Max Stoker may not have committed "technical" perjury but in his affidavit of 10/18/01 ("A") he says he had absolutely no documents. However we recently received documents from other sources that strongly suggest that Max may not have been entirely candid in his sworn affidavit. If that is true then he could be guilty of perjury, a felony in the first degree. His affidavit was recently written and sworn to because of Judge Rumsey's Order ("B" (1 thru 5)). See especially hi-lighted language on page ("B4") and ("B5"). In response to the Order, we received no documents. The requested documents are described in ("C1" and "C2"), a FOIL request made 8 months before Max's non-response.

Why might we think that Max may be evading the truth in his affidavit of 10/18/01? Look at "D", "E", and "F1" "F2" "F3", with Max's name on them. In fact, D was sent just the month before Max said, "I have nothing".

So when Max says "I have nothing", was he defining "have" as carefully as Bill Clinton was defining "is" when questioned about Monica? Come on Max, you're a Public Official, remember?

We also wonder why the State still addresses Max as Chairman of the Cortland County Farmland Protection Board when he swears in his affidavit that his term ended more than 2 years ago.

Frank Hogg 12/17/01

See all the documents here or for printing click on each page below, print, then use your BACK button to return.

A, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, C1, C2, D, E, F1, F2, F3