She's baaaaaaack!

Monday, August 02, 2010

She's baaaaaaack!

The mention of Nancy Genovese on 27East seems to generate more vitriol and heat than anyone else over the past 52 weeks.

In fact, her arrest one year ago yesterday was named #1 of the 25 most-read stories of 2009 on The Southampton Press' Website.

In commemoration of that arrest outside the gates of Gabreski Airport, Ms. Genovese has favored Suffolk County and Southampton Town with a $70 million lawsuit, citing:

"...that she was wrongfully arrested, detain­ed and harassed... [and] ...was the victim of assault and malicious prosecution when she was detained by authorities on the shoulder of Old River­head Road for nearly six hours on July 30, 2009, before being arrested."

(Disclaimer: although she has comment­ed on OtBB, I do not know Genovese and to the best of my knowledge, have never spoken with her.)

With that said, the utter pants-wetting foolish­ness and hysterical1 Comments which accom­pany reports involving Ms. Genovese's unfor­tunate brush with law enforce­ment and three levels of Government, is noth­ing short of as­tounding... and disheartening.

Misinformation and epithets...

A sampling of the near 200 comments (many of which have been redacted as "inappropriate" by the Web Editor) made over the past three days:

"fact: She had an Assault Rifle and a Shot­gun with 500 rounds of ammo: fact She had $13,000 cash in her car: fact (a deposit in a bank of more than $10,000 requires a CTR form which is filed with the IRS because that much cash is suspicious)" – Nature (Hampton Bays)

No, "Nature," having just returned from the range, she had less than 150 rounds in her vehicle, #1, and, #2, get it right: "assault" is a behavior, not an object.

Third, that was a withdrawal, not a deposit... and she didn't use either gun to get the money which was already hers.

"She better hope I'm not on her Jury because she sounds like a loose canon to me." – Q333 (Southampton)

"Loose canon?" How? Her firearms were secured, she was on public property and took photos of something in plain view. And she was released and all charges dismissed! What "loose canon?"

"Think about it 1) she was taking photos in a NO photo Area 2) she had assault rifles and ammunition in her car and 3) she claims $13,000 in cash. If in fact they hadn't detained her and later placed her under arrest and she started shooting at the base and killing people after ALL the terrorist attempted attacks people whould{sic} be saying 'the police didn't do their job. They let a terrorist go free.'" – lifesaver (speonk)

For openers, see above following the Comment by "Nature," and don't you think "the base" has the capability to shoot back?

"This Genovese character is a real piece of work. Pity that her ridiculous lawsuit is going to use taxpayer dollars. I predict she will not receive a cent. She has no case." – elliot (sag harbor)

"Eliot" is optimistic... Mineola-based attorneys like Fred Brewington and Bill Germano don't take on "no case" plaintiffs.

"who the hell carries an assault rifle, shot­gun, 500 rounds of ammo and $13,000 cash, other than drug dealers? ... And what purpose do you have to need to know how to shoot an assault rifle? Stop wasting my tax dollars with your frivolous lawsuits." – lol@hb (hampton bays)

First a "terrorist," and now a "drug dealer?"

Ignoring for the moment the discredited assertion about how much ammunition she possessed, how 'bout someone with a certain amount of financial security who enjoys lawfully exercising her Second Amendment freedom?

The same writer then cites:

"...we had shooting sprees at Fort Hood, Virginia Tech & the immigrant counselling{sic} center in Binghamton, just to name a few. Try reading her myspace blogs, and all of her posts from last year, until here{sic} lawyers shut her up. Walking time bomb." – lol@hb (hampton bays)

Irrational fear and inept profiling.

And according to "it never ends..." of Smithtown, typing with his caps-lock engaged:

"She is either a terrorist or dump as can be...either way she is a danger to society so lock her up. Nobody is that dumb!"

Enuresis ignavus rules far too much of Eastern Long Island.


One writer identifies herself as "a wife of someone who works at the Base" who would understandably have concerns about the security of the facility:

"i would keep all eyes on that woman and where she is getting all that cash from??? Guns, money, ammo???? Sounds fishy for sure" – Patience (Southampton)

She neglects to mention that, taking a cue from the late Warren Zevon, Ms. Genovese has added "lawyers" to her "guns, money and ammo," so I expect that she will have even more money somewhere down the line.

  1. Not in the colloquial "hilarious" sense, but that of "eyes-rolled-back-into-the-skull, gibbering and fearful."


1. Milquetoast said...

"The police arrested me for possession of money. They said it was conspiracy to buy stolen property." – Freddie Prinze
Ms. Genovese appears to be guilty of keeping and bearing arms. Clearly, the 70 or 80 or 100 or however many millions of Americans who own guns must all be terrorists and/or drug dealers.

Yes, the enuresis ignavus is strong in Long Island.
However, we are doing our best to shore fragments against the ruins.

2. Ray Overton said...

It is my understanding that this incident was not the first time the former defendent/now plaintiff had been detained by Air Guard security/local PD. It is also my understanding she had been advised that taking photos in that area was unlawful and warned that she would be arrested if she did it again. If, in fact, those items are true, no matter what firearms she was carrying, she deserved to be arrested and should be charged for the legal fees for the public entities defending this idiotic action.

Your understanding and my are at variance, Ray.

But here's what you should probably focus on... all charges against her were dropped, obviously without an exchange of releases.

You and I both know that section of road very well... how can one be charged for taking a photo of what is readily seen from a public thoroughfare?...

3. MJP said...

Toto, pack the car for Kansas. Ms. Genovese appears to have broken no laws.

You can't make this stuff up.

Disclaimer: we had dinner in The Patio in 1953.

Someone who tried to "make it up" were the authorities. They were subsequently admonished by the local justic system.

4. MJP said...

PS -- please note that this incident, and most of the vitriolic reaction, has taken place WOC (west of the canal) in WHB or thereby, where the drinking water may have been contaminated by J2 jet fuel for decades.

This is neither a snide nor jocular comment.

Seriously, is the drinking water for the Air Base drawn from private wells? If it is from SCWA wells, where are they located?

I know where the spill occurred, and approximately when. But fluids seek their nearest and closest level, and the J2 plume headed straight for the headwaters of Aspatuck Creek. Draw a straight line from the tarmac of the Alert hangers to those headwaters, and you'll see it goes straight across Peters Lane, which is why in the very early '70s SCWA started providing the residents there with bottled water while they brought in "city water."

But there's nowhere I know of on the Gabreski facility low enough to draw that J2 fuel away from the Aspatuck destination.

5. Rob F. said...

Unless the Base Commander had declared the portion of the base visible from the public street to be off-limits to photography because of national security concerns, Ms. Genovese was perfectly within her rights to take pictures. Moreover, the fact that no charges were brought for taking illegal photographs as much as proves that she was doing nothing wrong. [Had the Base Commander made such a determination, he or she should be removed for incompetence, i.e., leaving sensitive assets in plain view.]

This was apparently a case of some cops who didn't like what Ms. Genovese was doing and what she had in her car, and who figured they'd come up with some charges once they'd arrested her and put her through the ringer. And if they couldn't charge her ... oh well. Too bad for her. Right?

We see the matter so clearly, Rob.

6. Rich said...

We would all be wise to remember the name Richard Jewel before deciding guilt. How many times have you read a news story stating Joe Blow was arrested and had in his vehicle, duct tape, a flashlight and "burglars tools?" How many contractors have all of those and more in their vehicles that can be cherry-picked for a news story? Seems like the east end is populated with statist sheep these days.

You've got the "choir" here, Rich. Recommend you direct your remarks to the 27East "congregation."

7. Ray Overton said...

It's not taking photos that is of issue, but what you are taking photos of. Take all the photos you want of the woods across the street or of the non-military sections of the airport. Take photos of the military sections of the airport and, I believe at this time, you are committing a crime. Unfortunately, in our current times, there is a level of cooperation that is necessary among the general public. If you cannot extend the courtesy of obeying the regulations regarding photography in that section of our little town and respect the men and women who are involved in that operation, quite honestly I have no respect for the offender. The area is posted. Respect those regulations. I can only hope whatever judge she ends up with feels the same way.

See Rob F.'s earlier comment (#5).

8. Jeanne Speir said...

Oh no. I use duct tape for everything, and yes, there's a roll behind my front seat. Plus, I've got my awesome subway flashlight, and a little tool kit.

I'm not a contractor. Uh oh....

Yes, dear... um, no, dear.

9. Michael Jacobs said...

I don't know if Ms. Genovese's actions rise to the level of crime or not. That no charges were pursued is a reasonable indication that no actual crime was committed.

Having said that, her actions can be deemed to be suspicious in the light of the new, post 9/11 world. That suspicion can be heightened by the (possibly innocuous) presence of firearms, ammunitions and a large amount of cash. None of them crimes in and of themselves... but in the context of photographing outside of a military installation the whole package is, shall we say... curious. Harmless... maybe. Curious... for sure.

The ANG section of Gabreski is a secure military base surrounded by fencing topped off by barbed wire and patrolled, physically and electronically 24/7/365. You DO NOT, under any circumstances, want to meet a member of the Air Force's "Ravens" while attempting to breach the base's security. Our military is VERY concerned and VERY conscious of what is termed "force protection" and "mission security." Any photography of the boundries, entrance points can certainly be construed to be a suspcious act and SHOULD be subject to further examination. The 106th Rescue Wing has a very sensitive military and homeland protection mission. The base must be kept secure. However, they are good and valuable neighbors, very sensitive to their presence in our community and very appreciative of the community's efforts to keep them here at Gabreski (the 106th was to have been BRAC'd in 2005 and moved to Westchester).

Ms. Genovese was observed on public property by Base Security and the authorities were notified of suspicious behavior. The subsequent detention and investigation revealed no crime was committed... at least nothing that would result in a successful prosecution... and she was released. IMHO a lawsuit of this magnitude is, at best, frivilous and, at worst, malicious. The sad thing is that, after protracted legal salvos from both sides, the matter will be settled for a significantly more moderate sum. She'll get some money... and the lawyers will have a nice payday. The taxpayers will, as always, foot the bill.

This, I submit... actually, you submitted it... is a far more rational understanding of what's at play here.

I do understand suspicious behavior (as distinct from "paranoia") as well as prudence or even an abundance of caution in our post-11 September country. For all I know, all Ms. Genovese's actions were in service to setting up just such a payday.

My own emnity, though, is directed less at law enforcement and military security forces, than it is at the hysterical responses by those who now like to fashion themselves as "progressives" and race to 27East to display their irrationality.

Not sure, however, if the Phoenix Raven program would have a presence here. (Had they existed 45-50 years ago, sure.)

Thanks for your précis, Mike.

10. Michael Jacobs said...

Some members of the 106th's Security Forces have completed the Phoenix Raven program, one of the military's toughest, and proudly wear the Raven insignia

11. Ray Overton said...

The perfect outcome for this would be the case goes to trial in two years after months of trading discovery documents and days upon days of depositions. The trial lasts two weeks and the plaintiff loses and is awarded $0.00. Yes it will cost the town/county/state's insurers the defense costs, but the plaintiffs attorney will get zippo - exactly what they deserve for such a frivolous lawsuit. The nice part is with these comments, I have probably eliminated myself from the jury pool.

I wouldn't worry about being summonsed to Jury Duty in Federal District Court in Central Islip, Ray.

What I would consider more fully is your own response to what happened to this woman last year. Whatever you may feel about the field interviews and searches of her person and vehicle, five days in Suffolk County is beyond the pale.

She may, or may not, be a tinfoil beanie-wearing wacky-pack, but she still has the same rights you and I do.

12. Tim de Illy said...

I have to wonder about the judgement of the cops who made the arrest. What were they thinking? Are they still employed as LEOs? If so, why?

Is it just me or has there arisen a kind of "hah! gotcha!" mentality among law enforcement? Why apply yourself to actual crimes when there is so much low-hanging fruit, ripe for the picking, thanks to irrational laws and a fearful, pants-wetting population?

Yes, the taxpayers will pay for this mistake. Guess what? If you haven't demanded the immediate dismissal of the officers involved, you should pay!

Possibly... let's see how this progresses through the system.

Email address is not published
Remember Me

Write the characters in the image above