verbally, indicated they do not seem to be able to determine the responsible “jurisdiction” and /or criminal grounds to become involved in the non-compliances with the State NID Act, and /or the $14,000+ spent of the $90,000 illegitimately collected (extorted) WE-HAV tax, or the matter of Council interference with the partial-refund money, without a court determination.

Therefore page 2 of this letter is to ask whether or not, if you are elected, you will persist on behalf of your Pa. District 42 constituency and all Pennsylvania residents in seeing the Neighborhood Improvement District Act 130-2000 amended along the lines indicated, and the establishment of an elected State Ombudsman.

Thank you for you attention to this matter. Please put your reply into the mail by Saturday April 30.

Sincerely yours,

Paul J. Sentner ---- Elliott
[phone]
Extensive WE-HAV-related information is posted under “Bill No.5 Opposition” at www.pauljsentner.com


sent to Pa. Dist.42 17 May 2005 candidates

<click>todownload a .pdf file                    back to the no_wehav home page

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------pjshome
The URL of the homepage is: http://www.pauljsentner.com/no_wehav
9 May 2005