PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2012) — As we wrote last week, the Angelo Stracuzzi case from Biddeford, Maine is still relevant on many fronts, including its legal implications for Greylock Federal Credit Union, where Stracuzzi (“Tell ’em Angelo Sent You”) ruled for so many years.

Many have asked for more details on the case. As both refresher and revelation, we present a look at the court documents that were made available. THE PLANET obtained the records from York Superior Court in Alfred, Maine. The documents in “STATE OF MAINE, ss v. ANGELO STRACUZZI DOB 5/07/49” are stamped “Oct. 25, 2004.”

Six Years of Deceit, Not Five

The date shows that the crimes with which Biddeford, Maine, police charged Stracuzzi occurred in 2004, not 2005. This suggests that Stracuzzi acted as President and CEO of Greylock FCU for six years, not five, while hiding details of his arrest.

We say “hiding” because of the public contentions of Greylock FCU spokesman John Bissell in summer 2010 that the company’s board of directors knew nothing of the Stracuzzi arrests, you know, the Sgt. Schultz Defense. The board included Stracuzzi ally and best bud, Clifford Nilan — the man who then as now heads the probation department in the Pittsfield courthouse. It is hard to imagine any scenario under which Nilan, as probation chief, did not know about Stracuzzi’s arrest and conviction, since the latter’s probation was allowed to be switched from Your County, Maine, to home turf in Pittsfield.

Subsequent determinations show that there’s no evidence Stracuzzi ever served his court-ordered sentence of probation. By this reasoning, it would seem Bissell’s claim that no board members knew about Stracuzzi to be innacurate. Nilan had to know.

If the rest of the board didn’t know, the evidence suggests that for six years, both Stracuzzi and Nilan kept the arrests hidden from Greylock’s officers, and through them, the company’s owner-members.  We also wonder: In those six years, how many times did Stracuzzi sign a document swearing to the board he did not have a criminal past. THE PLANET is told such affidavits are part of the extensive review under which boards put presidents of financial institutions. Does Greylock have such documents?

This becomes relevant given rumors about a million-dollar plus settlement Stracuzzi may have received to depart from the company quietly. Owner-members were certainly harmed by any such payout.

‘Patronizing the Prostitution of a Minor’

The court documents lists the “Date of Violation(s)” as July 26, 2004. Biddeford authorities charged Stracuzzi with “Patronizing Prostitution of a Minor, Class D; Assault, Class D; and Criminal Mischief, Class D.”

The police’s prostitution charge demolishes Stracuzzi’s story, given at the time news of his arrests finally broke in summer 2010. Stracuzzi claimed the incident stemmed from a misunderstanding. He claimed in print to Conor Berry, as we recall, that he stopped in an act of kindness to give a charitable ride to a young, teenage, hitchhiking boy.

Prosecutors, acting on evidence presented by the Biddeford police, allege Stracuzzi “gave pecuniary benefit to [NAME REDACTED], a minor, in exchange for the prostitution of [NAME REDACTED]. a minor.” Translated, this alleges that Stracuzzi gave money to a pimp so he could have sexual relations with another person. Both pimp and prostitute were minor males. Subsequent revelation suggest the boys were aged 15 and 13. According to police, who do not bring such charges lightly, this then-54-year-old married man went cruising for sex with a boy — loathsome behaviors for a “Community Pillar.”

‘Intentionally … Causing Bodily Injury’

The police also filed assault charges against Stracuzzi for “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly [causing] bodily injury or offensive physical contact to [NAME REDACTED].” They charges that “having no reasonable ground to believe he had a right to do so, [Stracuzzi] did intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly damage or destroy a gold chain necklace and/or shirt, property of [NAME REDACTED].”

Documents reveal that police arraigned Stracuzzi on Oct. 27, 2004. In a separate document dated Aug. 2, 2005, the state’s attorney dismissed case CR-04-2288.” The documents says that “Defendant [Stracuzzi] has pled [guilty] to other charges … to CR-05-194.” That was the second case against Stracuzzi.

On May 25, 2005, York Superior Court issued its “Judgment and Commitment” report on Case CR-05-194 — the second case police brought against the Greylock FCU chief. Under “Offense(s) charged,” the document has in typescript: “17-A M.R.S.A. S855 PATRONIZING PROSTITUTION OF A MINOR — CLASS D.” Then, in handwriting, CR-05-194 lists assault and criminal mischief counts from incidents occurring on July 26, 2004.

Again, the 2004 date, adding a full year to the coverup.

In CR-05-194, authorities charged Stracuzzi based on “information” contained in a “complaint.” The only other data in the information field is a record of Stracuzzi’s plea. The form lists three boxes as options: “Guilty, Nolo, [or] Not Guilty.” The “Guilty” box is checked.

The next information field on CR-05-194 is “Offense(s) Convicted.” It lists the assault and criminal mischief charges. Based on Stracuzzi’s plea, the state of Maine convicted the Greylock president of both charges.

From May 25, 2005 until the media exposed his criminal record from the Maine incidents, Stracuzzi’s public life was a fraud. Stracuzzi’s every action from that time until summer 2010 as head of Greylock FCU was tainted with the coverup. As for the growth of the company during that time, we can say two things:

(1) Perhaps the growth would have been even stronger if the company had an honest president.

(2) The growth was, in effect, Judas money — pieces of silver earned while hiding reprehensible activities.

We would also add the question of settlement: How much money, if any, did Stracuzzi received to “resign”? That is a question that should be well in play among the current Greylock board of directors, the public, and especially Greylock member-owners.

Court Gave Stracuzzi Two Jail Terms, Probation

The court documents show Stracuzzi was sentenced to two jail terms. This indicated the seriousness of the matter. These were not simple misunderstandings. These were reckless acts of a grown man committed against a mere boy. Stracuzzi received 364 days in jail for assault and 364 days in jail for criminal mischief. These were to be served concurrently.

The documents suspend jail time and give Stracuzzi a year’s probation. Notably, it leaves blank the spaces for when the probation is to begin and where the probation is to be served. This suggests that Stracuzzi and his lawyers cut a deal to serve his probation not in York County, which would be standard procedure, but in Pittsfield, Mass. — where his buddy and fellow Greylock officer Clifford Nilan headed the probation department.

Did Stracuzzi inform Maine criminal justice officials and his own lawyers of his relationship, personal and professional, with Nilan? What was Nilan’s role, if any, in getting the location of Stracuzzi’s probation changed?  That’s a crucial question with serious ramifications, and it has not yet been answered.

We all know about the probation Stracuzzi was supposed to serve. He didn’t. Stracuzzi told Conor Berry of the Berkshire Eagle  that when he reported to probation, a clerk asked him if he wanted to see an officer. Does a convicted criminal have a choice? Is this a question that is commonly asked? Stracuzzi has publicly stated he never saw a probation officer. How could this be?

To further muddle the mess, the Massachusetts Probation Department, itself under investigation in a corruption probe whose results still have to be released, provided conflicting information on Stracuzzi’s probation. First, the state DOP said Nilan supervised Stracuzzi’s supervision. Then it denied that. Which is it? The state has never answered. Perhaps the investigation results will shed some light here.

At least two members of Greylock FCU’s board knew about Stracuzzi’s arrest and guilty pleas: Stracuzzi and Nilan. Did the rest of the board know anything? Yes or no, either way, the board — knowingly or unknowingly — participated in a cover up. This constituted a gross violation of its job to protect the interests of rank-and-file members of the credit union, the one “Sent” by Angelo.

Did Stracuzzi and/or Nilan mention the Biddeford case to any other board member, officer, or employee of Greylock? That, too, remains unanswered.

The Deal of the Century

A Greylock officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, told THE PLANET that every employee of  the company must undergo a criminal background check. How, then, could the board have whiffed on Stracuzzi’s criminal past. The source could not account for this, calling the possibility “unbelievable, almost impossible.”

Going on two years since the case broke, the Greylock board has yet to explain how it could miss this. Understandably, Greylock officers — at the time and now — want the Stracuzzi mess to go away. It will not in the eyes of the public, though, until it comes clean about what happened, about what they knew and didn’t know. Particularly, the board needs to spells out in plain English: Did they give Stracuzzi (and Nilan, for that matter) a compensation package in exchange for going quietly in the night? If no, then flatly tell us. If yes, then reveal the specific terms of the agreement. Greylock members and the public at large, given Stracuzzi’s long and highly visible public role as Community Pillar, political leader, and Greylock chief, needs to know.

Pittsfield didn’t deserve to be treated this way by Angelo Stracuzzi. Neither did Greylock Federal Credit Union. The vile nature of the charges against Stracuzzi — sexually messing with young boys — is particularly despicable. We also wonder: Could the nature of these criminal charges only be the tip of the iceberg, one that involves not only Stracuzzi but other “Community Pillars?” Was there, and is there, a sickness that has never been revealed?

A coda to the court documents — Stracuzzi had to pay $150 in restitution to his victim(s) and $20 in court assessments.You can call it The Deal of the Century.










  1. Andrew
    April 10, 2012 at 10:57 am #

    “We also wonder: Could the nature of these criminal charges only be the tip of the iceberg, one that involves not only Stracuzzi but other “Community Pillars?” Was there, and is there, a sickness that has never been revealed?”

    Excellent, well-researched, and well-written article right up until this last paragraph where you seemingly couldn’t help but stray from facts to absolute rumor mongering. Reading that last paragraph made me realize that you simply can’t help yourself from adding in a little “spice” to your writing, regardless of if it’s true or not. You were so close to maintaining journalistic integrity throughout an entire article! Maybe next time.

    • Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
      April 10, 2012 at 11:03 am #

      Its not “rumor mongering” if yor not spreading rumors about anyone Andy my boy, but maybe a reference to unspoken stories that have been floating in the Berkshires for many years. Which, if you are a lifelong Berkshire resident I’m sure you have heard. DV didn’t say something that wasn’t true at all but rather hinted at the well known fact that there are other stories to be told…

      • Andrew
        April 10, 2012 at 11:07 am #

        What you just described right there….that’s exactly what rumor mongering is. Which is fine as far as it goes if it’s just people talking to other people “floating” it around. However, as DV is a journalist with decades of experience, he knows what’s acceptable journalistic behavior and what’s not.

        • danvalenti
          April 10, 2012 at 12:14 pm #

          Read the tagline under my byline: It reads “PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary.” That’s what we delivered today, and what we deliver every day. “Acceptable journalistic behavior” describes to a alphabet what we do, here and every day. Known facts and reasonable conjectures do the world of New Journalism make.

          • Andrew
            April 10, 2012 at 3:30 pm #

            Just curious, why do you insist on saying “we” when Planet Valenti is just you? There is no staff or other “journalists”. This is a personal blog of yours that you use to say things you couldn’t get away with in an actual news agency. You know this already and this is well-tread ground.

  2. Jim Gleason
    April 10, 2012 at 11:08 am #

    Why is John Bissell still employed at GFCU and why is Cliffy still a member of the Park Commission in Pittsfield AND on several boards in the area? As they say, the more the connected ones screw up the more they get.

    • Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
      April 11, 2012 at 5:44 am #

      @ Andy…When DV says “we” he is including members of the Secret Squadron, those spies and gumshoes that occupy every nook and cranny of the Berkshires and beyond…We are all part of The Planet..

  3. Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
    April 10, 2012 at 11:11 am #

    So what’s the rumor then Andrew? Fill me in please…Maybe, just maybe DV has people on record that have come forth with stories but have chosen to not go public with them for fear of humiliation or retribution and this is his way of trying to ease the story out there??

  4. Wilson
    April 10, 2012 at 11:48 am #

    You’d think AG Coakley would be all over the probation angle here since she is so concerned with “sex trafficking” and demanded a law to punish men who buy sex with lengthy jail sentences. But of course she is just another women’s-interests-only female politician, who plays it safe, and doesn’t really care when the victim is a man, or even a boy.

    • Molly
      April 11, 2012 at 12:33 am #

      Just to be sure that I’m understanding your post correctly, are you saying that human trafficking is ok and should be legal? It sure appears that this is exactly what you are saying. So are you, and a few others on here, misogynists or are you merely afraid of women? What is it about a female AG, or any female in any high-powered position, that concerns you so much? What is it about a female having the audacity to post her opinion on this website that disturbs you and a few others so much? So much so, that you can’t even have a debate about a particular issue and state the facts that led you to your own differing conclusion, but instead find the need to personally attack and to repeatedly state disparaging remarks based solely on my being female?

      To be clear, human trafficking is an extremely vile crime, forcing very young girls AND boys into prostitution from within this country and outside of it. These sick and vile so-called “people” force CHILDREN into the sex trade industry, the second largest illegal industry in the world, with an estimated 27 MILLION PEOPLE (Children!) trafficked both internationally and domestically per year and bringing in 32 BILION dollars annually. Personally, I can’t think of anything that could possibly be more vile than this. Yet you are trying to defend this, although I must say that per usual, you did a very poor job of that.

      Also to be perfectly clear, the law is the law for both male and female. Anyone caught trafficking HUMAN BEINGS will be punished, and I hope very severely! Interesting that you are “assuming” that it would only be males who would be caught doing this! Very telling, indeed…

      • Molly
        April 11, 2012 at 1:57 am #

        “AG Martha Coakley, law enforcement officials to reveal results of statewide campaign against ‘scourge of child pornography’

        Geeeeeesh – yet another from Martha Coakley, the “women’s interests only politician” trying again to lock up those poor male sex offenders! Tsk, Tsk, Tsk!!! I think you should start a march on Beacon Hill to protest this… And please let us know how you make out with that, too – would be very interested to know.

        • Wilson
          April 11, 2012 at 9:08 am #

          Stories about catching child porn watchers are pornographic in themselves. There is no substance, only emotion, and no children are helped. Coakley already tried to increase her power and build her political status by exploiting abused children as a pretext for breaking the law and shutting down the internet in Massachusetts before she was stopped by the courts. Her obsession with male sexuality even led her to completely forget her responsibilities as top lawyer, yet she still retains her job.

          • Molly
            April 11, 2012 at 11:39 am #

            Stories about child porn watchers are NOT pornographic in themselves but instead, put shame on the person doing it and that, in itself, is a deterrent! People who read these stories are disgusted, as they should be, and voice that as well. And will shun those who are named (as they should!). In addition, parents will KNOW to not let their children anywhere near these vile people!

            So because Coakley is cracking down on these vile, disgusting pedophiles ruining our children, she’s “exploiting abused children as a pretext for breaking the law”. You are one sick dude! “Her obsession with male sexuality even led her to completely forget her responsibilities as top lawyer”. Really? Personally, I’d like to see her publicly, physically torture every single person who has ever abused a child.

          • Joetaxpayer
            April 11, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

            Martha Coakley could not run water.But I do thank her for blowing her campaign to Mr. Brown.

      • Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
        April 11, 2012 at 5:46 am #

        I dont think that’s what Wilson was saying at ALL Molly. Your way off base with your interpretation of his post I believe

        • Molly
          April 11, 2012 at 8:10 am #

          Really? Although I did try, I was unable to interpret his post in any other way: “since she is so concerned with “sex trafficking” and demanded a law to punish men who buy sex with lengthy jail sentences. But of course she is just another women’s-interests-only female politician, who plays it safe, and doesn’t really care when the victim is a man, or even a boy.”

          How else could that possibly be interpreted? I’d be interested to hear that from both you and Wilson! If you’re going to tell me that I’m “way off base”, back it up!

      • Wilson
        April 11, 2012 at 8:52 am #

        If that’s what it was really about Coakley should have gone apeshit when it was revealed that MA government officials protected Stracuzzi after he was convicted of abusively sexually exploiting a boy. Instead we have Coakley triumphantly hunting down people involved in the normal prostitution business, which pays good wages to adult women (for admittedly unglamorous work).

        Seems that this “trafficking” propaganda is really about making sure that husbands banished to the couch for forgetting anniversaries stay on the couch. Coakley is not interested enough in protecting boys to be a “bad girl” and confront the establishment, she openly encourages smuggling in the labor of Hispanic males for exploitative labor, and she even sanctions underage girls selling themselves for a new iPhones so that she can destroy the men who take the bait! No, there is no place in government for a woman who enforces the law on strictly sexist terms.

        • Molly
          April 11, 2012 at 11:31 am #

          She absolutely does NOT “openly encourage smuggling in the labor of Hispanic males for exploitative labor” – in fact, included in the bill regarding human trafficking for sex is also human trafficking for labor! “She even sanctions underage girls selling themselves for a new iPhone so that she can destroy the men who take the bait!” Are you serious???? To be honest, this sounds like it’s coming from someone who truly has some serious mental issues! I won’t even attempt to reply to this statement any further as it is too absurd.

          And yet again, you are making the assumption that the only people who would be arrested for human trafficking are males. With $37 Billion on the table, I’m sure that it’s both males and females involved. And the children that are being exploited are both male and female. “No place in government for a woman who enforces the law on strictly sexist terms” – all I can say is that you need help! Or to be put in jail!

          Also, as the Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts, I’m sure that she does not get involved with individual cases like Angelo Stracuzzi – but instead leaves those to those people who work under her. She is working on the bigger picture things, like human trafficking our CHILDREN for SEX!!!!! Hellooooo????!!!

  5. AskAndy
    April 10, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    Andy, are you a lifelong resident of the Berkshire?

    • Fan Dan Go
      April 10, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

      Yeah, Andy Andrew or whatever your name is, what are your local ties. Also, you never answered Dan’s questions about your age, where you teach, what subjects etc. Why not?

      • Andrew
        April 10, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

        We are almost all anonymous on this website and I for one am going to remain that way. Do I have local ties? Of course I do. How else would one come upon this website or know anything about the Berkshires? Have I lived in the Berkshires for almost my entire life? Yes. Do you need or deserve to know anything beyond that? No. Because while you may disagree with what I say, I say it in a respectful if harsh manner that criticizes both the substance and style of DV’s writings. I’m neither a troll nor particularly beholden to this website, which I check every few days or so.

        • danvalenti
          April 11, 2012 at 7:35 am #

          I respect your right to remain anonymous, if that’s your choice. You have furnished a legitimate address to this website, and that is good enough for us. Your identity is only relevant if you say it is. It’s an individual choice. I have been in the news and opinion game a long time, and in all those years, I have issued my opinions with a byline or under my name. You have been a fervent critic, and that’s OK. One of the purposes of this website is to encourage discussions, debates, deliberations, which necessarily mean disagreement. I have for the most part appreciated the measured tone of your criticisms, even when you’re pouring it on.

  6. Andrew Stevens
    April 10, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    Credit Unions must have a fidelity bond to guard against employee dishonesty and acts of malfeasance by officers. It is likely that GFCU had coverage in place that would have “bought out” some portion of Stracuzzi’s contract because of this mess. Or, GFCU could have exercised a morals clause in Stracuzzi’s contract. There could well be a liquidated damages clause in his contract as well that would pay him a sum certain depending on the circumstances of his departure.

    Because we do not know the specifics of his contract, and the specific coverages GFCU had in place, this is speculative, but it’s unlikely general members of GFCU were adversely affected by Stracuzzi’s ouster.

    • GMHeller
      April 10, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

      Andrew Stevens, please provide us the street address of the polling place where you are registered to vote so that we may ascertain for certain and verify that you are indeed who you claim to be.

      • Andrew Stevens
        April 10, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

        ‘Glenn Heller’ please provide us with an explanation for your filing an affidavit with the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that you are indigent so that we may ascertain for certain whether you told the court to truth, or were trying to avoid paying a filing fee.

        • GMHeller
          April 10, 2012 at 12:58 pm #

          ‘Andrew Stevens’ alias Solons alias Praxis33, are you really in a position to be playing Grand Inquisitor when you refuse to provide information that would allow people to verify that you are who you claim to be?
          As it stands now, ‘Andrew Stevens’ could be just one more alias amongst the many you are already known to use.
          Combine that with your dependence on proxy servers for many of your postings on Topix and the likelihood is that ‘Andrew Stevens’ is just one more fictional character in a long list of made-up screen names.

          • Andrew Stevens
            April 10, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

            Glenn Heller’ are you really in a position to be playing Grand Inquisitor when you owe the federal government at least a quarter of a million dollars for price gouging, and have admitted to being indigent in a federal appeals court?

          • GMHeller
            April 10, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

            Andrew Stevens, if you are not willing to share with the general public the street address of the polling place where you are registered to vote, are you willing to provide that information to Dan Valenti so that he can contact the registrar of voters in that municipality and verify that you are indeed who you claim to be?
            Are you also willing to provide to Mr. Valenti the full legal name in which you are registered to vote?

          • Andrew Stevens
            April 10, 2012 at 1:56 pm #

            I suspect Dan doesn’t much care where I vote, nor does anyone else, except you.

            Can we return to the matter at hand please? Thank you.

    • danvalenti
      April 10, 2012 at 1:56 pm #

      Excellent points, but it also begs the question of why, then, has Greylock not shared the nature of this looming question. Stracuzzi’s position as a public figure, politician, and head of the largest financial institution in the county — to say nothing of the duty Greylock has to its members-owners — requires full disclosure. Only transparency will end this discussion for Greylock. As long as it hides the truth, suspicions will remain justified.

      • danvalenti
        April 10, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

        Oh yeah, Andrew is correct: I don’t much care where he votes nor do I care about Glen Heller’s affidavit with the Federal Court of Appeals. I would respetfully ask Andrew and Glen to take their fight outside.

        • Andrew
          April 10, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

          Just to be clear, I’m not Andrew Stevens nor do I care one iota for whatever internet beef those two people seem to be engaged it. Maybe you could call him Andrew Stevens or something to avoid confusion.

      • Andrew Stevens
        April 10, 2012 at 2:51 pm #

        It’s likely because of the privacy policies they have regarding personnel. It’s doubtful that the general public will ever know the precise details. I am unaware of any duty GFCU has to disclose the details of Stracuzzi’s exit to the general public. GFCU should provide a more detailed explanation, but I don’t think it’s obligated to do so.

        • Fan Dan Go
          April 10, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

          What about to its members? Doesn’t Greylock owe them? That’s why many took their business elesewhere after the Angelo fiasco. How much business did that cost them? Plenty.

      • Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
        April 11, 2012 at 5:52 am #

        @ DV..I agree, excellent points by Andrew regarding Greylock. The ONLY way they should deal with it is head on. Let people know the terms of the buyout. People deserve to know. Heck , they might even have a LEGAL ground to stand on to know…and also DV , I agree, make Andy and GM take their schoolyard fight elsewhere

        • danvalenti
          April 11, 2012 at 7:24 am #

          Thanks. We’ve received lots of advice on has to handle Stevens-Heller Feud. We are mindful of the issue, and will take appropriate actions. On Greylock, you’re spot on. Greylock needs to do as you say: “Let people know the terms of the buyout.” First, it needs to flatly state “yes” or “no”: WAS there a buyout.

  7. GMHeller
    April 10, 2012 at 12:35 pm #

    Dan Valenti,

    Just to clarify, there were two SEPARATE incidents 24 hours apart that involved Mr. Stracuzzi seeking to entice young boys.

    From Berkshire Blog, Published: June 3, 2010:

    “In two separate cases filed with the York County Superior Court, Mr. Stracuzzi was charged with the same three identical counts in each case.

    “The criminal complaints stemmed from separate incidents occurring a day apart, each incident involving a different underage male.

    “The first incident took place July 26th, 2004 (Criminal Docket No. 05-194) and was reported to Biddeford Police that same evening at 9:36 P.M..

    “The second incident occurred July 27th (Criminal Docket No. 04-2288) and appeared on the police blotter at 10:00 P.M. same night.

    “The boys’ ages at the time were approximately 15 and 13 years-old, respectively.”


    • danvalenti
      April 10, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

      Yes, this information is correct.

    • dusty
      April 10, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

      so were the boys the same age on both nights? Which night was the necklace incident? Did he go back to the same boys is my Q.

      Perhaps things went ok the first night and blew up the second.

      trial by blog

      • GMHeller
        April 10, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

        According to the Biddeford Police detective to whom I spoke, there was one incident each night — a total of two incidents over the course of two nights.
        Each incident involved a different boy.

  8. Joe Blow
    April 10, 2012 at 1:39 pm #

    The Glenn Heller Andrew Stevens show has finally arrived from topix. Yay….

    • Andrew Stevens
      April 10, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

      Heller, as with most things, reveals himself as an obsessed quack on just about every topic he turns his attention to.

      It is he, not I, that continues to hammer away at the ever so mysterious issue of where I vote. Who cares?

      I’d rather discuss the GFCU matter. Wouldn’t you?

      • danvalenti
        April 10, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

        THE PLANET has been tolerant and granted much leeway in the Stevens-Heller feud, but this will have its limits. Again, we ask both gentlemen to conduct this war privately, via phone, e-mail, in person, with Tweets, Facebook, or however they wish. Just take it from THE PLANET. We thank them in advance.

        • GMHeller
          April 10, 2012 at 2:27 pm #

          Mr. Valenti,
          So I take it you do not care if a poster on your web site is not who he claims to be?

          • Andrew Stevens
            April 10, 2012 at 4:49 pm #

            Heller, could you please stick to matter at hand? It’s really not that difficult.

        • holy cow
          April 10, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

          how about a steel cage match! rip chief jay strongbow

          • Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
            April 11, 2012 at 5:54 am #


        • Andrew Stevens
          April 10, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

          Mr. Valenti:

          Heller can’t leave well enough alone. I’d prefer to stick to the topic at hand, and Heller can ply his wares at Bridgewater State Hospital, where he’d undoubtedly have a captive audience.

          You’ll recall Heller’s criticisms of you for your lunch at Blantyre.

          The man is a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian.

          I am happy to stick to the matter at hand. He, obviously, is not.

          • GMHeller
            April 10, 2012 at 3:33 pm #

            All that is being sought here is for the guy who goes through aliases like Kleenex to provide some reasonable form of positive verifiable identification. You claim to be ‘Andrew Stevens’, but you also claim to be Solons and Praxis33.
            Asking for voter registration information is a reasonable way to pin down an identity.
            Your refusal to provide even the most minimal form of verifiable ID is classic troll behavior.

          • dusty
            April 10, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

            Heller seems hell bent on turning this into the dump that he helped make Topix. He needs to drop the subject or take a long hike.

          • Andrew Stevens
            April 10, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

            It is not. Trolls exist to hijack topics. I am who I say I am. And, I’m trying to stick to the matter at hand. You, ‘Glenn Heller’ simply cannot hew to the topic under discussion, and would rather make demands about something no one cares about, which is where I vote. That is classic troll behavior.

            You thought Sharon-mom-of-Bobby was pretending to be about 100 other people. Whomever criticizes you, you immediately allege that that person is inventing additional identities to do so. It’s pathetic.

            So, like dusty said, let it go or take a hike. We’d all be better for it.

          • GMHeller
            April 10, 2012 at 4:10 pm #

            The troll, ‘SharonMomofBobby’ posts with a Springfield ISP.
            ‘Andrew Stevens’ alias Solons alias Praxis33 alias etc., etc. — when not using proxy servers to post from Finland , NYC, and other places — posts from a North Adams ISP.
            If Topix is a wasteland, it’s because unidentifiable trolls like ‘Andrew Stevens’ make it so.

          • Andrew
            April 10, 2012 at 4:57 pm #

            You do realize that nobody here cares at all about you and the other guy and your internet feud right? Do you both spend all day obsessing over who the other person is and wait until they come online and attack them? That’s pretty pathetic on both your parts. Neither of you have the upper hand in this because you’re both pretty lame. Valenti is right. Go call each other on the phone or fight outside a bar or something. You’re like a classless couple fighting on facebook insisting that you hate drama while incessantly sharing your drama with everybody who is friends with you. It’s sad and you both must be pretty lonely.

          • GMHeller
            April 10, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

            So are we to believe that poster ‘Andrew’ and poster ‘Andrew Stevens’ are not one and the same troll posting on this thread?
            Yeah, right.

          • Andrew Stevens
            April 10, 2012 at 5:27 pm #


            I agree with your sentiments in the main, but Heller simply cannot let this go. I have no interest in debating the place where I vote. I’d prefer to remain on topic, but the man tries to desperately discredit whomever he disagrees with all the while having more holes in his own credibility than a moth-eaten sweater.

            I’m not lonely, but it’s obvious Heller is.

            I did not raise of these issues here, nor did I want to, until Heller came along with his lies on Topix.

            I hope he moves on. I’ve said repeatedly that I’d prefer to discuss the matter at and.

        • Molly
          April 11, 2012 at 12:36 am #

          Have we reached the limit yet?

          • Bull Durham
            April 11, 2012 at 6:59 am #

            Dan, you’re unfortunately allowing Heller and Stevens to hijack this website and discussion for their own purposes. You knew that Heller does this on Topix, and it’s apparent these two guys need to be clipped so those with opinions on the matter at hand can state them and not be distracted by their annoyingly childish war of words.

            As for Greylock, I am a member, have been for many, many years, and I have not once noticed any kind of “loss” in my accounts there. I am not defending Angelo Stracuzzi in any way, but the claims I keep seeing of “harm” to the members seems to have no basis in truth. If you are a member and you want “the truth” on any payout, then ask, or even demand it, get a petition going of hundreds of other members demanding the same thing. But I see no documentation that any member was harmed financially by any of this mess.

          • danvalenti
            April 11, 2012 at 7:21 am #

            Fair points, Bull. With Stevens-Heller, as with virtually all matters, we err on the side of free speech. There are limits, and when they are reached, you will know it by the actions of the Webmaster. As for Greylock, then, for the reasons we articulated yesterday, Greylock needs to simply share what settlement, if any, it reached with Mr. Stracuzzi. It it involved millions, it clearly harmed your returns. If there was no settlement, then you are correct. The point is: You don’t know, I don’t know, the members don’t know, and the public doesn’t know. Therefore, it’s possible, if not probable, if not likely, that rumors of a large settlement are accurate.Greylock could end this discussion simply, with the truth.

  9. Jonathan Melle
    April 10, 2012 at 3:58 pm #

    Angelo Stracuzzi was a big supporter of Mayor Jimmy Ruberto. So was Cliff Nilan and Carmen Massimiano. The Good Old Boy network of Pittsfield politics!

  10. Jonathan Melle
    April 10, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    Angelo Stracuzzi was a big supporter of Mayor Jimmy Ruberto. So was Cliff Nilan and Carmen Massimiano. The Good Old Boy network of Pittsfield politics! Don’t forget about Gerry Lee, too.

    • Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
      April 11, 2012 at 5:56 am #

      DV…this site is being overrun by mental midgets!

  11. too tall
    April 10, 2012 at 4:24 pm #

    Not really important, but is Ange back in town and working at Soldier On?

    • Bonnie
      April 10, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

      Really? They are a little too old for him?

  12. Jim Gleason
    April 10, 2012 at 4:29 pm #

    What a lovely bunch of coconuts!

  13. Andrew Stevens
    April 10, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

    Heller, don’t you see how paranoid you reveal yourself to be?

    Discuss the matter at hand.

  14. Scott
    April 10, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

    This is exactly why I don’t go on topix nothing but a bunch of weirdo’s get a room you two!

  15. Bonnie
    April 10, 2012 at 6:01 pm #

    Angelo, Jim, Cliff and Carman are likely guilty of lot more than the above Maine acts. Someday it will all come out.

  16. tito
    April 10, 2012 at 6:28 pm #

    Bonnie, you’re back!

  17. Bonnie
    April 10, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    Been around. Just not posting. Been here everyday!

  18. Jonathan Melle
    April 10, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

    North Street is a cultural institution thanks to former Mayor Jimmy Ruberto.


    North Street still sucks!

  19. GMHeller
    April 10, 2012 at 10:52 pm #

    ‘Andrew Stevens’ alias Solons alias Praxis33 et al., as always the disingenuous troll, you could settle this matter at once — and you know it.
    What is stirring up this phony-baloney self-righteous indignation is your refusal to positively identify who you are.
    Why don’t you just e-mail Dan Valenti and tell him the damn polling location where you are registered to vote?
    That will enable Valenti to make a quick phone call to the registrar of voters for that municipality and thus confirm that your identity is that which you claim.
    (Recommend you give Valenti your full legal name as it appears on your voter registration so that there are no mix-ups and so that you then don’t go crying foul accusing Valenti of double-crossing you.)
    No doubt Valenti will report back here in a thrice that you are who you clam to be — and then this matter will be settled fine and dandy.
    If Dan Valenti isn’t willing to step up to the plate on this, then I am sure reporter Conor Berry could be persuaded to phone your town’s registrar of voters.
    ‘Andrew Stevens’, you did say Williamstown, didn’t you, or is it North Adams where you claim to be registered to vote — or is it Finland?
    Here’s Valenti’s contact:

    • Molly
      April 11, 2012 at 12:42 am #

      Heller – please stop this. Honestly. No one on any blog has to identify themselves and he’s not going to – you know that! Please don’t bring Topix to here – I hate Topix!!! Please step back and take a look – he’s egging you on and you are falling for it. Please stop – you are better than this.

      • GMHeller
        April 11, 2012 at 9:06 am #

        Hi Molly,
        It’s not me who is bringing Topix here.
        You can lay that at the doorstep of ‘Andrew Stevens’ alias Solons alias Praxis33 et al..
        Solons is a known troll of long-standing on Topix and if Valenti, you, and others who post in good faith on PV don’t want to see PV turned into another Topix then recommend getting rid of those who are known Topix trolls because trolls do indeed infect bulletin boards like a virus.

        • Joe bloW
          April 11, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

          Just stop…no one cares!

  20. tito
    April 11, 2012 at 3:16 am #

    Heller is probably Andrew…some peoples children.

  21. Steve Wade
    April 11, 2012 at 4:31 am #

    Dan I think todays blogs have made this a must read! I love how crazy Heller is! Its official Planet Valenti is now = Topix!

    • danvalenti
      April 11, 2012 at 7:25 am #

      Glad you love something!

  22. Susan Moore
    April 11, 2012 at 7:19 am #

    April 22 – 28th is National Crime Victims Week. 8 years ago 2 young boys were victimized by your Mr. Stracuzzi and last December my step son was victimized by Ms. Nilan. That those two cases are linked at all is bizarre to say the least. This years theme is: EXTENDING THE VISION: REACHING EVERY VICTIM. I think Ken’s Dog Walk this Sunday counts as a kick off event for Extending the Vision. Peter and his family will be attending. For those of you who were so interested in his progress you should know he has his neck brace off finally and has passed his drivers exam and is mobile again. Yes, I know, he gets run over and has to take a drivers test before he can get back on the road yet the driver who hit him never lost hers. That’s what happens I guess when you have a traumatic brain injury and your insurance company is involved. But it is also a reason why for the past 30 years there has been a week in April that people all over the Country try to raise the awareness of Victim Needs. This year they have choses colors I find quite appropriate, blue and black —or as most victims appear, black and blue. To learn more go to

  23. Sandy
    April 11, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

    Susan, thank you for the wonderful update about Peter and his progress. It is such wonderful news. I hope it will be real soon that his health will be back so the family can get to normal as soon as possible. You all remain in my thoughts and prayers.

    • Susan Moore
      April 12, 2012 at 4:44 pm #

      Thank you Sandy. He got to stop and pick up a gallon of milk the other night after work!!! An old chore is a new victory 🙂