You are here: Home » Evidence of Corruption

Evidence of Corruption

As discussed under “what you can do” and due to my technology challenged abilities I have not yet begun to document on this site the immense file of actual physical data that supports the exposure of corruption I have been dealt at all levels of this county government.  I want the actual documents to be scanned so as to show the actual letterheads from the various corrupt bureaucrats.  It is a big file – it will take time.  In the meantime, if anyone wishes to view the data and documents I would be more than willing to take the time needed to share and expose the complete lack of integrity and the depth of corruption that I have experienced and related in my previous writings.

One Case

amy waring0001

September 13, 2009

 Dear Ms. Waring,

 Thank you for your response to my letter of September 2, 2009.  I directed my letters to the flood plain administrator and environmental health because when I submitted these same complaints in 2007 they were completely ignored by you despite several follow-up calls I made to you.

 I am enclosing a copy of the letter I received from Assistant County Attorney Kate Dinwiddie dated February 5, 2007 as I will be referencing that letter throughout these complaints.  Also, I have enclosed a copy of my follow-up letter to Ms. Dinwiddie dated February 12, 2007 as it will be referred to also.

 First, note the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph on the last page of Ms. Dinwiddie’s February 5, 2007 letter,” Palm, Compton, Webb and Tobin have all been referred to Amy Waring, code compliance specialist, for investigation.”  When I had not received a response to your investigation by August of 2007, I spoke to you by phone, which resulted in me sending you my February 12, 2007 letter to Ms. Dinwiddie, which she elected to ignore, where I requested follow ups to my complaints.  I made follow-up calls to you in October and November of 2007 and left messages, which you chose to completely ignore.

 Now, here we are.  I have again requested, in writing, an answer to my complaints and you send me a packet of paperwork to fill out as if you are not familiar with these complaints.  Once again, your response is typical of the hypocrisy and corruption I have experienced first hand at all levels and throughout all departments of this county government.

I will, however, comply with your attempt to delay, dismiss and belittle my honest request for you to do your job, despite the fact that if you had been doing your job there would be no need for my request.

I will be sending each complaint separately so that I can devote the necessary time to each one so that you will not become confused.

Sincerely,

Peter Rothing

The Sherman Webb property on Amsterdam Road violates damn near every single thing outlined in Dinwiddie ‘s letter in regard to both floodplain and GCCHD sanitation permit requirements – the standard being imposed on me.

Let’s start with the Dinwiddie letter page 5 part II, paragraph 2 last 2 sentences: “Since 2001, due to increased sensitivity to public health issues in a flood crisis, the Gallatin City-County Health Department has required input from the floodplain administrator on ALL properties that may be subject to flooding.  Therefore, in order for you to proceed with obtaining a septic permit, you must satisfy the requirements of the floodplain regulations.”

Let’s review:  Webb was given a sanitation permit dated 11/17/05 approved by Tom Moore of GCCHD.  Tom is not new to the job, nor ignorant of the regulations requiring input from the floodplain administrator.  No input from the floodplain administrator, no review by floodplain administrator, and no floodplain permit are demonstrated.  Apparently no site review by GCCHD, either, as site plan submitted does not show a major flood channel that bisects the property and was a raging torrent in the 1997 flood.  Nothing happens.  Then September /October of 2007 all the topsoil from the newly approved fishing access site debacle is hauled on the Webb’s site for fill.  No review by floodplain administrator, no flood plain permit.  On 11/15/07 in discussion with Tom Moore I asked if sanitation permit has to be completed by expiration date or just started before expiration and question fill already hauled into flood plain without floodplain permit.  On 11/15/07 his sanitation permit expired and application was marked “void expired”.  The original site plan done by Westergard does not show the major flood channel that runs within 100 ft. of  both houses, the well and the septic tanks.  Then in early March 2008 a house is moved on to the property.  In an e-mail form Sean O’Callaghan to you dated March 26, 2008 Sean admits the house may be in the flood plain and admits that he reviewed information related to wastewater treatment system at some point earlier.

So, given Dinwiddie’s letter page 5 as quoted above where all properties that may be subject to flooding require flood plain permit PRIOR to a sanitation permit being approved should have generated flood plain review as outlined in Dinwiddie’s letter parts 2,3,4,5, pages 1,2,3 and 4 in November of 2005 prior to issuing that sanitation permit.  Certainly, now in 2008, with an expired permit and complaints coming in to both you and the flood plain administrator should have generated a flood plain investigation.  Nothing happens!  Still no floodplain permit issued.  As time goes on, the septic mound is installed and still no flood plain permit as required PRIOR to a sanitation permit as required by law as stated in the Dinwiddie letter.

By your own letter dated February 9, 2009 you reference your March 26, 2008 contact with Webb in reference to the flood plain matters wherein you state that no flood plain permit has been issued.  Your letter goes on to say “During my January 30, 2009 inspection, I observed water overflowing the banks of a side channel of the West Gallatin river less than 25 feet from you house.  The ground was fairly flat and your house appeared to be imminently susceptible to a flood event.  Your driveway had standing water in it and was less than 5 feet from the river.”  Yet, even this, did not generate a flood plain investigation or a flood plain permit?  This might be a good time for you to review Dinwiddie’s letter pages 3 and 4 part 6A through N, which outlines in great detail the requirements for a flood plain permit.

This is the crux of my complaint and I am requesting, in writing, that you and the flood plain administrator produce the evidence from Mr. Webb’s engineers specifically addressing the compliance with the flood plain regulations as outlined in part 6 pages 3 and 4A through N of the Dinwiddie letter.

In your letter to Webb dated April 7, 2009 you stated that you and the flood plain administrator have reviewed the flood plain delineation produced by Morrison Maierle and determined that the house is located outside the flood plain boundary.  I am specifically requesting to see the documentation of compliance as required in part 6, A through N as outlined in the Dinwiddie letter.  The little map you had in the file from Morrison Maierle certainly does not conform to the above requirements so I would like to know exactly what information was submitted for the two of you to make your decision.

I would like to know why the sanitation permit was, apparently, approved and built prior to any flood plain investigation, why the flood channel within 25 feet of the house was not addressed.  Why Morrison Maierle can submit a map wherein they admit that they could not find benchmarks so they interpolated what they thought the BFEs would be.  Nothing they submitted addressed the compliance to the regulations above in part 6.  What was shown on the site plan does not show the large shop building already built.

All this and still no flood plain permit!  Your April 7, 2009 letter ends by saying (now that house, shop and septic are all complete) that any more development will require a flood plain permit.  Not exactly the same standard I have been held to, is it?

Sincerely,

Peter Rothing

P.S.  I drove by the Webb place today and it appears further work is being done in the flood plain.

Here are the Dinwiddie documents referred to above:

dinwiddie files0001

dinwiddie files0002

dinwiddie files0003

dinwiddie files0004

dinwiddie files0005

dinwiddie files0006

dinwiddie files0007

Response to Dinwiddie 2007

scan0001

scan0002

 

Waring’s Response

ham10001

ham10002

ham10003

My reply to Waring’s response

November 19, 2009

Dear Ms. Waring,

I must say I was VERY SURPRISED to even receive a response from you.

I must also say that your response was not a surprise.  It is a perfect example of the depth of corruption that I have been talking about.  Once again you did not address the specific questions in my complaint.  Lies, even when worded to sound “politically correct” are still lies!  Let’s start with Webb.

First of all, you state “The record shows that Gallatin County required the Webb’s to document compliance with the floodplain regulations to locate a house and septic system on their property at 3085/3087 Amsterdam Road.  Both their house and septic system are located outside the boundaries of the regulatory floodplain.  Therefore, the Webbs did not need a floodplain permit.”   Let ‘s review:  by your own file and your own correspondence in that file; specifically the e-mails between you and Sean O’Callaghan and Tom Moore in March of 2008 it is clear that the septic permit was given without adherence to the full requirements of the floodplain regulations as outlined for me in the Dinwiddie letter and referenced by me in my letter to you of September 13, 2009 paragraph 2 of Webb complaint.  “Therefore, in order for you to proceed with obtaining a septic permit, you must satisfy the requirements of the floodplain regulations.”  Again, by your own correspondence in your own file which you copied for me this past April it shows that Webbs did not even comply with any of the floodplain regulations as outlined in Dinwiddie letter pages 3 and 4 and that you and Sean O’Callaghan did not even make your bogus decision until after the septic was in and the house moved onto the property.

     Furthermore, the map that you reference in paragraph 3 as exhibit A is a complete fabrication in response to my legitimate complaint.  It did not exist in either your file or that of Tom Moore when I copied both files.  Also, in your file and in your own correspondence you refer to the map done by Morrison and Mairle as proof of BFE’s yet you send me a map “Exhibit A” done by “Survco Surveying” which is not dated and in no way meets the requirements for floodplain approval anyway as outlined in the Dinwiddie letter pages 3 and 4.  By your own letter, now, dated November 17, 2009 you admit that, “On February 11, 2009, the Webbs submitted a floodplain delineation that was prepared by a licensed professional land surveyor.”

Re-read Dinwiddie’s letter and explain to me how submitting a floodplain delineation 4 years AFTER their sanitation permit is issued is in compliance with the regulations as outlined by Dinwiddie that are being applied to me.  And explain to me in writing, how after 4 years of noncompliance and in the face of over 2 years of complaints by myself and others Webbs can get a renewed septic permit in 2008 and build their septic, a house and an unapproved shop with out being held to even a single requirement of a floodplain permit as outlined in Dinwidddie pages 3 and 4.  Show me, in writing, where it says in the regulations that compliance 4 YEARS after the fact is acceptable.  In case you cannot recall all the requirements outlined for a floodplain permit I have enclosed a new copy for you. (I’ll be putting them on the website again, too.)

Once again, you have confirmed, for myself and all my readers, how absolutely corrupt you and all your teammates are – it is all about INTEGRITY!  You damn sure do not have any.

Let’s look at John Palm:

The Dinwiddie letter page 2 4b “Section 5.02 E of the Gallatin County Floodplain Regulations lists prohibited uses within the floodway.  Among the list of prohibited uses are the following: (1) new construction and alterations of any residential, commercial or industrial structures are prohibited.”  Your letter to me now November 17, 2009 states in the last sentence for Palm “An application for a new septic permit would require compliance with the Gallatin County Floodplain Regulations.” 

Now let’s consider, again, in my letter to you of September 13, 2009 paragraph 3 wherein I cite, again, my complaint in the Dinwiddie letter of February 5, 2007 wherein I was told “Palm, Compton, Tobin and Webb have all been referred to Amy Waring, code compliance specialist, for investigation.  Now, please explain to me, in writing, why you did not investigate these complaints in 2007.  They were referred to you by an assistant county attorney!  Please explain to me and my readers, in writing, why you waited 2 YEARS and until the project was COMPLETED by Palm to tell him he would have to apply for a new septic permit and would be required to be in compliance with the county floodplain regulations.  You are ASSISTAN FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR and an “O’Callaghan wannabe” why didn’t either of you do your jobs.

Now, like with Webb, you and your teammates will have to fabricate some more documents or, God forbid, actually do you jobs.  Oops!  That ‘s right, you can’t do your job now because all those nasty regulations were supposed to be enforced BEFORE the permits were given.

That integrity thing again – you just cannot seem to get it right!  You and O’Callaghan, both, should surely consider resigning your positions; between the corruption and incompetence you are a waste of taxpayer dollars.  Don’t you two realize that you make it very hard for Lord Skinner and the Ruling Class to keep pretending that THEY have INTEGRITY.

Sincerely,

Peter Rothing

More Dinwiddie

ham20001

 

ham20002

Print, email or share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks