In a just-released March 31, 2005 Decision of Federal Court for the Northern District of New York, with grave consequences to the common citizen in the Northern District of New York who must have the certification of an expert witness in order to file certain Petitions for Redress of Grievance in the Courts of the State of New York, where negligence or malfeasance by the state or one of its political subdivisions is alleged, a recently-appointed Federal District Court Judge has refused to grant injunctive relief to the Plaintiff therein, a New York State licensed professional engineer and certified associate public health engineer, that would have given him protection of law in the State of New York while giving testimony in court ON BEHALF OF the citizens of the State of New York, against the State of New York, or one of its political subdivisions.

The issue before the Court in that matter, Case No. 1:03-CV-753, Matter of Plante, P.E. v. State of New York et al., requiring injunctive relief from the Federal District Court is a retaliatory practice in the Northern District of New York employed against an expert witness against the State of New York, BY THE STATE, where it simply removes the expert witness, as a witness against itself, by the expedient of having one of its doctors issue a signed declaration, SIGHT UNSEEN, that the witness in fact is an alleged dangerous mental patient who requires immediate incarceration in a secure mental health facility in the State of New York!

That order, known as a "9.45", then goes to the New York State Police, who capture the person, the intended victim, as it were, and take him to a designated secure mental health facility, for incarceration!

The "PSYCHIATRIC TAKEDOWN", it is called, and it is illegal, in that a doctor in the State of New York, BY FEDERAL and STATE LAW, both, cannot issue one of these orders IF he has never even seen the person, let alone examined him or her in person, as happened in this just-dismissed case involving this expert witness on behalf of the people of the State of New York, where the state's doctor issued a fraudulent "9.45" order for this expert witness, SIGHT UNSEEN, just days before this expert witness was going to file an affidavit on behalf of the citizens of Rensselaer County documenting continuing corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health having an adverse impact on the public health, safety, and well-being in the Town of Poestenkill, County of Rensselaer, State of New York!

In this case at bar, which was dismissed Sua Sponte by Bush-appointee Hon. Gary L. Sharpe on March 31, 2005, an illegal "9.45" order was issued against the Plaintiff on August 22, 2001, to intimidate and deter the Plaintiff from giving further evidence of corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health in a court of law!

Before the Federal District Court in support of a Motion for Injunctive Relief against the State of New York, the County of Rensselaer and the Town of Poestenkill in this matter was a July 13, 2004 letter from Rensselaer County Criminal Court Justice Patrick J. McGrath, wherein Justice McGrath, the chief criminal court judge in the County of Rensselaer, informed Federal Court Justice Sharpe that he, McGrath, had reviewed the evidence in the case as Rensselaer County's chief criminal court justice, and that he was concerned because that evidence supported a conclusion of violation of federal and state criminal codes, in addition to the civil charges contained in the Complaint in the matter.

Among the evidence which Judge McGrath relied upon in forming his conclusion of violation of federal and state criminal codes was a graphic video tape wherein one of the defendants can be seen physically assaulting and threatening the Plaintiff, and causing him bodily harm, to deter him from performing the duties of a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York, and a March 16, 1989 Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation which is at the very heart of this matter of OUR right to dissent, and to petition for redress of grievance, which apparently has just been stripped from us common citizens in the Northern District of New York by Bush-appointee Sharpe on March 31, 2005.

In that March 16, 1989 Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was before Judge Sharpe in the Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief as Exhibit J, a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, based upon a review of substantial evidence, concluded:

"According to [name deleted], the results of the State's investigation were that New York State laws were not being followed by the Rensselaer County Health Department, Rensselaer County laws were not being followed by the Rensselaer County Health Department, and there was very little 'enforcement activity' even in the face of illegal sales."

"According to [name deleted], the object of any county health department (in the state of New York) is to protect the public, and not to facilitate developers, or development."

"In the case of Rensselaer County, it appears that the Rensselaer County Health Department was in business to facilitate developers and development rather than to protect the public!"

It was that last statement by this F.B.I. Special Agent in March of 1989 that set in motion the very chain of causality which has brought us up to this present moment in time in the Northern District of New York, where this Sua Sponte Dismissal of this Federal Civil Rights lawsuit and Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief by Federal District Court on March 31, 2005, now seriously jeopardizes the rights of all citizens in the Northern District of New York by removing from them the services of the licensed professional engineer whose expert witness testimony they would need to file a Petition for Redress of Grievance with the courts of the State of New York alleging a continuation of this same negligence by the State of New York and Rensselaer County Department of Health to this day.

In the State of New York, for a common citizen to file a Petition for Redress of Grievance with the courts of the state, where negligence by the state, or one of its political subdivisions is alleged, it is necessary to have expert witness testimony which supports the claim, otherwise the petition will be dismissed as frivolous, which can then result in sanctions being issued by the court.

By intimidating those few licensed engineers in the State of New York who are qualified to serve as expert witnesses in court against the State of New York, and its political subdivisions, through this illegal device of the "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN", the State of New York has effectively muzzled each and every one of us common citizens here in the Northern District of New York, since without this expert witness testimony, we are simply OUT OF COURT, forever, with no way back in, and the government corruption in the County of Rensselaer and the State of New York that was outlined in that series of F.B.I Reports annexed to the now-dismissed Motion for Injunctive Relief can now flourish with impunity!

The apparent sanctioning of this alleged illegal activity by the State of New York, and its political subdivisions, the County of Rensselaer, and the Town of Poestenkill, by the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York as of March 31, 2005 now sends a very chilling message indeed to the residents of the Northern District of New York, to wit: "KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT, OR YOU WILL BE NEXT!"

And so, that sucking sound we hear up here is the protection of law going right out the window, and that clanging sound we hear is the massive door of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York slamming shut in OUR faces!

And so it goes, here in the Northern District of New York, for the constitutional right of the common man, and woman in the State of New York to redress of grievance, and the right to dissent against corrupt governmental activities in the State of New York, and its political subdivisions that adversely impact the public health, safety, and well-being of those of us in the State of New York who also reside in the Northern District as it is defined by the United States government!

Going, going, gone!

As of March 31, 2005!

It is not often, at least in my own experience of things, that we, the common folks here in America, really get to take a hard look at what goes on behind the scenes in this world of law, because generally, there is simply no transparency, whatsoever!

Yes, if we are diligent, we can go to a local county law library, where we may find some records and briefs to study, or we may go to the County Clerk's Office and find similar records, but all of that presumes an a priori, that we know what we are looking for in the first place, and that is not always so, especially, if like this case above, there has been absolutely no media coverage whatsoever, nor is there likely to be, outside of here, in this forum, and in this thread!

And that brings me, for this moment, anyway, to this subject of "DISSENT", WHICH TO ME, as a citizen of the United States who is a disabled combat veteran, and thus, one who put his own life on the line to protect and defend OUR CONSTITUTION from enemies both foreign AND domestic, and hence, OUR rights to petition OUR government for redress of grievance, IS AT THE HEART OF THIS MATTER, and thus, warrants us taking the time to have this discussion in here on this subject above, which has right now a very chilling effect on those of us here in the State of New York who are sick to death of the corruption up here, but are seemingly helpless to do a thing about it, thanks in part to this decision, and the actions of those in the State of New York, STARTING WITH Attorney General Eliot Spitzer himself, who served to make it be so.

WHAT IS DISSENT, ANYWAY?

Just some guy out there who "don't like nothing, at all", and so, is always complaining?

Or is DISSENT something different?

And without DISSENT, would OUR America have ever come into existence in the first place?

According to Black's Law Dictionary, which is the standard that I personally always refer to in these matters of citizenship and the law, we have for DISSENT as follows, in its most simple form, as is appropriate to the issues before us in this above matter:

"REFUSAL TO AGREE WITH AN ACT PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED!"

In this case, of course, those "ACTS" that we, the citizens of Rensselaer County and the State of New York REFUSED TO AGREE WITH are clearly delineated and outlined in that March 16, 1989 Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was before Judge Sharpe in the Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief as Exhibit J in the above matter, where a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, based upon a review of substantial evidence, concluded as follows, ON THE RECORD:

"According to New York State Health Commissioner Dr. David Axelrod, the results of the State's investigation were that New York State laws were not being followed by the Rensselaer County Health Department, Rensselaer County laws were not being followed by the Rensselaer County Health Department, and there was very little 'enforcement activity' even in the face of illegal sales."

"According to New York State Health Commissioner Dr. David Axelrod, the object of any county health department (in the state of New York) is to protect the public, and not to facilitate developers, or development."

"In the case of Rensselaer County, it appears that the Rensselaer County Health Department was in business to facilitate developers and development rather than to protect the public!"

end quotes

The Rensselaer County Department of Health was in business to facilitate developers and development, RATHER THAN TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC!

Well, so what?

Yes, so what!

Or at least that is what I have heard many people say, over time, BECAUSE ...

In the State of New York, at least, corruption has been with us so long that it is just WHAT IS!

People accept it, and then, they wallow in it, actually, like pigs in mud, because it is there!

"Go along to get along" is the operative saying up here, for those who would get ahead in politics, and it means exactly what it says, as this case so aptly points out to all of us common citizens who had pinned our hopes for reform of OUR government up here on this one case, where the evidence was so meticulously gathered, and then coherently collated so as to present an unbroken chain of causality running from at least 1979 to the present time, where corruption in Rensselaer County AND the State of New York was not merely alleged, or complained about, by common citizens, but was confirmed by no less an investigative body than the F.B.I., itself.

An on-going course of conduct that is corruption!

That is what the record in this matter clearly demonstrated, and for once, we, the people, had acting for US an individual WITH the professional credentials to back up all of OUR allegations, AT NO COST TO US, other than OUR own diligence!

And then 8-22 happened, WHEN THE ILLEGAL "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN" OF OUR EXPERT WITNESS "WENT DOWN", and with it, all of that hope for reform came crashing right down in OUR faces, and with this March 31, 2005 Decision of Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York that essentially puts a lock and seal on OUR use of this F.B.I. evidence IN OUR FAVOR in any further court proceedings in connection with this alleged continuing corruption, as dissenters to OUR County Health Department failing to protect OUR health, safety and well-being, as it is charged to do by the laws of the State of New York, we are now apparently bereft of protection of law up here, which to me, a student of these matters, IS PART AND PARCEL OF this Republican scheme to enact "tort reform" by the vehicle of intimidation of and extortion of silence from the experts that we, the people, need to rely upon in order to survive motions for dismissal on the grounds from the state actor defendants that our claims are FRIVOLOUS!

Hence this thread!

Hence this continuing discussion, and dissection of this case, for what it is worth to the candid world WHO DOES NOT LIVE here in the State of New York, and so, may not themselves be affected by the lack of justice and equal protection of law that we common citizens must live with up here!

For an independent look at the state of what purports to be "justice" in the County of Rensselaer, in the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York, click on this URL now:

http://www.justicenow4.com

And for an independent look at the subject of INTIMIDATION of expert witnesses in OUR America who dare to stand up for the rights of the common man and woman in a court of law, click on this URL, and scan the contents, especially including the STATEMENT OF MISSION of that organization, AND THE FORUMS, including MISCELLANEOUS, where more information on this specific case can be found:

http://www.ccemt.org/forumviewmessage.cfm?...cussionnbr=4725

AND for a "look" at how some states, other than the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York view this quite serious subject of intimidation of expert witnesses, we have from the State of New Jersey as follows:

The recently passed "New Jersey Medical Care Access and Responsibility and Patients First Act" C.2A:53A-37 amending N.J.S.2A:14 contains a provision regarding civil penalties for what is characterized as "retaliatory action" against an expert witness.

The actual wording of the provision relating to expert witness "retaliation" in section 7 (C.2A:53A-26 et seq) is:

"An individual or entity who threatens to take or takes adverse action against a person in retaliation for that person providing or agreeing to provide expert testimony, or for that person executing an affidavit pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1995, c.139 (C.2A:53A-26 et seq.), which adverse action relates to that person's employment, accreditation, certification, credentialing, or licensure, shall be liable to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 and other damages incurred by the person and the party for whom the person was testifying as an expert."

And way back when, in the opening days of this forum, right after the November 2004 elections, to be exact, I was reading a book entitled "The Power of Many" by Christian Crumlish, who himself had experience with the use of the internet as a real professional "tool" for communications among separate and disparate groups of people in the world during the Dean Campaign, and a point he made to me in that book was that on the internet, where none of us are in any sense of the word "real", i.e.: having discernable physical features that can be "read" by another, IT WILL BE HOW WE TREAT OUR SUBJECT MATTER, that we will be judged in here, and so, with that thought in mind, I want to "introduce" myself as the "relator", or "narrator" in here, so that any biases or prejudices that I might have with respect to any of the subject matter in here are clearly "out there in the open", which is another point that I took from the Crumlish book: if you are acting out of devious means, people will know in a hurry, AND ......

Everyone has a viewpoint!

Just make it clear up front what yours is, and it's a downhill run to Bothaquay Bay from there!

SO!

Here are mine, biases and/or prejudices, AND interests in the matter, or perspective, perhaps, as the "relator", or "narrator", all succinctly stated for the candid world to see in this e-mail letter from myself to Senator John Kerry sometime around the time of the Democratic National Convention!

In here, in this thread, I am the person who wrote this e-mail to Senator Kerry, who is now, months later in time, relating to the candid world where matters in the State of New York have evolved to since this e-mail was in fact sent to Senator Kerry, by myself, with the result that Eliot Spitzer DID NOT speak at the convention, AS WAS REQUESTED BY MYSELF, as a disabled veteran, OF Senator Kerry, ON BEHALF OF the interests of ALL disabled veterans in OUR America:

Dear Mr. Kerry:

I am an honorably-discharged, twice-wounded, fully disabled Viet Nam war veteran who is a life member of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the D.A.V., the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Tri-County Viet Nam Veterans in the Albany, New York area.

In that capacity, as an honorably-discharged, fully disabled Viet Nam combat veteran, I am asking you personally on behalf of all other disabled veterans in this area of the State of New York who must rely upon the integrity of the medical health and public health fields in the State of New York to not allow New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer an opportunity to speak at the podium of the Democratic National Convention on the grounds that he is pandering to partisan political interests in the State of New York by countencing blatant acts of discrimination against a disabled veteran in the State of New York who has been working to expose corruption in county government in the capital district area of State of New York.

Presently, Mr. Kerry, as this appeal is being written to you personally in this community forum, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is actively engaged in defending in Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York what can only be termed blatant acts of discrimination and retaliation against this disabled Viet Nam veteran in New York State by Republicans in the State of New York who wish to permanently suppress this individual and his testimony to the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning Hobbs Act corruption involving Republicans in the Capital District area of the State of New York.

To stifle that testimony and evidence, in August of 2001, in the weeks before 9-11, as the record shows, this disabled veteran was the victim of what has become known in the Albany, New York area of the State of New York, as a "psychiatric takedown".

A "psychiatric takedown" is a defensive political manuver by which the Republicans in the capital district area of New York State have a witness against them removed by the vehicle of having a "pet doctor" sign a psychiatric arrest warrant for the individual which directs the New York State Police to take the individual into custody and transport them to the secure mental health facility of a local hospital, for psychiatric "care and treatment".

In this manner, the witness is removed, their crediblity is destroyed and their effectiveness as professional witnesses on behalf of the public health of the community is robbed forever.

In this case, the victim, in addition to being a disabled veteran, was also the local public health engineer, who had previously been commended in writing for his integrity by the New York State health Commissioner.

In March of 1989, based upon an investigation conducted by this local public health engineer, the State Health Commissioner, a well-respected medical doctor named David Axelrod, declared that the public health and environment in our county was threatened by an inordinate amount of sewage system failures which were the legacy of ten years worth of negligence in the Environmental Health Division of the State Health Department itself.

A March 1989 Federal Bureau of Investigation report confirmed these findings by Dr. Axelrod, and further noted that the Republicans in charge of the county had no intention of cleaning up the corruption, and that to cover matters over after the Axelrod Report, the Republicans had removed the public health engineer from his position on grounds that his Viet Nam combat service had rendered him a threat to society.

Thus, ten years of corruption in the environmental health programs of the state public health services in the Capital District area of the State of New York was covered over as if it had never existed, and thus, has flourished up until this time.

In August of 2001, to prevent this same individual from coming forth with videotape evidence demonstrating that these corrupt public health practices have flourished to this day in the capital district area of the State of New York, the Republicans attempted a "pshchiatric takedown", and the result has been disastrous for this individual personally, and all fully disabled veterans who would rely upon this individual for his integrity and expertise in the public health field to boot.

Presently, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, by and through his New York State Department of Law, is defending the actions of a New York State Veterans' Service officer who made alleged false statements to the Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York in connection with the false arrest of this honorably-discharged, decorated veteran on mental health grounds.

Because of those false statements, which are still being defended by Eliot Spitzer at this time in the State of New York, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary in his possession, including a graphic videotape portrayal of a violent physical assault on this individual intended to deter him from appearing in court in connection with the matter, this disabled veteran has been branded in the State of New York as a dangerous mental patient with no opportunity afforded him whatsoever at due process to either confront or combat this theft of this person's real identity as an honorable professional person of good standing in the community.

In the face of all of this, which is known to the veterans' community in capital district area of the State of New York, to then allow Eliot Spitzer to stand up at your side and speak at the Democratic National Convention would be an abomination, a travesty, as far as the protection of the rights of the disabled to equal protection of law goes, and well as the public health protection of the disabled veteran population of the State of New York.

For the disabled veterans population of this area, from a civil rights and equal protection of law for the disabled perspective, having Eliot Spitzer standing by your side at the Democratic National Convention would be just like having George W. Bush or George Pataki themselves standing there.

It would make a mockery of all of your promises to the disabled veterans of America to help us have dignity in our own communities, despite our combat-related disabilities, equal to that enjoyed by Max Cleland in his own community in the United States.

Help us prove to America that despite our disabilities, which are often disfiguring, or totally disabling as far as being effective in modern society, that disabled combat veterans are citizens of America too, and that despite our disabilities, we deserve the protection of law in America too.

Help us make this point by keeping Eliot Spitzer off the podium at the DNC.

Thank you on behalf of the disabled veterans of the Capital District area of the State of New York in the United States of America for considering this request.

I remain, sincerely and respectfully, a patriotic disabled American veteran.

Livyjr

Huh ?

Can someone translate the issue to english ? I'm having a hard time with lawerish...

In real simple terms, WE, some of the people of the State of New York who live in the County of Rensselaer are real sick of living in what has been determined to be a county in the State of New York with an alleged corrupt government!

Over the years, we have been trying to fight this alleged corruption, with varying degrees of success, because the alleged "FORCES OF CORRUPTION" are themselves capable of evolution to re-open, and forcibly so, seemingly any and all "venues of alleged corruption" that we are able to close!

For us, the citizens who are sick of corruption to be able to prevail in OUR efforts at having open responsible government in OUR towns, OUR county, and OUR state, we must have experts to verify our claims!

One of OUR experts was unlawfully "removed" from us by what we, the citizens, think was an act of state-sponsored terrorism, against us, or OUR interests anyway, on 8-22-01, WHERE the State of New York unlawfully BRANDED OUR expert as being a dangerous lunatic!

A County Court Judge reviewed this matter and stated an opinion that this alleged conduct by the State of New York against OUR interests appeared to violate Federal and State criminal law!

The Bush CONSERVATIVE in the Northern District of New York then said, in essence, back to OUR county court judge on March 31, 2005:

"Yeah, so what?"

"BIG DEAL!"

"SOD OFF!"

And that's where we are, pretty much now, in the matter, as of Sunday, April 3, 2005, FOUR DAYS AFTER the hammer fell!

We're OUT OF COURT, and corruption is now in the CAT-BIRD SEAT, and pretty firmly so, to be truthful, here, since we're out of court, and without a witness, thanks to this March 31, 2005 DECISION that is being discussed in here in what you are calling "lawyerly" language!

SO?

Simple enough?

And actually, what lawnorder is asking is really a necessary question, since this is, on its face, an issue with many "subleties" inherent in it, and without further "background", it might be hard to "dig" through the dry "legalese" to the heart of the matter, which is really one of state's rights, as much as anything, and that is why I decided to start this thread on what is really a NATIONAL FORUM.

"IS THERE ever any set of circumstances wherein a federal judge can sanction, in FEDERAL COURT, what are in reality, ACCORDING TO THE DOCTRINE OF LOCAL RULE, unlawful actions by state-actor defendants that strip a citizen of any state in the union of his or her rights under state law and Constitution with no due process of law afforded?"

Can Eliot Spitzer, the Attorney General of the State of New York, EVER use his office at any time to hinder prosecution of criminal matters?

YES, says the government!

SAY WHAT, say we, the citizens of the State of New York!

And there the matter does stand!

And anticipating lawnorder's next question, as to where this matter really does stand with respect to Eliot Spitzer himself, and the use of his "office" for alleged "political" purposes which are alleged to be against my interests in the State of New York, anyway, I would like to post as background this article from Bloomberg News which "fleshes" out the Spitzer "angle" a little more clearly, and in quite simple terms, to boot:

Friday, December 12, 2003:

"Fund-raiser nets Spitzer $2 million - luncheon for likely gubernatorial candidate attracts hedge fund managers, lawyers"

by Matthew Cox, Bloomberg News:

New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer collected more than $2 million at a political fund-raiser, with hedge fund managers and lawyers among the big donors, and said HE COULD ACCEPT CAMPAIGN FUNDS FROM THE INVESTMENT COMMUNITY WITHOUT COMPROMISING HIS ENFORCEMENT ROLE.

Spitzer, the leader of investigations into Wall Street conflicts of interest and mutual fund trading, has said he is interested in running for governor in 2006.

Though he hasn't officially declared his candidacy, Thursday's fund-raiser was Spitzer's biggest ever.

His investigations of "certain aspects of the securities market doesn't mean there can't be or shouldn't be contributions from anybody within that sector, any more than it would mean because we bring consumer-type cases, no consumer manufacturer could contribute," Spitzer told reporters.

He said his campaign committee has "a very careful vetting process" to avoid accepting gifts from donors under scrutiny by his office.

A Spitzer campaign aide who declined to be identified said hedge funds, lawyers AND THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY were among his LEADING SOURCES of campaign MONEY.

The luncheon at the Sheraton New York Hotel drew hedge fund manager Daniel Nir of Gracie Capital LP, who with his wife, Jill Braufman, donated $50,000 in June; Cablevision President James Dolan; Miramax Film Corp. co-chairman Harvey Weinstein, and Melvyn Weiss, one of several lawyer donors who has sued securities firms for investors based on Spitzer's investigations.

"There are a lot of hedge funds that have not been trading the way the naughty ones have," said Roy Smith, a professor of finance at New York University.

"THEY WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MR. SPITZER INVESTIGATE ALL THEIR COMPETITION that's been too aggressive."

Spitzer's investigative work "gives investors a sense that someone's keeping an eye on what's in their best interest," said donor George Fox, founder of Titan Advisors, a hedge fund consultant.

Cynthia Darrison, managing director of the Spitzer campaign committee, said that the event attended by nearly 700 people generated more than $2 million.

"This is meant as a preemptive strike" with 35 months to go until the election, said Douglas Muzzio, professor of public affairs at Baruch College in New York.

"He's saying 'I can raise huge amounts of money.'"

end quotes

Yes, he certainly can.

But by "selling" what?

Or "who", perhaps?

SO?

Can he?

AND WHAT IS THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY GETTING FOR ITS MONEY, from Eliot Spitzer?

The removal of OUR witness by alleged unlawful means?

There are far too many true American citizens who love America too much to see the beautiful nation destroyed. At worst, Bush may start a Civil War; at best, he'll never be able to silence every true, honest and decent American.

Good morning, Salute_Liberty!

Thank you for commenting.

As to your first statement, we must always continue to hope in our heart of hearts that it is so, and that it remains so, about the innate goodness and love of country of the average American.

The problem, here, and why I am bothering to take this time to run this thread, is that the average American, more and more, and especially by this particular case, is being marginalized, to the point of not having protection of law, or the hope of due process!

And that is a very dangerous scenario, indeed!

To us in this small area of the United States up here who are witnesses to this on-going situation, involving OUR collective rights to equal protection of the law, this incident has been dubbed OUR Krystallnact, where on 8-22-01, OUR rights were smashed into the ground, with impunity by the perpetrators, which was, what is alleged to be OUR own government.

What is alleged to be OUR government took OUR representative and attacked him in plain sight in broad daylight, for all to see, on videotape, and it has then held that over OUR heads as a threat since!

"SEE WHAT WE CAN DO!"

"WHO WANTS TO BE NEXT?"

OUR only hope from that time to this was in the Federal Courts, and that hope had a basis, in that Federal Law makes it clear that what occurred here in the Town of Poestenkill, in the County of Rensselaer, in the State of New York is blatantly illegal, which is consistent with the opinion rendered by Rensselaer County Criminal Court Justice McGrath!

Further, the original Federal Judge assigned to the case, Judge Hurd, had just ruled in 2002, in a very similar case in the Northern District of New York, where we are located, that this set of circumstances constituted violations of federal law.

That case was Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services et al., 234 F.Supp.2d 140 (NDNY 2002), where at 169, Judge Hurd stated as follows:

"It would be nonsensical, for example, for a doctor who has had no contact whatsoever with a person to have the authority to have that person locked up!"

Where that is exactly what happened in this case, our collective hopes were high that Rensselaer County would be delivered a similar stern message from the Federal Court, and so we would all collectively benefit by the scrutiny of the Federal Courts being focused on Rensselaer County, as it had been on Ulster County's practices by Judge Hurd.

Then, to OUR shock and dismay, the Chief Judge up here took the case away from Judge Hurd, and gave it over to this Judge Sharpe, who had just been appointed to the Federal bench by George W. Bush as one of his CONSERVATIVE judges, which did not at all bode well for us, AS THE PERPETRATORS in this case are REPUBLICANS.

Our fears were realized on March 31, 2005, with the Decision that came down from the Judge Sharpe, as it completely reverses the law as it had been stated by Judge Hurd, and it puts the imprimatur of the Federal Courts on this tactic of the State being able to destroy witnesses against it by the use of this expedient method of the "PSYCHIATRIC TAKEDOWN", where the state can simply now, with the apparent blessing of Judge Scullin, the Chief Judge up here, have one of its pet doctors, SIGHT UNSEEN, and contrary to Judge Hurd's ruling, ORDER an expert witness to be locked up in a secure mental health facility, WITH NO RECOURSE TO THE LAW!

Rhetorically speaking, who is going to chance that fate to defend the rights of a bunch of citizens without money or clout?

And there IS where we are!

Out in the cold by the side of the road, and running out of hope in the goodness of anything here in America anymore, and especially not its Federal Court system up here in the Northern District of New York, which may be on its way to being OUR GULAG ARCHIPELAGO, thanks to this very chilling ruling that does not bode well at all for OUR futures here in the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York!

SUA SPONTE: Of his, or its, own WILL OR MOTION, voluntarily, without prompting, or suggestion!

"THE GOVERNMENT DOES NO WRONG!"

"ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT THE GOVERMENT CAN DO WRONG, IS WRONG!"

"ANYONE WHO DARES TRY USE THE COURTS OF THE GOVERNMENT TO SHOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS WRONG SHALL FIND THEMSELVES SUBJECT TO THE CENSURE OF THE COURTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, FOR IMPUGNING THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH CAN DO NO WRONG!"

Ahhh.

Yes.

I see!

I understand!

SUA SPONTE!

Many thanks for the translations!

Before:

After:

And thank you, lawnorder, for your continued interest in what is admittedly a somewhat complicated story, due to all the various "twists and turns" it has taken, and the length of time that has transpired between some of those events, and the various "players" who are involved in various ways in what led up to March 31, 2005 and this Federal Court decision that has had a very chilling effect indeed on all of us up here in the Federal Northern District of New York who have staked quite a bit on the outcome of that proceeding.

As common people here in OUR America, we are taught to have respect for the law, which I do, and we are taught to obey the law, and most importantly, we are taught, or I was, anyway, THAT IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE!

And so .....

What then?

Then what do we do, as individuals?

All of us have to go to law school?

OR WHAT?

Maybe take the extra seventy or eighty GRAND that we all keep in our back pockets and hire us a fancy mouth-piece to keep us "un-ignorant"?

So each of us is going to be walking around, each with his or her own lawyer, or lawyerette, as the case may be, so that MY lawyer is mine and mine alone, and yours is yours?

Getting ridiculous, isn't it?

SO?

What do we do, when OUR rights are rapidly disappearing, in our towns and communities, and we are just average people, living in modest means?

QUIT?

It is an option, after all!

Or do we look to people like Abraham Lincoln, who learned the law himself, by reading it?

Which is what I and others like me up here where I am, have done, out of practical necessity; as we are in reality, nothing more than people of modest means, who are therefore without the money to BUY "clout" from the Eliot Spitzer's of the world, and the other predators and victimizers out there who would take OUR rights from us each day, and then sell them back to us; and yet despite OUR modest means, and OUR complete and total lack of "clout", we feel it definitely UN-AMERICAN to QUIT in the face of adversity, especially when that adversity is coming from OUR own Town Hall!

And having walked that path of learning the law as a layman, and therefore, knowing how complex the "law" can seem to one just starting out to "understand" how exactly it "works", I can definitely appreciate lawnorder's concerns with respect to understanding what I am talking about in here, and I once again want to thank lawnorder for stopping me in mid-stream, and asking me to make matters more comprehensible, which I shall endeavor to continue doing in here, and if it gets "thick" again, please ......

Let me know!

And part of "understanding" the "law" for us common citizens, here in OUR America, is understanding, or trying to, anyway, the relationship between "states", and "states rights" versus the REPUBLIC, or COMMONWEALTH of America, and its FEDERAL system of government!

EXACTLY WHO IS IN CHARGE?

And when?

If I live in New York state, and lawnorder, for example, does not, then do we have the same "rights"?

And that answer, on its surface, is NO, we do not!

Not automatically, anyway, and that is a necessary consideration that has to be taken into account in assessing the impact of the March 31, 2005 Federal Court decision at issue herein on those of us who do live and reside in New York state, and so are entitled to the protections and benefits of its laws and state Constitution, IN FEDERAL COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK!

And one of those state laws unique to New York State, the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE, is ARTICLE 460 of the New York State Penal Law, entitled ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION, which is itself part of TITLE X of the New York State Penal Law, entitled ORGANIZED CRIME CONTROL ACT, and the relevant part of that state law which pertains directly to this discussion as to how this March 31, 2005 Federal Court decision above has left us common citizens marooned in the STRAITS of DESPAIR, is as follows:

S 460.00 Legislative findings.

The legislature finds and determines as follows:

Organized crime in New York state involves highly sophisticated, complex and widespread forms of criminal activity.

The diversified illegal conduct engaged in by organized crime, rooted in the illegal use of force, fraud, and corruption, constitutes a major drain upon the state's economy, costs citizens and businesses of the state billions of dollars each year, and threatens the peace, security and general welfare of the people of the state.

Organized crime continues to expand its corrosive influence in the state through illegal enterprises engaged in such criminal endeavors as the theft and fencing of property, the importation and distribution of narcotics and other dangerous drugs, arson for profit, hijacking, labor racketeering, loansharking, extortion and bribery, the illegal disposal of hazardous wastes, syndicated gambling, trafficking in stolen securities, insurance and investment frauds, and other forms of economic and social exploitation.

The money and power derived by organized crime through its illegal enterprises and endeavors is increasingly being used to infiltrate and corrupt businesses, unions and other legitimate enterprises and to corrupt our democratic processes.

end quotes

SO!

THE MONEY AND POWER OF ORGANIZED CRIME, HERE IN NEW YORK STATE, IS BEING USED TO CORRUPT OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES HERE IN NEW YORK STATE!

How do I know this, besides the fact the the LEGISLATURE of the State has told me so?

My answer is:

HOW COULD YOU NOT KNOW?

How can you live in a state, or a county, or a town, and not know that YOUR OWN government is corrupt?

How can you live someplace, here in America, and not know that the "democratic processes" WHERE YOU LIVE, have been corrupted?

IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE TO NOT KNOW?

There is not caring, of course, and there is "denying", but "not knowing"?

Ahhh, but that is a philosophical question, isn't it, so, let's leave off with that blather, and get back to "BRASS TACKS" here:

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY ITS LAWS, CAN "GOVERMENT" ITSELF BE CONSIDERED AN ENTERPRISE THAT CAN BE "CORRUPT"?

And that is both a good and necessary question, so, let's find the answer, and quickly, as time is of the essence here!

From a quick perusal of S 460.10 of the New York State Penal Law, which does govern in this matter, despite the fact that it was before a Federal Judge, we have as follows from the "Definitions":

The following definitions are applicable to this article.

2. "Enterprise" means either an enterprise as defined in subdivision one of section 175.00 of this chapter or criminal enterprise as defined in subdivision three of this section.

And going over to Section 175 of the New York State Penal Law, we have:

ARTICLE 175 OFFENSES INVOLVING FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS

S 175.00 Definitions of terms.

The following definitions are applicable to this article:

1. "Enterprise" means any entity of one or more persons, corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business, commercial, professional, industrial, eleemosynary, social, political or governmental activity.

SO?

IF an "enterprise" in the State of New York means "any entity" of one or more persons, engaged in "POLITICAL or GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY", wouldn't that answer be YES?

WE, the PEOPLE, certainly thought so, and hence, in the light of the findings of the FBI in 1989 that the Rensselaer County Department of Health was violating state and local laws to "facilitate developers and development", at the expense of OUR PUBLIC HEALTH, we embarked on a course of conduct, WITHIN THE CONFINES AND BOUNDS of the law to win back integrity in OUR democratic processes in the COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, and quess what?

WE JUST LOST OUR BATTLE!

Hence this thread!

As our epitaph!

As I think about this thread, and why I am posting in here, in what is a national/international forum, and asking all of you who do come in here, to take of your own very valuable time to read about what appears, ON THE SURFACE, to be but a very local issue in one very small part of both America, and the world, I am forced to continually reconsider that rhetorical question, and that is a very good thing, I think, for it helps me to clarify my points better in my own mind, before I speak out in here, on what I think is a very important subject to all of us in here, and that is this question raised by "TEXAS TOMMY" Delay the other day about just WHO is really "OUT-OF-CONTROL", here in OUR America, right now, today, and exactly WHAT is a "conservative judge"?

For answers as to the first prong of that question, which then leads us over to the second prong, I went back into VOLUME I of Life in OUR America for this following article which concerns itself with the QUINTESSENTIALLY ETHICALLY-CHALLENGED REPUBLICAN, himself, none other than "TEXAS TOMMY" Delay, himself!

As you read this article, which is from November 18, 2004, right around the time the Motion for Injunctive Relief discussed above had been made, NOTE WELL the use of the pejorative term "CRACKPOT PROSECUTOR" by what are now known up here in the Northern District of New York since March 31, 2005, at the outside, as the TOMMY-ISTS, for reasons which will either become, or will be made, clear, shortly!

SO!

What's the NATIONAL ISSUE here, then, that warrants people from outside the COUNTY OF RENSSELAER in the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York taking of their very valuable time to study and consider the implications of this matter in YOUR OWN COMMUNITY?

SIMPLE!

RAMPANT, CREEPING TOMMY-ISM!

THIS IS THE BASE-LINE, for all of us, everywhere in OUR America!

It's definitely down there in TAY-HOSS, it's now up here in New York State, and likely, it's already in YOUR TOWN, TOO!

Read all about it:

"House G.O.P. Acts to Protect Chief" By CARL HULSE, NY Times

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - Spurred by an investigation connected to the majority leader, House Republicans voted Wednesday to abandon an 11-year-old party rule that required a member of their leadership to step aside temporarily if indicted.

Meeting behind closed doors, the lawmakers agreed that a party steering committee would review any indictments handed up against the majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, or any other members of the leadership team or committee chairmen, to determine if giving up a post was warranted.

The revision does not change the requirement that leaders step down if convicted.

The new rule was adopted by voice vote.

Its chief author, Representative Henry Bonilla of Texas, said later that only a handful of members had opposed it.

The Republicans' old rule was adopted in August 1993 to put a spotlight on the legal troubles of prominent Democrats.

Mr. Bonilla said revising it had been necessary to prevent politically inspired criminal investigations by "crackpot" prosecutors from determining the fate of top Republicans.

"Attorneys tell me you can be indicted for just about anything in this country, in any county or community," said Mr. Bonilla, an ally of Mr. DeLay.

"Sometimes district attorneys who might have partisan agendas or want to read their name in the paper could make a name for themselves by indicting a member of the leadership, regardless of who it may be, and therefore determine their future."

"And that's not right."

Mr. DeLay said he had not instigated the change.

But he applauded it nevertheless, saying it could deprive "political hacks" of an ability to influence the makeup of the Republican leadership.

Republican lawmakers "fixed the rules so that Democrats cannot use our rules against us," he said.

Mr. DeLay said he did not expect to be indicted, but added, "This has nothing to do with whether I was going to be or not going to be.''

The comments of Mr. DeLay and Mr. Bonilla were clearly directed at Ronnie Earle, the district attorney in Travis County, Tex., including Austin, who won indictments earlier this year against three political associates of the majority leader.

The investigation by Mr. Earle, a Democrat, involves charges of illegally using corporate money to help Republicans win state legislative races in 2002.

Those Republican victories in turn gave the state party enough legislative muscle to win redistricting changes that helped Congressional Republicans gain five additional seats in Texas on Nov. 2.

Despite the indictments of his associates, Mr. DeLay has not been called to testify, and Mr. Earle has not said whether the congressman is a target.

Not all Republicans agreed with Wednesday's rule change, which was adopted after some two and a half hours of debate.

"This is a mistake," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut.

When the Republicans gained control of the House in the elections of 1994, "we were going to be different,'' Mr. Shays said.

But "every time we start to water down what we did in '94," he said, "we are basically saying the revolution is losing its character."

Democrats and outside watchdogs bitterly criticized the change.

"Today Republicans sold their collective soul to maintain their grip on power," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip.

"They unabashedly abandoned any pretense of holding themselves to a high ethical standard, by deciding to ignore criminal indictments of their leaders as reason for removal from leadership posts in the Republican Party."

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a group that follows campaign finance issues, said:

"With this decision, we have gone from DeLay being judged by his peers to DeLay being judged by his buddies."

"It's an absurd and ludicrous new rule and an affront to the American people."

Republicans said Democrats had no standing to criticize them, since House Democratic rules have no provision to remove indicted party leaders, though they do require indicted committee chairmen to step aside.

The minority leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, said Wednesday that her party would quickly expand the provision to cover leadership posts as well.

"Republicans have reached a new low," Ms. Pelosi said.

"It is absolutely mind-boggling that as their first order of business following the elections, House Republicans have lowered the ethical standards for their leaders."

The change follows two admonitions that Mr. DeLay received from the bipartisan House ethics committee this fall, one involving a House floor vote, the other a fund-raiser.

Mr. DeLay has built strong loyalty in the House over the years by helping raise campaign money and paying close attention to the personal legislative interests of Republican lawmakers, and the ethics committee's action angered some of his supporters in the chamber.

Mr. DeLay and many other House Republicans have criticized Mr. Earle's inquiry as highly partisan.

"Ronnie Earle is trying to criminalize politics," Mr. DeLay said.

"I think that is wrong."

Mr. Earle, in a statement issued by his office, said the Republican rule change would have no effect on the continuing investigation.

But he added, "It should be alarming to the public to see their leaders substitute their judgment for that of the law enforcement process."

House Republicans did not dispute the idea that the change had been brought on by the events in Texas but said most of the majority's lawmakers had also concluded that the rule was simply unfair.

"In my sincere opinion, it only provoked the timing" of the change, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona said of the Texas inquiry.

"When you look at the rule, it is an outrageous rule."

The new rule says that upon the return of an indictment against a committee chairman, a subcommittee chairman or a party leader, a steering committee made up of House leaders other than the accused lawmaker will have 30 days to recommend to the full Republican conference "what action, if any, the conference shall take concerning said member."

Though the change had been a subject of discussion for the last week, it was not submitted by Mr. Bonilla until right before a Tuesday deadline that Republicans had set to offer proposals for rules in the new Congress.

Mr. Bonilla and others said the Republican conference, including many members elected only two weeks ago, had been insistent on the revision.

"It is the right thing to do," said Representative John Carter of Texas, a former judge.

While House Republicans were acting on the rule, Congress continued its reorganization for 2005.

House Democrats and Senate Republicans re-elected their leadership teams for the most part.

In the only real race, Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina gained a one-vote victory over Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota to head the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which provides guidance and money for Republican candidates.

CRACKPOT PROSECUTORS?

What in the HELL is a CRACKPOT PROSECUTOR?

Got any of them where you are, lawnorder?

According to the TOMMY-ISTS, we sure do appear to, up here, and that point was made VERY APPARENT to US on March 31, 2005, and make no mistake whatsoever about that!

Mr. Bonilla said revising it had been necessary to prevent politically inspired criminal investigations by "crackpot" prosecutors from determining the fate of top Republicans.

"And that's not right."

THERE IS OUR LOST CASE IN A NUTSHELL!

IT IS NOT RIGHT THAT A REPUBLICAN SHALL BE ACCUSED!

ANYONE ACCUSING A REPUBLICAN IS A DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT!

THE STATE HAS A CONTINUING DUTY TO SEE THAT SUCH INDIVIDUALS ARE INCARCERATED IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILITY, BY ANY MEANS!

THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT WILL NOT INTERFERE!

Plain and simple!

SO!

It would appear that according to the TOMMY-ISTS, and their version of the CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM that they are advocating, IN THEIR EYES, OUR Rensselaer County Criminal Court Justice, Patrick McGrath, must ALSO BE some kind of CRACKPOT PROSECUTOR, for he, too, has stated that from a review of the evidence in this matter, including reports from the F.B.I, itself, it would appear that TOP REPUBLICANS in RENNSELAER COUNTY in the State of New York allegedly violated state and federal criminal laws in connection with this illegal PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN on 8-22-01, and so, in THEIR EYES, because they see OUR JUDGE as a crackpot, HIS opinion should simply be disregarded by the FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT!

THAT IS OUR READING OF THE SITUATION, ANYWAY, and we find it not only quite disturbing, but extremely insulting as well, AND DOWNRIGHT DANGEROUS TO OUR LIBERTY, to boot!

Hence this thread!

To tell all the candid world why we think that is so!

And to then let that candid world form its own opinions, based upon the fullest record before it that we, the people of Rensselaer County disenfranchised by this March 31, 2005 ruling can provide!

And here, I have to say that I am surprised, although by now, I shouldn't be, that these perjorative comments by the TOMMY-ISTS about crackpot prosecutors in OUR America were treated in such a HO-HUM manner, here in OUR America, which up here in the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York, is not really ours, at least anymore, and especially since March 31, 2005, although to be truthful, all that date did was really confirm the existence of "something", rather than tell us anything that we did not already know, or suspect, anyway, which is that more and more, the common citizen here in America is having less and less in terms of equal protection of law!

The system has become so perverted that the "police power" of the state is now being used against us citizens if we even think of questioning why we have to live under a corrupt government, either here in New York State, or in the United States itself, for that matter.

Is it that more than half of America is so now corrupt that TOMMY-ISM can finally flourish so out in the open as it is able to do these days, where money buys privilege, and immunity from the law, and those who would think of questioning this can immediately be labeled as "crackpots" and almost instantly removed by the police, as was the case up here where the PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN occurred within less than 24 hours after we made clear OUR intention to take the ORIGINAL matter underlying the PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN to court?

Majority rules?

The "majority" of people in America now make their livings off the fruits of corruption, and so, we need a brand new "paradigm" here in OUR America to account and allow for that?

VICTIMIZERS RULE, victims pay, and THAT IS THE LAW?

So, now despite the law, whim and fancy rule instead, DEPENDING UPON EXACTLY WHO YOU ARE, and more importantly, WHO YOU ARE AFFILIATED WITH, and therefore, protected by?

You can never know what law is going to apply to you, or how, UNLESS YOU PAY TO KNOW?

PAY YOUR PROTECTION MONEY INTO THE TOMMY-ISTS each day, and YOU might be safe!

Pay a little more, and well, maybe your wife can be safe too, unless of course, she wants YOU gone, in which case, watch out, for she might "out-bid" what you are paying for YOUR OWN PROTECTION, to have it removed from you, and then YOU MIGHT JUST BE GULAG BOUND, yourself!

TOMMY-ISM!

THE RED MENACE is here!

And that is where we are up here, actually, as of March 31, 2005, and we are curious as to whether we are alone, and without feedback, of course, we have no real way of ever knowing.

And up until a very short time ago, there was no way of knowing any of those answers.

But now, thanks to the power of the internet, common persons such as us without means can finally get our voices heard more than 500 feet down the road, and so, we are conducting an experiment in democracy in here, with this thread, because so far as we know, we are the first clear and definitive case IN AMERICA of where a newly-appointed BUSH CONSERVATIVE FEDERAL JUDGE has actually taken a case away from a Democrat-appointed Federal Judge, and has not only reversed the interpretation of Federal and state law BY THAT JUDGE, BUT HAS FURTHER taken steps to actually reverse established New York State law on the subject, TO CREATE A NEW CLASS OF PERSONS in the Northern District of New York, which is a class with complete and total IMMUNITY FROM THE LAW!

TOMMY-ISM!

THE RED MENACE cometh!

The "DOMINO THEORY" in actual practice, right before OUR very eyes!

"Got yo-self one of dem dere CRACKPOT PROSECUTORS in your home town, troubling any of your TOP REPUBLICANS?"

CALL THE INTEGRITY-BUSTERS down at the local TOMMY-IST Party Headquarters, and they will have that problem GONE in the blink of an eye, WITH A CERTIFIED CERTIFICATION, for a price, of course, by a local TOMMY-IST doctor that your "crackpot prosecutor" really is a DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT, and LE VOILA, YOUR PROBLEM IS GONE, thanks to the state police, right to the nearest state-sponsored GULAG, or secure mental health facility!

BANG!

Just like that!

Don't believe it?

Hhhhhmmmm.

That's how it starts!

And here, I want to keep in mind the admonition from lawnorder to keep things simple in here, and so, I want to go back and take a more in-depth look at this charge above that this newly-appointed BUSH CONSERVATIVE JUDGE in the Northern District of New York has reversed existing Federal and State law on this subject of the "legality" of the August 22, 2001 "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN" by the State of New York of our expert witness that is at issue in here, BUT FIRST .....

But first, what I want to do is to "keep the context" of this exposition and discussion current and up-to-date, by posting this story on the "FEDERAL JUDICIARY" that has just come out of the Schiavo case, FOR THE RELEVANT QUOTES that are contained therein:

washingtonpost.com Highlights

"Schiavo case will shape political debate - Did GOP mobilize its conservative base or overreach?"

ANALYSIS

By Dana Milbank

Updated: 10:34 p.m. ET March 31, 2005

Terri Schiavo is dead, but the passions stirred by the fight over her life will shape the political debate for a long time to come.

Republicans say the Schiavo case has mobilized their conservative base for the struggles over judicial nominations and a likely Supreme Court vacancy this summer.

In defeat, they hope to make Schiavo's death into a rallying point for a broader "culture of life" movement to secure judges and a justice who would restrict abortions.

Democrats, backed by public opinion polls, say the conservatives overreached and that the GOP now appears to be a captive of the religious right.

They say the Schiavo dispute, on top of struggles over stem cell research and gay rights, will cause a backlash by moderate Americans.

The diverging interpretations reflect larger electoral strategies by both parties.

Democrats, following a traditional approach, believe they can return to power by staking out ground as the party of the center.

Republicans, using a strategy employed successfully by President Bush in the 2004 elections, believe the key is not in appealing to the middle but in motivating its active conservative base.

The battle over Schiavo's symbolism has already begun.

Tony Perkins, president of the Christian policy group Family Research Council, issued a statement after Schiavo's death blaming the judiciary (even though it was mostly conservative judges who rejected the intervention by Bush and Congress.)

"This is a tragic and unfortunate event that should awaken Americans to the problems in our court system," he said.

"As many in the nation mourn the passing of Terri Schiavo, we should remember that her death is a symptom of a greater problem: that the courts no longer respect human life."

‘Political crack-up’

By contrast, former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, in an article published around the time of Schiavo's death, said Republicans are undergoing a "political crackup" as damaging as the Massachusetts decision to condone same-sex marriage was for Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.

"The Bush administration doesn't have a faith-based initiative; it is a faith-based initiative," he wrote in Salon.

The most direct consequence of the Schiavo affair is likely to be a push for federal and state legislation; lawmakers in both parties have proposed laws that would make it more difficult to remove life support in cases where the patients' wishes are disputed.

The Senate health committee and House Government Reform Committee, among others, will examine parts of the issue.

But experts say changes are largely unnecessary.

In the three decades since the Karen Ann Quinlan case, there have been only a few big legal battles over the "right to die."

Alan Meisel, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, said only one case in several thousand winds up in litigation -- hardly a legal crisis.

"Schiavo is the exception that proves the rule: We haven't had a lot of agonizing cases," said Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration lawyer.

Beyond its direct impact, the Schiavo dispute is likely to color all sorts of policy debates, and, depending on how those turn out, could be part of the theme in next year's midterm elections.

Conservatives have begun to tie the case to their larger effort to win judges opposed to abortion.

"It is entirely possible that in her death Terri Schiavo will become a symbol for many people about a disturbing trend in American culture," said Gary Bauer, a prominent conservative activist.

Predicting a donnybrook over the eventual Supreme Court nominee, he said the Schiavo case "will make more acute the feeling at the grass roots that too many of the most important decisions are being made by unelected judges."

It is, of course, difficult to argue that the Schiavo case would have turned out differently if more of Bush's conservative judicial nominees had been confirmed.

Conservative judges were at least as likely as liberals to oppose federal intervention.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, rejected the Schiavo appeal, and William H. Pryor Jr., whom Bush has seated temporarily on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in hopes of winning his confirmation to that court, did not dissent publicly from the decision not to hear the case.

Key opinions relevant to the case were written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia.

‘Founding Fathers' blueprint’

It was, in fact, an appellate judge appointed by President George H.W. Bush who wrote a ruling Wednesday criticizing the president and Congress for acting "in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people -- our Constitution."

But conservatives say this will not prevent them from linking the Schiavo case to others.

"Although the form of this issue was assisted suicide, it has a lot more relevance for abortion," said Jeff Bell, a Republican operative.

"State-sanctioned private killing is what this is about." Bell said he was not concerned about public opinion, because "it's very clear the intensity is on the side of the people who thought this was an abomination."

Democrats, at first ambivalent on the issue and relatively quiet as the controversy played out, have been buoyed by polls such as one by CBS News last week finding that 82 percent opposed Bush and Congress involving themselves in the matter.

Three-quarters thought Congress got involved because of politics over principle, which could account for the 34 percent approval rating for Congress -- its lowest since 1997.

Democrats say they are encouraged that the dispute has put some of the party's more extreme characters, such as antiabortion activist Randall Terry, into prominent roles.

"The other side has overplayed its hand and taken a beating," said Democratic strategist Jim Jordan.

Some Republicans and conservatives have expressed worry that this may be true.

In an op-ed in the New York Times this week, former Republican senator John C. Danforth cited the Schiavo case as evidence that "Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians."

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, usually supportive of Bush, called the federal intervention "a legal travesty, a flagrant violation of federalism and the separation of powers."

But Republicans and Democrats of all stripes are likely to return to party lines when the subject shifts to judicial nominations.

And that suggests the fight could be even nastier than the Schiavo affair.

SO?

Where to begin?

Well, let's keep it simple, by focusing in on this one comment above by this Tony Perkins, of the alleged "Christian" policy group Family Research Council about a "tragic and unfortunate event" that should, in his words, "awaken Americans to the problems in our court system", and let's take a real "hard look" at that statement, IN LIGHT OF this March 31, 2005 CONSERVATIVE DECISION from the Northern District of New York that we are discussing in here, BUT FIRST ....

But first, let's add one more relevant "news story" to the "mix", so as to further delineate the "CONTEXT", or "backdrop" against which this discussion in this thread must be measured:

Top Stories - The Christian Science Monitor

"Judicial aftershocks from the Schiavo case"

Mon Apr 4, 4:00 AM ET

Perceptions of how the courts handled the case could have ramifications for Bush's judicial nominees.

By Warren Richey, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - In the end, as Terri Schiavo clung to life in her Florida hospice after nearly two weeks without food or water, 12 years of legal battles came down to one final appeal.

In a 15-page emergency brief, lawyers asked the US Supreme Court to vindicate Ms. Schiavo's constitutional right to life.

The high court's answer came Wednesday around 11 p.m.

Application denied.

Ten hours later, Schiavo passed away.

In the emotional moments after the announcement, pro-life and disability-rights supporters lashed out at a judicial system that they said was being run by activist judges who favor death over life.

House majority leader Tom DeLay went one step further.

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," he said Thursday.

He called upon the Judiciary Committee to launch an investigation of what he says is "an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president."

But was the Schiavo case influenced by so-called "activist" judges who allowed their ideological convictions and policy preferences to overshadow the law and influence the outcome of the case?

Legal analysts are divided on the issue.

Perceptions of how the Schiavo case was handled are important - for one, because they could play a key role in looming battles in the US Senate over President Bush's judicial nominees, and a potential Supreme Court vacancy.

Those battles may begin as early as this week, with the conservative camp somewhat split over the propriety of congressional intervention in the Schiavo case.

Religious conservatives are angry and primed for a fight.

But many other conservatives were alarmed at what they saw as federal intervention into a private family matter that has historically been entrusted to state courts and state judges.

Many legal analysts say that for the most part, judges performed their duties as neutral, dispassionate arbiters of the law.

"An enormous spotlight and an enormous amount of pressure have been placed upon the judiciary, and yet they have behaved in a lawlike fashion," says Charles Baron, a Boston College law professor and expert in right-to-die issues.

"These judges, if you look at their record, are not people who have records as being right-to-diers or left-wing activist judges."

"These are people who wrote opinions that track the law."

But others say that some judges appear to have avoided confronting serious, substantive legal issues by relying on formalistic devotion to legal process.

"The judiciary, both state and federal, have failed miserably in the Schiavo case," says Virginia Armstrong, national chairman of the Eagle Forum's Court Watch.

"It is one of the poorest performances we have ever seen in American justice."

Supporters of the judiciary's performance in the Schiavo case note the large number of state and federal judges involved.

They say familiar conservative-liberal distinctions do not seem to have played a major role in the outcome, particularly at the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, where seven of the 12 judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

"It is not like the judges appointed by one kind of president are voting one way and judges appointed by a different kind of president are voting a different way," says Vikram Amar, a constitutional law professor at San Francisco's Hastings College of the Law.

Perhaps the biggest irony of the case was the extent to which conservative, pro-life lawyers acting on behalf of Schiavo's parents sought to persuade federal judges and justices to embrace an expansive constitutional right to life that would mandate affirmative steps to protect Schiavo's life.

According to some analysts, it would have necessitated the same kind of liberal reading of the Constitution that upheld a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade - a constitutional holding denounced by conservatives as the epitome of judicial activism.

In a 1990 right-to-die case, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the five-justice majority:

"It cannot be disputed that the Due Process Clause [of the Constitution's 14th Amendment] protects an interest in life as well as an interest in refusing life-sustaining medical treatment."

But while the high court has established a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment and a right to abortion, it has never spelled out the contours of a constitutional right to life.

The Schiavo case was seen by some as a possible battleground to do just that, perhaps to the detriment of abortion rights.

But the courts refused to get involved.

"What is driving this case is not the constitutionality of the federal [Schiavo] statute, or the intrusion on federalism," says John Eastman, a constitutional law professor at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, Calif.

"The underlying connection with abortion is driving this."

But Professor Eastman says a pro-life ruling in the federal courts would not amount to a conservative version of judicial activism.

Rather, he says a right-to-die, pro-abortion approach to constitutional law has inverted the principles of the Founding Fathers.

"It turns what is supposed to be a government devoted to protecting rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [into a government that enforces] a court-crafted right to die," he says.

But even if the courts declined to read a broad, substantive right to life into the Constitution, some legal analysts say the Schiavo case was strong enough to justify more judicial review than was received.

One issue: whether the Florida court acted in violation of federal due process rights.

Florida law requires that Schiavo's wish to have her feeding tube disconnected be proved by "clear and convincing" evidence.

Lawyers for Schiavo's parents argued that hearsay testimony of husband Michael Schiavo and others about statements that they say Ms. Schiavo made in the late 1980s does not rise to the evidentiary level necessary to pass constitutional muster.

They also argued that a federal judge in Tampa had a sworn duty under the new federal law passed by Congress to conduct a new and full trial to examine for himself whether the evidence was clear and convincing.

Instead, US District Judge James Whittemore framed the entire federal case as an application for a temporary restraining order to reinsert the feeding tube.

He declined to order the tube reinserted after ruling that lawyers for Schiavo's parents had failed to raise any substantial claims.

Some analysts say that in bypassing the letter of the Schiavo law, Judge Whittemore's judicial inaction became a form of judicial activism.

"What we usually hear of judicial activism is a judge finding some right in the Constitution that isn't there."

"In this case, it was a statute that clearly was there but was being ignored," says Wendy Long, a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, which supports Mr. Bush's judicial nominees.

"The court, in a sense, was making a policy decision that it didn't want to look at the issue that Congress and the president wanted it to look at."

Others praise Whittemore's approach.

"If one was looking for a model of a district court judge to have been given this assignment, I think we found one," says Douglas Kmiec, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, Calif.

"He understood that it was both an emotionally charged issue but also one that arose in the context of a preexisting constitutional structure and a preexisting body of law."

One of the things, of course, in discussing the "law" with lay-people (common citizens) is that there just is no "CONTEXT", as a rule, in which people can generally relate to what is being discussed, and I know that from first-hand experience, being a lay-person myself who has had to learn the "law", like Abraham Lincoln did, as a matter of practical necessity, by the expedient of sitting down and reading it, page, by page, by page!

Eventually, of course, if you stick with it, all of a sudden, the "structure" of the law becomes readily apparent, and then, the "law" is elegant in its simplicity, or it should be, absent all these labels being thrown about in this story above here, and many others, as well, about such things as "left-wing activist" judges, and such like that; WHICH labels, when taken seriously BY THE JUDGES wearing them, or espousing them, BECOME the problem with OUR COURT SYSTEM, as far as I am concerned, anyway!

BECAUSE ......

IF there is a "left-wing activist" judge, then, by definition, there also have to be "right-wing activist" judges, and so .....

And so, us middle-of-the-road people here in OUR America who believe in the integrity of OUR federal bench as being integral with the strength of OUR REPUBLIC, and OUR democracy, WE have a real problem, BECAUSE ......

Because instead of "law", now we are having ideological fights, and that is exactly what we are up against here in the Northern District of New York with this March 31, 2005 CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST JUDGE'S decision that has served to IMPOSE an ideology on us, IN PLACE OF LAW; AN OUTSIDE IDEOLOGY that is foreign to us and OUR laws, and is inimical to OUR Constitutional rights here in New York state; an ideological decision that serves to strip us collectively up here of OUR rights pursuant to the laws and Constitution of the State of New York, which state has had its own state Constitution since in or about 1777, and the American Revolution which gave us OUR liberty in this particular state, that has just been adversely affected after all those intervening years BY THIS March 31, 2005 decision.

SO!

To keep it simple, let's focus in on these two statements from that above article, as follows:

Many legal analysts say that for the most part, judges performed their duties as neutral, dispassionate arbiters of the law.

"These are people who wrote opinions that track the law."

"If one was looking for a model of a district court judge to have been given this assignment, I think we found one," says Douglas Kmiec, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, Calif.

"He understood that it was both an emotionally charged issue but also one that arose in the context of a preexisting constitutional structure and a preexisting body of law."

end quotes

"These are people who wrote opinions that TRACK THE LAW!"

"An ISSUE that arose in the CONTEXT of a pre-existing CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE, and a pre-existing BODY OF LAW!"

And there it really is, which raises the rhetorical question, of course, of should it be that way, and I would have to say, YES, it does, otherwise, there is CHAOS, pure and simple, which is where we are up here in the NORTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK, as of March 31, 2005, thanks to the CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM in OUR case which has had the effect of stripping from us OUR due process rights with respect to OUR DISSENT against alleged corrupt governmental practices here in the County of Rensselaer in the State of New York!

In 2002, the original Federal Judge in this case of OURS, Judge Hurd, DID IN FACT TRACK the law, in a 44-page decision that explored the "law" in this specific case of OURS of the blatant illegality of the PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN employed by the State of New York as a "witness removal" tool, or a means of "extorting silence by intimidation", and that analysis by Judge Hurd went all the way back to 1975, to the Decision of the United States Supreme Court in O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, where the Supreme Court held that:

"A STATE CANNOT constitutionally confine, WITHOUT MORE, a non-dangerous individual ......"

ALPHA!

Or Genesis, perhaps!

In any event, "LAW OF THE LAND", for sure, and here is the rub!

According to this new BUSH CONSERVATIVE JUDGE up here in the Northern District of New York, THAT IS NO LONGER SO!

NOW, in the Northern District of New York, twenty years after the United States Supreme Court made its landmark ruling in O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, that "A STATE CANNOT constitutionally confine, WITHOUT MORE, a non-dangerous individual ......", this BUSH ACTIVIST JUDGE has SWEPT clear away, that ruling, and all subsequent rulings which have further clarified the meaning of the phrase "WITHOUT MORE", and he instead has determined that at least in the County of Rensselaer in the State of New York, the STATE can confine whomever it will, whenever it will, WITH ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL!

"IF IT FEELS GOOD, THEN JUST DO IT, AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT FEDERAL SCRUTINY, BECAUSE THERE WON'T BE ANY!"

At least when a non-Republican is accusing TOP REPUBLICANS of alleged corrupt activities in Rensselaer County, anyway!

SO!

Hence this thread!

To talk about all of that stuff, in a real simple manner, that is hopefully easy to comprehend, and therefore, understand!

And for anyone just joining in here, who is wondering at what is going on, we are talking about a NOTICE OF DECISION issued by newly-appointed BUSH CONSERVATIVE Federal District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe in the Northern District of New York on March 31, 2005 that has as its practical effect, two things:

a) The ruling creates a "class" of people in the Northern District of New York WHO ARE IMMUNE from the operation of the state laws of the State of New York, on them, the PRIVILEGED CLASS; and

b) The ruling creates a second "class" of persons, the OUTCAST CLASS, in the Northern District of New York who are OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION of the state and federal law in the Northern District of New York, which is us, the citizens who are writing this thread as OUR epitaph, or more properly, the epitaph of OUR rights under the laws and Constitutions of the United States, where we are all natural born citizens, and the State of New York, where we all reside.

Simply stated, on August 22, 2001, "8-22", as we call it up here, a doctor in the City of Troy, New York, on alleged demand from REPUBLICAN politicians in the Town of Poestenkill, and the County of Rensselaer in the State of New York, and allegedly for payment, made out a completely fraudulent mental health involuntary commitment order for the PLAINTIFF in this matter, a New York State licensed professional engineer, and associate level public health engineer, and that commitment order (1) caused the PLAINTIFF to be incarcerated as a dangerous mental patient, and (2) has left him now "BRANDED as a dangerous mental patient, so that his services as an "expert witness" on engineering matters and enforcement of the provisions of the New York State Public Health Law and Education Law as it pertains to professional practice of engineers in the State of New York are no longer available to us, the citizens of New York State who reside in the County of Rensselaer in the State of New York.

Without an expert witness to testify on OUR behalf, we are effectively "out of court" when it comes to challenging on-going corruption in OUR county health department that has the effect of depriving us of the equal protection of the New York State Public Health Law, which in OUR opinion, renders us as a form of "outcast", without access to due process of law in OUR own nation, and state, here in America.

What makes this March 31, 2005 FEDERAL Notice of Decision particularly odious to us, and shocking to OUR sense of "fair play", as well, is the latitude and "discretion" that it appears to give to New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to be able to "remove" at will at any time, BASED ON NOTHING, and through the "vehicle" of the blatantly unlawful and illegal "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN, any other professional engineers, who like this one, decide to take on the representation of citizens like us in matters involving corruption in state agencies such as the New York State Department of Health and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

At a time when he is allegedly "TAKING MONEY" from the housing "industry" in the State of New York, Attorney General Spitzer has allegedly "engineered" the "removal" of an expert witness AGAINST the housing "industry" THROUGH UNLAWFUL AND FRAUDULENT MEANS, and Federal Court for the Northern District of New York appears to have just turned a blind eye to that as "politics as usual", with the BRANDING of OUR expert witness as a "CRACKPOT PROSECUTOR" by Eliot Spitzer, allegedly on behalf of the "housing industry", from who he is allegedly "taking money", according to public newpspaer accounts in our area.

So far as we are able to discern, this FRAUDULENT CERTIFICATION of our expert as "A DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT" by this POLITICAL doctor in Troy has now been filed in various computer systems, including those used by the New York State Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, so that this individual now has been put into a class of people that are "suspect", always, such a convicted child molestors, rapists, etc.

Obviously, besides destroying this person's life, and everything that this person worked to achieve in life in terms of professional credibility, this BRANDING, along with this JUDICIAL IMPRIMATUR on this fraud renders this person absolutely worthless as an expert witness, especially against the State of New York, which is always defended in court by the New York State Attorney General, which is Eliot Spitzer.

According to this March 31, 2005 Federal Court decision that we are discussing in here, IF our witness were to try and give testimony in a court of law against the state on behalf of citizens harmed by corrupt actions of the state, he would have to "disclose" this BOGUS "FACT" that he had this psychiatric commitment order issued against him, which then would immediately destroy his credibility in any such proceeding, and with disastrous consequences for all involved, EXCEPT ELIOT SPITZER, of course, and the State of New York, and the housing "industry", who have allegedly been giving money to Eliot Spitzer for "undisclosed services rendered"!

As for us, we are a group of people relatively small in number, and of modest means, as many are elderly, and had hoped to live out their lives in some degree of security, within the law, and we are without clout, and so WE ARE LOSERS in the eyes of the rich, famous and powerful, here in America, and we must finally admit that, to ourselves, first, and then, to the candid world, especially in the light of this shocking loss, which has left us bereft and without hope for the first time in over twenty years of continuous struggle against the forces of corruption in the State of New York.

However, being bereft and without hope does not make us quitters, and although we are now really without recourse, as an appeal of this matter to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is beyond our means, we have decided to not go out quietly, with this story of rampant corruption and betrayal in the State of New York being completely untold!

Hence this thread!

Thank you for your interest in OUR demise!

Today, I went down to the local law library, which is in the County Courthouse building, down the road a ways from where I live, because I wanted to go back to the "source", if you will, on this "Enterprise Corruption" law in the State of New York that is under discussion in here, in connection with this March 31, 2005 Federal court decision that this thread is all about.

I don't know about other states in the union, but in New York State, for a law to "be on the books", there has to be some kind of paper trail that determines how it got there, and it is that "paper trail" that judges are supposed to look at, when rendering decisions on what a law really means.

So, the book I wanted at the law library was the New York State Legislative Annual for the year 1986, which is when this particular law became added to the New York State Penal Law.

Now, 1986 is a significant year in connection with this case of ours, for a lot of reasons, and it is interesting, in retrospect, to look at the juxtaposition of these various "events", to see how they lead us right up to this present moment in time, where we now are, here in this tiny bit of OUR America that is the County of Rensselaer in the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York!

Now, stop and consider here for a moment, that New York State is one of the original thirteen colonies, and so, has a history going back to the middle-1600's, and it really is that "history" that comes into play here, in understanding why this case is so important to this right to "DISSENT" that I am talking about in here.

Consider for a moment, if you will, in forming your own thoughts about the contents of this thread, these words of the then-DEMOCRATIC Governor of the State of New York in 1986 concerning New York State's "HISTORY" of corruption as it stood right exactly then:

"TEN YEARS AGO, a study by the Joint House-Senate Subcommittee on Investigations estimated the costs of white-collar crime at MORE THAN forty-four BILLION dollars".

"The incidence of white-collar crime has not abated in the last decade; instead, it has spiraled ever-upward as economic crime has become increasingly profitable and sophisticated!"

"The effects of major economic crime can be devastating: THE WHOLE SOCIETY suffers as crimes against business become crimes against consumers."

"GREEDY, WHITE-COLLAR PROFITEERS WILL NOT BE STOPPED until we adopt strong measures to stop them!"

- Governor's Approval memorandum, New York State Legislative Annual -1986, p.236

SO!

According to the Governor of New York State himself, the Hon. Mario Cuomo, at that time, BY 1976, the cost of WHITE-COLLAR crime in just New York State alone was already MORE THAN forty-four BILLION dollars, and it was just spiraling upwards and upwards, with no end in sight, unless, of course, WE, the PEOPLE of the State were to somehow stop it, and how was that to be done?

Now, think on this for a moment, if you will:

WHEN, not if, BUT WHEN you have white-collar crime in a state, any state, to the extent of $44 BILLION, how exactly is that happening?

And by that, what I really mean is WHO IN THE HELL IS NOT LOOKING, or doing their job at preventing this kind of crime, TO THIS MAGNITUDE?

And more to the point, WHY ARE THEY NOT LOOKING, or doing their job of preventing crime of this magnitude from occurring in the first place?

Is a "BLIND EYE" being bought and paid for, here, perhaps?

And if so, HOW can that be countered?

And when the sum of money is so big as was the case in New York State by 1976, $44 BILLION, ABSENT A COMPLETE AND TOTAL TOP-TO-BOTTOM house-cleaning of the whole of government itself, CAN ANYTHING AT ALL BE DONE, because the truth of the matter is that corruption, or crime of this magnitude cannot happen without inside help, and that brings us to this charge of TOMMY-ISM and politics that I am making in here, because there is in my mind, anyway, a direct relevancy between then, and now, that cannot be underestimated, or ignored, in understanding the significance of what has just occurred here in the State of New York, where Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who is himself allegedly "taking money" from something called the "HOUSING INDUSTRY", just had an expert witness AGAINST the housing industry declared a "CRACKPOT PROSECUTOR" in Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York, the HOME of over $44 BILLION of WHITE-COLLAR CRIME by 1976!

Rhetorically speaking, if you're a white-collar thief to the tune of $44 BILLION, and you are "operating" in a state like New York State where the politicians allegedly are for sale, and you want to stay in business, HOW MANY CORRUPT POLITICIANS CAN YOU BUY for $44 BILLION to enable you to do so?

And hypothetically speaking, IF YOU DO buy these alleged corrupt politicians, WHICH SERVICES of theirs are you really buying, BESIDES their own "BLIND EYES"?

And so, here is the "backdrop" for this story that I am telling in here of one small group of citizens in the State of New York who chose not to bury their heads in the sand, and pretend that all was right with the world, but, instead, decided to study the law themselves, and to learn how this had all come to pass, this corruption, or crime IN OUR LIVES, that was already by 1976 up to $44 BILLION!

To be continued ..........

Top Stories - Knight Ridder Newspapers

"Judiciary has 'run amok', DeLay says"

Thu Apr 7, 8:09 PM ET

By James Kuhnhenn, Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, stepped up his attack on federal judges Thursday, telling a gathering of religious conservatives that the judiciary has "run amok" and demanding that Congress assert authority over the courts.

His remarks, delivered by videotape, broadened the criticism he voiced last week after the death of Terri Schiavo, a severely brain-damaged woman in Florida, after judges refused to order her feeding tube reinserted.

DeLay's address came as he strives to shore up his base amid a storm over his ethics.

Liberal groups have launched ads attacking his connections to lobbyists and former associates now under investigation.

Prominent news reports have raised questions about his use of campaign cash, and last year the House ethics committee rebuked him three times in one week.

Many lawmakers think DeLay can weather the storm as long as he's perceived as a leader of the conservative movement.

"The judiciary branch of our government has overstepped its authority on countless occasions, overturning and in some cases just ignoring the legitimate will of the people," DeLay said.

"But I also believe the executive and legislative branches have neglected the proper checks and balances on this behavior ... Our next step, whatever it is, must be more than rhetoric."

Criticism of the courts by religious conservatives has mounted since the Schiavo case.

At issue is extraordinary legislation that Congress passed and President Bush signed late last month that ordered federal courts to review the case, in which Schiavo's husband and parents disputed what her wishes would be.

A federal judge in Florida refused to overturn a state court's decision and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.

After Schiavo died last week, DeLay said federal judges "thumbed their nose at Congress and the president."

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

Congress could inject itself into the judiciary by simply calling on judges to testify before Congress, a move that could be interpreted as intimidation.

It also could intervene more dramatically, by initiating impeachment procedures, passing legislation limiting judges' terms in office or redefining the jurisdiction of federal courts in certain types of cases.

Intervention by the Congress, however, does not sit well with some conservatives.

John J. Pitney Jr., a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College and a former Republican congressional aide, said:

"A lot of conservatives may strongly disapprove of what the courts are doing but don't think it's proper to punish judges for the decisions."

"They regard that as a breach of separation of powers."

Even Congress' attempt to influence the Schiavo case prompted a strong rebuke by one of the judges deciding the matter.

Circuit Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., appointed to the court by President Bush's father, said, "Congress chose to overstep constitutional boundaries into the province of the judiciary."

"Such an act cannot be countenanced."

Republican lawmakers too are splintered over whether to take on the judicial branch of government.

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., distanced himself from DeLay, saying he thought the judges in the Schiavo case had given her case a "fair and independent look."

"I believe we have a fair and independent judiciary today," Frist added.

DeLay had been scheduled as the keynote speaker before the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration, but sent in taped remarks because the conference conflicted with his trip to Rome for Pope John Paul II's funeral.

"Our judiciary has banned prayer in schools and evicted Christmas displays from town halls," DeLay said.

He complained that judges were ignoring legislatures and "following the dictates of foreign opinion," a reference to a recent Supreme Court decision on the death penalty.

"These are not the examples of a mature society, but of a judiciary run amok," DeLay said.

His stand-in at the conference was Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, a DeLay ally who chairs a courts subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

"Judges continue to substitute their own political views for the law, and we must push back," Smith said.

Asked whether he would take steps to retaliate against judges in the Schiavo case, Smith said:

"I would certainly be a part of any effort that Tom DeLay was."

"If that's the direction that the leaders want to go, I would be happy to go that direction as well."

I finally found this new thread of yours Livyjr.

This seems to be the right place to dicuss the issues which you have started in here.

Hopefully, others with their views will join in.

I also agree with lawnorder to keep the legal jargon at a minimum.

I'll be visiting in here frequently.

There sure are a whole lot of Tom Deliar types in positions of authority.

The good news is that a majority of them end up choking on their own filth sooner or later.

That may not do you, personally, any good.

If onlyyou could find someone with clout to take up your fight.

Perhaps, this will happen.

Never give up.

No, never give up.

A.B.

I am now, and have been, for some long time now, a believer that what we are confronted with at any moment is "reality" for each of us, and perhaps the final measure of us as human beings is how we ended up facing adversity!

Certainly, that was the case with OUR forefathers in liberty!

Had they not stood up to English tyranny and oppression back in the 1770's, we would not even be here today having this discussion about whither JUSTICE, and LIBERTY, here in OUR America.

Now the test has come to us, or perhaps it really is a torch of freedom, and it has been passed to us down the ages to see if we can keep it alive!

That is my thought, anyway, so, hence this thread!

And you are right, Mr. A.B., at this point, unless we can get some "clout" in OUR corner, we are simply gone!

The "MONEY Interests" that we are up against can buy us and sell us three times over, every day of the week, and guess what?

They have!

And "BIG ELIOT" Spitzer is now "cock of the walk" in the CAPITAL CITY of the State of New York for his "stunning" victory in this case against us pipsqueaks out here in the country!

Oh, well, eh, Mr. A.B.!

"Spitzer backs re-election bid- Attorney general throws key party support behind Mayor Jerry Jennings"

By BRIAN NEARING, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Thursday, April 7, 2005

ALBANY -- Mayor Jerry Jennings received the endorsement for re-election Wednesday from his party's front-runner for governor, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

The support from Spitzer, the highest-profile Democrat to back Jennings for a fourth four-year term, showed that the mayor, who three years ago angered many Democrats when he endorsed Republican Gov. George Pataki over Democrat H. Carl McCall, is working to mend party fences.

Spitzer said he wasn't immediately concerned about Jennings' returning the favor during next fall's race for governor.

Pataki, who has helped Jennings with timely infusions of state aid, hasn't said whether he is running again.

"This is about me endorsing him, not him endorsing me," Spitzer said after a news conference outside the city's Pubic Safety headquarters attended by about two dozen Democratic officials.

Spitzer also downplayed any impact his support for Jennings might have on the Working Families Party's decision on endorsements for mayor or other city offices up for election this year.

Last fall, a coalition of the Working Families Party, Citizen Action and Albany minority activists shocked the Democratic establishment in the primary for district attorney when David Soares beat incumbent Paul Clyne.

After the primary, Spitzer and nearly all top Democrats came out for Soares.

Jennings stuck by Clyne even after Clyne continued his bid on the Independence Party line.

"The mayor and I disagreed on that," Spitzer said, "but there was room for disagreement."

In January, Working Families was the first party to endorse Spitzer in the 2006 governor's race.

As for Wednesday's announcement, Working Families local coordinator Karen Scharff said, "I don't think this has an effect one way or the other on us making endorsements in the city."

The party will make most of its endorsements in May, although a few could be done before that, she said.

In the euphoria after Soares' victory, some members of his coalition predicted they would find a candidate to challenge Jennings.

In February, Archie Goodbee, a retired broadcast executive, declared his intention to seek the Democratic nomination.

He is the first black resident to make a bid for that all-important ballot spot in the city, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to 1.

"Attorney General Spitzer is certainly a high-level addition to the campaign," Goodbee said.

"However, in the final analysis, he will not be engaged in the day-to-day, hands-on public examination of the serious issues that are on the table in all our neighborhoods."

"Mr. Spitzer does not live in Albany and has not been engaged in the deficient approaches to our urban renewal problems, fears and anxieties, the youthful violence and related issues of the day."

"The quality of an endorsement is in the person's commitment on a community level that relates to the everyday lives of the people who live in those neighborhoods."

The attorney general, who is widely seen as having a lock on the Democratic gubernatorial nomination next year, said he endorsed Jennings because he is "tough, creative and aggressive."

"Jerry Jennings has done it all for Albany, and he has done it with aplomb."

Jennings continues to widen his overwhelming fund-raising lead over Goodbee.

In mid-March, the mayor had more than a quarter-million dollars in his campaign account.

He has held two fund-raisers since, including one last week at $1,000 a ticket.

Goodbee joined the race after the last campaign-finance filing deadline.

Brian Nearing can be reached at 454-5094 or by e-mail at bnearing@timesunion.com.

"Spitzer campaign calls AIG ad link a mistake - Critics question attorney general's political motives; spokesman blames use on a "low-level" employee"

By MARC HUMBERT, Associated Press
First published: Friday, April 8, 2005

ALBANY -- State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has taken down a "sponsored link" to his gubernatorial campaign committee that popped up when users of the Google search engine typed in "AIG."

The initials are an acronym for the American International Group, an insurance giant that Spitzer has been investigating.

Spitzer spokesman Darren Dopp said Thursday that the placement of the paid ad for the campaign committee was "a mistake" and that it had been up for only one day.

"It was inappropriate to be done for AIG, which is an ongoing matter," Dopp said.

"As soon as Mr. Spitzer found out about it, he had it corrected."

"The guy who did it is a low-level guy , a wonderful computer geek who just didn't know what he was doing," Dopp added.

The sponsored link was removed late Wednesday afternoon after Dopp received a call about it from a New York Post reporter.

State GOP Chairman Stephen Minarik jumped on the issue, saying Thursday that it "raises some serious questions about the ethics of Eliot Spitzer."

"What are his motives for investigating these companies?"

"Is it to stuff his campaign coffers, and promote his political aspirations?" Minarik said in a statement to The Associated Press.

"The so-called 'Crusader of the Year' has some serious explaining to do."

"Google the words 'shameless self-promotion' and do you come up with the name Eliot Spitzer?" Minarik said.

Independent polls have shown Spitzer with a big lead over Republican Gov. George Pataki in a possible matchup for the office in 2006.

Pataki has not said whether he will seek a fourth term.

Spitzer has gained an international reputation for his investigations of America's financial institutions, including Wall Street investment houses, mutual fund managers and the insurance industry.

SO!

DISSENT!

"GREEDY, WHITE-COLLAR PROFITEERS WILL NOT BE STOPPED until we adopt strong measures to stop them!"

1986!

That is the "BEGINNING" of OUR "DISSENT" in this matter, if anything is, I would say!

Two sides!

The "GREEDY, WHITE-COLLAR PROFITEERS" on one side, and US, on the other!

Them with an excess of $44 BILLION, and us, WITH NOTHING!

POWER, and plenty of it, on THEIR side, versus, US, with none at all!

Nothing but a statement from the Governor of a corrupt state saying to each person in the state, "MAKE A CHOICE!"

And there were THREE, actually available, choices, that is, to wit:

a) HIDE IN THE CELLAR, and hope they don't see you down there; or

b) Actively join and support the "GREEDY, WHITE-COLLAR PROFITEERS", because they have the "GEETUS, and MOOLAH", and thus, are likely to be the winners; or

c) Believe in the very puny "law" in the State of New York, and likely get your clock cleaned for doing so!

DISSENT!

This is what it looks like in this particular case, and so, when I talk about DISSENT in here, it will be with respect to OUR dissent as citizens against the rampant corruption that had all but overrun OUR State of New York, by 1986, when the clock, for all practical purposes, will have started ticking in here, in connection with this case, that was decided in Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York, against OUR INTERESTS, on March 31, 2005.

Simple enough?

Livyjr,

Moderator has sent you this email from
http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php.

Your post has caught the attention of the Moderating Team.

We want you to know that we take these things very seriously; and so, we've moved your post to a location in the forum that is only visible to mods and campaign staff.

This way, the right people will be informed.

Thank you for participating in the John Kerry Internet Town Meeting.

Best regards, The moderating team

Thursday, July 29, 2004:

"New Yorkers make do in off-peak slots"

by Elizabeth Benjamin, Albany, New York Times Union:

Why some New Yorkers received coveted speaking roles while others remained on the sidelines was something of a mystery.

Meanwhile, state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who built a national reputation fighting Wall Street corruption and flew to Mexico to endorse Kerry when President Bush's campaign attacked Kerry for his ties to "special interests", wasn't tapped to speak.

This fact caused a brief uproar when it was reported that Schumer used his clout to block the attorney general from speaking, the political explanation being that the two are considered possible rivals for the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

Schumer has insisted he had nothing to do with Spitzer's absence behind the podium.

Please explain more fully what you mean when you write that Livyjr's post has been moved and will only be visible to mods and campaign staff. What post are you referring to?

Since you are notifying Livyjr of this, it appears obvious that he did not request this.

I'm sure your reasons are well founded, however since the post was made with the expectation that it was available to be read by all members of this forum, why would it not be so?

Also, the link you posted ( http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php.) is not a good one. A message is posted as follows:

" Page Not Found
You have requested a page that does not exist. Check the Web address (URL) that you entered or return to the homepage. "

Can you clear this up?

A.B.

Thank you for the question, Mr. A.B.!

And thanks for serving as my "INTERROGATOR", in here, as well!

That's a very important "citizen advocacy role" that has to be played, AND PLAYED WELL, in getting these type of "citizen" matters clearly out in the open, for all to plainly see, and you are doing it admirably, and concisely, and that is the most beneficial element of all, here, the "non-involved" layperson's point-of-view that you are now playing here in this role of questioner that you have so capably taken on here.

SIMPLY STATED:

This "post" Mr. A.B. refers to above here from the "MODERATORS" IS a COPY of a post that I received from the Moderators of the NOW-DEFUNCT John Kerry site, JUST PRIOR TO the Democratic National Convention, TELLING ME THAT MY PLEA TO THE JOHN KERRY FORUM, to keep Eliot Spitzer OFF THE PODIUM, at the then-upcoming Democratic National Convention, HAD BEEN HEARD, loud and clear, BY JOHN KERRY, and was therefore being taken quite seriously!

AND THEN .......

Eliot Spitzer never got to speak at the Democratic National Convention!

And so ......

I can live with that, for now, to be truthful!

It is a form of justice to me, and it was immediate, AND OBVIOUS, as well, which is as it should be with JUSTICE, for it to actually be justice, and so!

TO ME ...

John Kerry was true to a fellow veteran, while Eliot Spitzer was treating the same one as a piece of human garbage!

SO!

To ME:

JOHN KERRY IS A HERO!

Eliot Spitzer?

I honestly don't want my mother to even think that I would know of such words, and so, I will say no more on that!

Politics - Reuters

"Republicans Step Up Attacks on Judiciary"

Fri Apr 8, 3:08 PM ET

By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Christian conservatives, led by some top Republicans, are stepping up their assault on the U.S. judiciary in response to the Terri Schiavo case, saying judges are attacking religion and must be reined in.

At a conference on Thursday and Friday organized by the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration, an umbrella group bringing together many religious conservative organizations, prominent Republicans joined with activists to assault what they term "judicial activism."

House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay, under fire for his use of campaign dollars and other ethical problems, addressed the conference in a videotaped message on Thursday in which he denounced a "judiciary run amok."

"Our next step, whatever it is, must be more than rhetoric," the Texas Republican told the conference, entitled "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith."

President Bush, asked about DeLay's comments, said on Friday:

"I believe in an independent judiciary."

"I believe in proper checks and balances."

"And we'll continue to put judges on the bench who strictly and faithfully interpret the Constitution."

Conservatives including DeLay have intensified their criticism of judges in the aftermath of the Schiavo case.

Several at the conference said the Florida woman who died last week, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed, was a victim of "judicial murder."

"I believe the judicial branch of our government has overstepped its authority on countless occasions, overturning and, in some cases, ignoring the legitimate will of the people," said DeLay, who was unable to attend the conference because he was in Rome for Pope John Paul II's funeral.

Republicans rushed a bill through Congress to allow federal courts to intervene in the Schiavo case.

But a federal district judge, an appeals court and the Supreme Court declined to do so, deferring to Florida courts which had ruled repeatedly that Schiavo, who spent 15 years in a persistent vegetative state, should be allowed to die.

Polls showed most Americans opposed congressional intervention.

'PASSIONS BOILED OVER'

American University historian Allan Lichtman said there was nothing new about politicians attacking the judiciary but the attacks now were more intense than at any time since the desegregation era of the 1950s.

"The Schiavo case has made passions boil over."

"Republicans like DeLay thought the courts would bend to their will but the courts slapped them in the face," he said.

Bush has frequently criticized "activist judges" he accuses of "legislating from the bench."

Under the Constitution, powers and responsibilities are divided among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, each of which acts to balance the actions of the others.

Even before the Schiavo case, conservatives were enraged by judicial decisions in Massachusetts and elsewhere allowing same-sex marriages, banning public displays of the Ten Commandments and outlawing the death penalty for crimes committed by juveniles.

Democrats have also criticized the judiciary over the years.

Many were extremely bitter at the way the Supreme Court stopped further recounts in Florida after the 2000 election, effectively giving Bush the presidency.

Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith condemned the Supreme Court, saying that over the past 40 years, starting with its 1962 decision to end school prayer, it had conducted a methodical "assault on religion."

The conference called on Congress to seek the impeachment and removal from office of "activist judges" and said lawmakers should reduce or eliminate funding for "activist courts" that take objectionable decisions.

end quotes

And there, in that last sentence above, is the "BUSH CIVIL WAR", AGAINST US, clearly delineated, and thus, that one sentence also clearly states the basis of OUR ISSUES, in here, as well, which is WHO SHOULD HAVE "CONTROL" OVER OUR COURTS?

WHO?

The LAW?

Or the REPUBLICANS?

BECAUSE IT SURELY CAN'T BE BOTH, now can it?

Hence, this thread, to examine that very issue, in the context of this March 31, 2005 BUSH CONSERVATIVE judicial decision in the Northern District of New York that forms the basis of the discussion taking place in this thread!

AND ...

Thank you for you continuing interest in this matter!

And before I must leave here for this evening, I want to post this "BACKGROUND" article which illuminates the relationship between the ATTORNEYS for the doctor who made out the fraudulent 9.45 order in this matter, and New York State Governor George Pataki, who has one of HIS New York State Division of Veterans' Affairs "OFFICERS" involved in this matter as a DEFENDANT, BECAUSE ....

Somebody was needed to carry the fraudulent 9.45 order to the "authorities" to set the "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN" in motion, and so ....

One of Pataki's POLITICAL SOLDIERS did the "DEED", plain and simple!

Regardless of the law, and regardless of the fact that this was a federally-protected disabled veteran that he was acting against, unlawfully, and illegally, WITH IMPUNITY, and immunity from the law, thanks to Eliot Spitzer, the ONCE and future Governor of New York!

"Attorney's Bid for Share of $84.3 Million Fee Moves Forward"

John Caher
New York Law Journal
01-12-2005

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1105364088801

A New York attorney's quest to pry what he says is his share of an $84.3 million legal fee from his former partners remains alive as a result of a judge's ruling last week.

Albany Supreme Court Justice Louis C. Benza, sitting in the Commercial Division, held in Conolly v. Thuillez, 1538-02, that even though the lawyer, H. Neal Conolly, resigned from what was then Thuillez, Ford, Gold & Conolly shortly before the firm obtained a major tobacco case, there remains a question of whether the lawyer was involved in a "work in progress."

If he was, Conolly may be entitled to a share of the fees that his former firm collected for helping New York secure a $25 billion settlement from the tobacco industry in 1998.

The battle between Conolly and his former partners recalls a smoldering dispute over the propriety of the legal fees, which amount to roughly $13,000 an hour.

Six firms, including the politically connected Thuillez partnership, received a total of $625 million in fees for their role in negotiating the tobacco settlement.

Thuillez Ford has had close ties to the Pataki administration and the administration of then New York Attorney General Dennis C. Vacco.

The amount struck Justice Charles E. Ramos of Manhattan Supreme Court as potentially "excessive and therefore unethical."

He ordered a sua sponte inquiry, only to be unanimously reversed in 2003 by the Appellate Division, 1st Department (see State v. Philip Morris, NYLJ, Aug. 1, 2003).

Conolly left Thuillez Ford to become executive director of the State Insurance Fund on May 15, 1997, about a month before the law firm was chosen by the state to represent its interests in the tobacco litigation.

He now practices in Columbia County.

Conolly contends that four years later, when the firm received its fee, he contacted former partner Dale Thuillez to inquire about his share, only to be told that he was due nothing at all.

Thuillez, according to court papers, contended that because Conolly had resigned he was entitled to nothing more than the $150,000 he accepted for his interest in the partnership when he left.

Last week's ruling by Benza stemmed from competing motions filed on behalf of Conolly and the firm, which is now known as Thuillez, Ford, Gold, Johnson & Butler.

Benza addressed two main issues: one regarding the effective date of Conolly's resignation and another on whether the tobacco litigation was a work in progress.

Conolly denied that he had resigned from the firm upon accepting a full-time position with the State Insurance Fund and insists his partnership status was intact when the firm landed the tobacco litigation job in June 1997.

Benza, however, found that Conolly's own actions, including his under-oath disclosures to a state ethics panel, contradict that claim.

The court noted that Conolly, in a mandatory financial disclosure filed with the state Ethics Commission, said he resigned from Thuillez Ford on May 15, 1997.

In a July 8, 1997, letter to a client, he said that he was winding up his affairs at the firm, the judge noted.

That letter was written on the firm's new stationary, which did not include Conolly as a name partner, and was signed "of counsel."

"This acknowledgment by plaintiff of his role in the firm is a manifestation at the time of the execution of the letter that he was no longer a partner," Benza wrote.

The court found that Conolly had resigned on May 15, 1997, causing a dissolution of Thuillez, Ford, Gold & Conolly.

He awarded the firm summary judgment on that issue.

Benza said it is less clear whether the tobacco litigation was a work in progress and left that issue for a jury to decide.

Although records show that Thuillez Ford was not even interviewed for the litigation until after Conolly left, Conolly contends he was instrumental in helping procure the contract and then, later, in preparing the fee application.

"Plaintiff's allegations are supported by ethics disclosure, wherein he reported that he was entitled to funds due to works in progress," Benza wrote.

"As such, the determination of whether these actions relative to the tobacco litigation, if established, are sufficient to arise to a work in progress must await resolution by the fact-finder."

Conolly is represented by Randall J. Ezick of Featherstonhaugh, Wiley, Clyne & Cordo in Albany.

James T. Potter of Hinman Straub in Albany represents Thuillez Ford.

While the fees generated by the tobacco litigation were controversial, as a percentage of the total settlement they were relatively modest.

Six firms had sought up to $1.75 billion for their work, but after a hearing an arbitration panel awarded $625 million.

Three New York-based firms shared $281.1 million, with Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz & Damashek and Sullivan Block McGrath & Cannavo receiving $98.4 each and Thuillez Ford $84.3 million.

In addition, three national firms split $343.8 million.

They were Ness, Motley, Loadhoalt, Richardson & Poole of Charleston, S.C.; the Scruggs Firm of Pascagoula, Miss.; and Hagens & Berman of Seattle.

And so, here we are, one more day gone since this March 31, 2005 decision under discussion in here "came down", and approximately twenty days are now left before the deadline to file a Notice of Appeal in this matter passes, which subject is under very serious discussion among us right now as ordinary citizens in OUR America without any "clout", whatsoever.

And recapping in here, from the above, it is clear that right from the "get-go", we were up against about as much "CLOUT" as one can be up against, challenging alleged REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION in a REPUBLICAN COUNTY in a REPUBLICAN STATE where the doctor who made out the fraudulent 9.45 psychiatric commitment order at issue herein was and is represented by the $13,000 an hour law firm that is politically "tight" with REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI, whose alleged Division of Veterans' Affairs was one of the key players in the execution of this illegal and unlawful "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN" that we are talking about in here, as to the implications and ramifications of this decision from the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York, on US, the American citizens who are adversely impacted by that decision.

SO!

To keep this discussion as simple as possible, what happened to kick off this present "episode" that resulted in the March 31, 2005 decision under discussion in here, was that in early-2001, a group of us older folks in the Town of Poestenkill, in the County of Rensselaer, in the State of New York, noticed that yet another "slide-through" had just taken place in our town, which is where a "developer" hires the Planning Board Chairman, a surveyor, to represent the "developer" before the same Planning Board that the surveyor is Chairman of, and because it is one of the "chairman's" projects, and because "he is good guy", his projects are "slid through", or "rubber-stamped", and everybody is happy, except for those who are harmed by this practice, which is us!

And how exactly is that, a sceptic might ask, to which I would reply, "A VERY GOOD, and necessary question!"

SO!

How are we harmed?

And for that answer, all we have to do is go to Exhibit A of the original Complaint filed in Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York in this matter to find that answer.

Exhibit A of the original Complaint is a Report of Investigation of the Rensselaer County Department of Health that was filed as a public record in the files of the Rensselaer County Clerk by then-New York State Health Commissioner Dr. David Axelrod on March 15, 1989, when the original phase of this investigation into corruption in the Town of Poestenkill Planning Board, the Rensselaer County Department of Health and the New York State Department of Health was "completed".

In the cover letter to that Report of Investigation, dated March 15, 1989, Dr. Axelrod stated as follows:

"The investigation found significant deficiencies in the Rensselaer County residential subdivision program and individual sewage program."

"The investigators concluded that the great number of sewage system failures in the county, 'is a result of a County program which is inadequate to assure protection of public health and the environment'!"

end quotes

At page 7 of the Report, under "Discussion", Dr. Axelrod was more emphatic about what that sentence above really meant, TO US:

"Based upon a review of the County's subdivision and private water and sewage programs, it is clear that [PLAINTIFF'S] concerns about its integrity are justified."

"The public health and environment are threatened by an inordinate number of sewage system failures, which are the legacy of mismanaged programs in prior years.

Further, the County may face many more system failures in future seasons to come, and immediate steps should be taken to properly manage a comprehensive program in the future."

end quotes

SO!

There it is in a nutshell, OUR BASIS OF ORIGINAL CONCERN, contained in those two sentences right above here, and since I am quoting from the evidence before the Federal Court in this matter, I cannot "simplify" it any further, although to me, it doesn't really have to be.

The only real questions which come out, and have come out over the years are these:

a) Why do I care, since this goes on all over the place anyway;

b) Why am I sticking my nose in other people's business; and

c) Why do I hate America so, by pointing out its "imperfections" as I am doing in here?

Those answers will follow!

Please!

Stay tuned!

And as always, thank you for your continued interest in what we are up against up here, in the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York.

SO, Livyjr, a question goes, IF Dr. Axelrod had gotten involved in 1989, and had made that REPORT, why do you people still think you have an issue today, and why should we listen to another word that you have to say about this subject, which is very uncomfortable to have to consider, that OUR own government would openly lie to us, and conceal evidence and such?

And that too is a good and necessary question, as this is indeed a very uncomfprtable subject, and to NO ONE more than us, I would say, who are directly affected by this ruling, for what it says about OUR lack of safety in OUR own community, if we try and raise OUR voices in DISSENT about what were held by Dr. Axelrod in 1989 to be corrupt practices in the Rensselaer County Department of Health, and the Town of Poestenkill, and the New York State Department of Health, as well!

And what really of Dr. Axelrod?

If he spoke out so strongly in 1989, why do the problems still persist?

Well, that answer can be easily found in this next short article from this following URL, although the subject of Dr. Axelrod's crippling sudden stroke was widely reported at the time in all the print media in the New York State area, and so, other sources should well be available on that subject of Dr. Axelrod's untimely demise and the adverse impact that had on us, with respect to seeing through to completion, his call for total reform of the corrupt Rensselaer County Department of Health.

Unfortunately for us, in many ways, especially as far as JUSTICE is considered in this matter under discussion in here, Dr. Axelrod's untimely demise on this earth of OURS, spelled OURS too, at least as far as "equal protection of the law" is concerned in Rensselaer County, vis-a-vis public health protection in OUR communities, and when Dr. Axelrod went, so did any last pretense at conforming to his call to reform the Rensselaer County Department of Health, and now, corruption appears to be totally unassailable, and firmly entrenched, with no other Axelrods on the horizon to even begin to attempt to dislodge it, as Axelrod bravely tried to do in 1989, before he was "taken down" by what one doctor called the literal "hand of God"!

http://www.aegis.com/news/ads/1991/AD910618.html

"Health Chief's Illness Leaves Albany Policies in Doubt"

New York Times (04/01/91), P. B1
Sack, Kevin

Abstract: A crippling stroke New York State Health Commissioner David Axelrod suffered last month has left a power vaccuum in the state health-care system and jeopardized Axelrod's maverick policies.

Axelrod had been unwavering in his support of voluntary HIV tests and strict confidentiality standards.

He also opposed a recent medical-establishment policy, saying HIV-infected health-care workers should not have to disclose their status to patients.

Critics charge that Axelrod's policies are ineffective and intrusive and call his style too confrontational, but he has enjoyed unmatched influence with Gov. Mario Cuomo.

Axelrod remains in critical condition in intensive care, and has not regained consciousness since his Feb. 25 stroke.

SO?

How about that?

Dr. David Axelrod was a maverick!

And when he had his stroke, and died thereafter, so too went his "maverick policies", and we with that!

Maverick policies!

And "maverick" was then shortened to "CRACKPOT" when we tried to continue to enforce his 1989 "FINDINGS" in Rensselaer County and the Town of Poestenkill, after he was gone!

Yes that is right, "CRACKPOT"!

And so, Exhibit A of the original Complaint in this matter was thrown right out the window by Federal Court for the Northern District of New York!

Simple as that!

TOMMY-ism!

Plain and simple!

Just like that!

BUSH IS REALLY GOING FAST WITH HIS STRENGTHENING OF HIS MAFIA CLUB!

And he has to, when you think on it!

Like a snake eating a mouse!

Away goes OUR liberty if we let that snake get ahold of OUR nose, as is happening, judicial district by judicial district, here in OUR America, for once that happens, the feet rapidly follow, and we are gone!

The problem for us common folks, of course, at least up here in the Northern Federal Judicial District of New York has been multi-fold, since we are in no way a part of the process by which federal judges are selected, and then appointed, and not being a part of that process, we don't even know that it is going on, and all of a sudden, as was the case, here, a new judge shows up in town, and all is forever changed, and different after that, and we have had absolutely no representation at all in the matter, and now have none, since the deal has gone down.

I myself have been researching this matter of how this Gary L. Sharpe became a federal judge, and it is like trying to find where TOPSY came from!

No answers!

Other than that George W. Bush is the one who put Gary L. Sharpe on the Federal bench here in the Pataki-ite Capital City of Albany, New York.

And it is interesting that one of the very first decisions that this Judge Sharpe has made here in effect rules against Judge Hurd, who upon information and belief is one of these alleged "activist" judges that George W. Bush is so all-fired riled up about, allegedly because Judge Hurd ruled against the alleged Pataki-allies, and therefore, BUSH allies, the $13,000 per hour Gold Johnson boys, themselves, in Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Department of Social Services, 234 F.Supp.2d 140 (NDNY 2002).

Did the Chief Judge of the Northern District allow Thuillez, Ford & Gold Johnson to "judge-shop" for a more favorable judge, once this matter had been filed before Judge Hurd, where the Gold Johnson boys had just lost in Ruhlmann, or did the Chief Judge himself intervene to move this case over to this newly-appointed BUSH CONSERVATIVE?

That, of course, is one of the more intriguing questions here, as once the PLAINTIFF made clear to the Gold Johnson boys his reliance on Ruhlmann, and their loss therein, which made quite questionable, and specious, to boot, assertions that they were making in this case, which in many ways is a copy-cat of the same abuse and contempt for law as was outlined by Judge Hurd in Ruhlmann, the case was almost immediately thereafter taken from Judge Hurd, and given over to Judge Sharpe, who subsequently dismissed Ruhlmann as having any relevancy, whatsoever, apparently as the alleged fruits of what was considered to be judicial activism on the part of Judge Hurd by the Gold Johnson $13,000 per hour crowd in deciding Ruhlmann in the manner that he had, AGAINST the Pataki-ally GOLD JOHNSONS!

And your use of the term mafia is quite apt when it is applied to the manner in which OUR engineering expert was literally WHACKED right in the head by the Rensselaer County REPUBLICAN defendants on 8-22-01, with the aid and assistance of the GOLD JOHNSON defendant doctor who made out the bogus psychiatric commitment order in this case, sight unseen, and allegedly for money for services rendered, just like a MAFIA hit-man would have done, and for the same end purpose - to remove a witness against them, and so, extort silence in a court of law from those who were depending on the witness to make their case for them, in a court of law!

SO!

In that case, I personally must agree with you about strengthening the club, whatever in the end it is actually called, and if that were to be "mafia club", somehow, I wouldn't be surprised by that, for by its actions in this case in Rensselaer County on 8-22-01, it is already there, to me!!

And another question which has come up in here by way of background has to do with the involvement of the State of New York, itself, in this matter, which involvement then brings in the alleged "White Night on Broadway", Mr. New York State Attorney General, and GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE, Eliot Spitzer, himself, on the side of the "HOUSING INDUSTRY", and surprise, surprise.

IF the problems are with the Rensselaer County Department of Health, as alleged, what role does the New York State Department of Health play in this on-going drama from the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York?

For that answer, of course, the best place to start is right back with the March 15, 1989 Axelrod Report that was annexed to the original FEDERAL COMPLAINT in this above matter, where in the Executive Summary, Dr. Axelrod held as follows with respect to the role of the New York State Department of Health in causing or allowing or actually promoting all of the problems of misfeasance and malfeasance found in the Rensselaer County Department of Health in 1989:

"The State Health Department also did not provide adequate oversight of the realty subdivision and private water supply and sewage disposal programs which are supported in part by State Local Assistance Funds."

At page 9 of the Report, Dr. Axelrod was a bit more emphatic on what he meant by that comment:

"Finally, the State Health Department has not exercised appropriate oversight of county performance."

"Although the Public Health Law provides for a great deal of county autonomy with respect to the subdivision and individual sewage programs, the Department is charged by Public Health Law Section 201.1(a) to 'supervise the work and activities of the local boards of health and health officers' throughout the state."

"CLEARLY, SINCE 1978, THE DEPARTMENT HAS FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COUNTY PROGRAMS WERE DEVIATING FROM ITS OWN STANDARDS."

end quotes

SO!

1978!

How about that?

The magic number here, isn't it, where in 1976, two years prior to the date this "failure" of state oversight in Rensselaer County began, the State of New York itself KNEW that white collar crime in the State of New York was at that time already $44 BILLION, and spiraling ever upwards.

Which raises the question, rhetorical or otherwise, of what those people who had taken or stolen all that money were going to do with it, as ill-gotten gains?

How do you "clean up" $44 BILLION in ill-gotten gains, anyway?

Don't you need "something" legitimate in appearance to "LAUNDER" that money through?

Like real estate subdivisions and strip malls, for example?

Oh, but how did I know that?

Well, that's easy, I've already read the book once, and I really know it by heart now, which is why I can tell it so easy in here, FOR ......

I WAS THERE!

AND ......

Thanks to the wonders of modern technology, and this FORUM, now you are too!

And back to the subject of "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM" in here, for a moment, to provide some necessary background that will serve to clarify for us all exactly what a "bad-to-the-BUSH" JUDICIAL ACTIVIST really looks like, so that we can then have a JUDICIAL STANDARD OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM to compare Judge Hurd of the Northern District of New York to, and the "model" for that standard which allegedly has George W. Bush just "foaming at the mouth" in sheer rage, comes directly from right on down there in BUSH/Delay country, itself, that being the Federal Court for the Southern District of Texas, in Houston!

And what I am referring to as the QUINTESSENTIAL EXAMPLE of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN OUR AMERICA is a 24-page opinion of Federal District Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the Southern District of Texas, dated October 27, 2003, in United States of America v. Edwin Paul Wilson, Criminal Case H-82-139, which makes for very interesting reading concerning the CIA, the United States Justice Department and the shipping of tons of plastic explosives to Libya in exchange for "good information,", and oh yeah, a whole lot of lying then, by OUR government, to cover that all back up again, so we won't know it happened, of course.

SO!

How about that?

Don't believe me?

That's alright, I might not myself, believe me, that is, if I didn't know better, and the source of that KNOWLEDGE, IS ACTIVIST Federal Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes in the United States of America v. Edwin Paul Wilson!

Want to see what I mean?

Good!

Let's go look at what a real ACTIVIST JUDGE in OUR America really looks like, up close and personal!

And more to the point of this discussion, let's really look at why George W. Bush and "TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY" Delay HATE JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS SO!

Some relevant quotes from what I consider one of my favorite JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS here in OUR America follow, but let's start here, and recall, this is Federal Judge Lynn N. Hughes speaking out against the government of the United States of America on October 27, 2003:

"America did not defeat the Axis because it locked up Japanese Americans."

"America did not defeat the Soviet union because it tried to lock up its philosophic fellow-travelers here."

"America will not defeat Libyan terrorism by double-crossing a part-time, informal government agent."

And WHOA, folks, what's this talk of America, allegedly OUR America, "double-crossing" a part-time government agent?

And this from a federal District Court Judge, no less.

What exactly is going on here, besides JUDICIAL ACTIVISM?

Let's look and see:

"The government's preparation, presentation, and preservation of false evidence are not the process that is due from the government."

Whoa!

Smoking, folks, no wonder George W. Bush hates a JUDICIAL ACTIVIST, when they talk back to the GUMMINT like this!

Yaaahoooo!

"The government has no legitimate interest in buying or presenting false evidence from outsiders - it has less than none in lying to the Court itself!"

HEY, wait a minute here!

What is this?

This is OUR government, OUR alleged "Justice Department", being told off by one courageous Federal District Court Judge in October of 2003, and that folks, IS WHAT JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IS REALLY ALL ABOUT!

And that is why George W. Bush and HIS, including "TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY", are out to CRUSH JUDICIAL ACTIVIST FEDERAL JUDGES, to protect the corruption in OUR government that these kinds of Judges expose, for all the candid world to see, as is the case right here in WILSON!

SO!

Here is JUDICIAL ACTIVISM in a nutshell, from Judge Hughes:

"Don't you dare come in to my Courtroom and lie to me!"

Now, how about that, folks?

I think this Judge is a real example of what an American really can and should be in this Republic of ours.

Here, in this case, the CIA, playing footsie with God knows who in Libya, allegedly arranged for the shipment, and then did allegedly cause to be shipped to Libya, tons of plastic explosives, AND THEN .....

According to the "ANALYSIS" provided to us by Judge Hughes, the CIA then tried to burn the person who did the deal in an apparent failed attempt to cover over the deal.

And it is that ANALYSIS by the Judge that is considered to be the ACTIVISM!

From the pen of Federal District Judge Lynn N. Hughes in United States of America v. Edwin Paul Wilson, Federal Criminal Case H-82-139, on October 27, 2003:

I. Introduction

Twenty years ago, the government tried a former Central Intelligence officer for exporting explosives to Libya.

His defense was simple.

He said he was still working for the Company.

The government refused to disclose records of his continued association with the agency.

When he presented witnesses to his contacts after the end of his formal employment, the government convinced the judge to admit an affidavit from a principal CIA official to the effect that there were, with one minor exception, none -zero.

THERE WERE, IN FACT, OVER 80 CONTACTS, including actions parallel to those in the charges.

The government discussed among dozens of its officials and lawyers whether to correct the testimony.

NO CORRECTION WAS MADE - not after trial, not before sentencing, not on appeal, and not in this review.

BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT KNOWINGLY USED FALSE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM AND SUPPRESSED FAVORABLE EVIDENCE, HIS CONVICTION WILL BE VACATED.

This opinion refers only to the part of the record that the government has reluctantly agreed may be made public.

It does not attempt to recount even that limited range of data in its entirety; THE GOVERNMENT DECEIT MENTIONED HERE IS ILLUSTRATIVE, NOT EXHAUSTIVE.

2. Background.

From 1955 through early 1971, Edwin P. Wilson was employed full-time - mostly as an undercover agent - by the United States government through the Central Intelligence Agency.

His assignments sometimes required him to establish and use "front" companies to gain access to information and to support CIA operations here and abroad commercially.

Immediately after leaving the CIA - and with the agency's knowledge and approval - Wilson began working for Naval intelligence on a secret unit, Task Force 157.

He again used companies, including one called Consultants International, to mask his intelligence gathering abroad.

He worked for the Navy through April 1976.

Throughout this period and beyond, Wilson had professional and personal relationships with CIA employees.

The CIA even took over one of his projects.

In January 1978, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia began investigating Wilson's activities in Libya.

A court in the Eastern District of Virginia then convicted him of exporting firearms to Libya without permission and sentenced him to ten years.

In 1983, he was convicted in the Southern District of texas for similar crimes.

This case is the 1983 conviction.

3. Investigation.

In September 1976, a former CIA employee told the FBI that a U.S. corporation - possibly controlled by Wilson and another ex-CIA agent - had contracted to sell Libya "one complete educational and vocational training labratory."

The informant believed Libya planned to use the labratory to train terrorists.

The corporation used another former CIA agent as its supplier.

With the help of a current CIA employee, ten timers that could be used with explosives were purchased and shipped to Libya.

In April 1977, the Washington Post published an article about "ex-CIA officer" Wilson's attempts to smuggle 500,000 explosive timers to Libya the previous summer.

CIA representatives were called before the House of representative's Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to explain.

President Ford and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were also briefed.

Two days after the article about Libya appeared, John Waller, the CIA's inspector general, instructed ten officials to "ascertain if the Agency has any official relationships or contacts with Mr. Wilson within their respective areas of responsibility" and to "determine if [he] has any unofficial relationships or contacts with .... employees which could be construed as providing Mr. Wilson with official Agency support or assistance."

(That investigation was terminated)

In 1981, Wilson was a fugitive in Libya.

In October (1981) another scandal broke when the U.S. news media linked Wilson and Clines, now retired from the CIA, to the surreptitious award of a lucrative contract to ship U.S. arms to Egypt.

Even while investigating - and officially distancing itself from - Wilson, the government was still gathering intelligence from him.

While Wilson was a fugitive in 1981, the FBI, ATF and assistant United States Attorneys from the District of Columbia interviewed him in Rome, Italy, in July 1981.

As a show of good faith before the interviews, Wilson produced documents for the CIA about Libya's nuclear program, including technical plans for manufacturing an atomic device.

Over three days in Rome, Wilson provided information about Iran, Russia, Taiwan and Libya.

He described Libya's military equipment, assassination teams, intelligence fronts, and identified (a) American, British and italian companies supplying Iran with military parts or servicing Qaddifi's personal aircraft and (b) Americans assisting or taking bribes from the Libyans.

4. Texas Trial.

In June 1982, the government lured Wilson out of Libya and brought him to the United States.

On July 19th, Wilson was indicted in the Southern District of Texas for:

* Conspiring to ship 20 tons of C-4 plastic explosives to Libya.
* Presenting a falsified shipper's export declaration.
* Exporting explosives without a license, and
* Transporting explosives by cargo aircraft in october 1977.

After a two-week trial, a jury convicted Wilson on all four counts on February 5, 1983.

He was sentenced on february 18, 1983, to seventeen years and fined $145,000.

A. Defense.

Wilson defended himself against the charges by saying that he had acted - at least implicitly - under the direction and authority of the CIA.

B. Response.

To rebut Wilson's evidence, on February 4, 1983, the government introduced an affidavit from Charles A Briggs.

Briggs served as the CIA's inspector general until mid-1982 when he became its executive director - the third highest ranking official of the CIA.

In the affidavit, he swore that - with one exception - the CIA did not ask Wilson to work for it after he officialy stopped working there.

Briggs signed the affidavit under penalty of perjury, and Stanley Sporkin - the general counsel of the CIA - certified it with his signature and the agency's seal.

The prosecutors introduced the affidavit at trial despite the expressed reservations of some of the government's lawyers, including the CIA's general counsel.

After deliberating for one day, the jury asked the judge to re-read the Briggs affidavit to them.

An hour after the re-reading, the jury found Wilson guilty.

5. Post-trial.

Three days after trial but before sentencing, the government admitted INTERNALLY that the affidavit was false.

Two days later, the CIA forwarded the memorandum to the United States Attorney's Office.

That day, an attorney at the Department of Justice sent the deputy assistant attorney general of the criminal division a memorandum entitled "Duty to Disclose Possibly false testimony and summarizing case law.

The government debated what to do about the affidavit's "inaccuracies".

Later that month, it drafted a letter to Wilson's attorneys, mentioning a few of Wilson's post-1971 contacts with the CIA but defending the affidavit.

Deciding that the letter would open "the entire universe of questioned contacts [between Wilson and the CIA]", the government never sent it.

It stood by the affidavit.

Doubts remained.

Mark M. Richard, the deputy assistant attorney general of the criminal division, urged assistant attorney general, head of the criminal division, Daniel Lowell Jensen, "I think we must make a disclosure - either to the judge or the defense attorney (a third option is to disclose to both)."

After ten months of researching the law, reviewing records, and holding inter-agency meeting, the government never told the trial court or Wilson's counsel that it had knowlingly used false evidence.

7. Years later.

Many years after his conviction, Wilson discovered internal government documents that prove the Briggs affidavit was false and that the prosecutors knew about it before they used it at trial.

Confronted with the documents, the government now admits - twenty years after using the the affidavit to convict Wilson - that "With the benefit of retrospection and in light of all the information now known to the Department, it appears that the statement was inaccurate."

It now says that "following Wilson's termination as a CIA employee, he was asked to perform or did perform what can be described as services on its behalf."

THE JUDGE'S ANALYSIS OF ALL OF THIS:

Honesty comes hard to the government.

It describes its non-disclosure as "information allegedly concealed by the Briggs affidavit."

This is a semantic game - the information was not allegedly concealed; it was actively and actually concealed.

The government also justifies its choice to remain silent by saying that, by the time it finished investigating its perjury, the case had been appealed and was outside of the district cout's jurisdiction.

The investigation is a dodge; there was no need to investigate: it knew the affidavit was false BEFORE it offered it.

8 Burden.

The government shifts the burden to Wilson to explain why he did not earlier raise the falsity issue.

Wilson bears no burden, for his witnesses at the trial saying the opposite PROVOKED the affidavit.

The burden now, instead, is that the government must justify (a) its use of the affidavit and (b) its failure to disclose the truth when other people knew it had been false.

It alone lied.

It alone possessed - and witheld - the information that documented the falsehoods.

9B. Intent.

The government says that its use of the false affidavit was an innocent error.

It says the law does not require a retrial when a man is convicted on manufactured evidence as long as the use was not intentional.

Under the Constitution, an argument may be reasonably made that the government should be responsible for the integrity of the evidence that it presents.

In this case, however, the falsity comes from high public officials with sole access to voluminous records - not some high-school dropout street-level drug dealer with a memory of one sale.

Among the people who knew the government - through the CIA and Department of Justice - was both failing to disclose records of Wilson's work and offering a false affidavit was the CIA's general counsel.

Yet the Department of Justice refused his request to correct or not use the false affidavit.

This person was no obscure paper-shuffler; he had been director of enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission and, after his CIA tenure, became a federal judge.

Similar careers were had by people at the Department of Justice.

The government must be responsible for its internal fabrication of evidence.

The test is not the ingenuousness of the prosecutor but the integrity of the government itself.

The government would like to restrict the scope of responsible knowledge to the individual prosecutor in the courtroom, but the prosecution is brought in the name of the United States of America.

The evidence, now, shows that the hierarchies of both the Justice Department and CIA were as knowledgable as was the individual talking to the judge and jury.

The government's attempt to split the the government into the personal belief of the least informed attorney will not work.

The court has identified about two dozen government lawyers who actively participated in the original non-disclosure to the defense, the false rebuttal testimony, and the refusal to correct it.

Governmental regularity - due process - requires personal and institutional integrity.

end quotes

And there is where I will end this discussion for the moment.

SO?

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!

Any questions, after all of this, as to what the term really means?

NO?

I didn't think so!

And you are right!

TO US, the American citizens without a "stake" in the continuing corruption of OUR government, JUDICIAL ACTIVISM is really acting in a responsible manner!

SO?

Why does George W. Bush hate that so?

Any guesses?

Livyjr

I'm not sure what your arguing but i just gotta say...

ROCK ON Livyjr!


Could only wish there were more like you excerising your constitutional duties...

- perry

And sometimes, as was the case with Wilson above here, we are lucky in this day and age of rapid computer access to information to get right to the "horse's mouth", as it were, with respect to what a judge is really saying, as in Wilson; or in the case of this following LINK to the Albany County Bar Association URL, what attorneys themselves are really saying to each other, and to judges as well, in this particular case, what "ethics" among lawyers really does mean in the Northern District of New York, and I am specifically referring to the "President's Message" right at the top of page 1, when you open the link:

http://www.albanycountybar.com/MarNL-03.pdf

Thanks very much for the kind words, and especially the encouragement, perry, that is very much needed, for ours is indeed a tough row to hoe, right now, bereft as we are of CLOUT, here in this America of George W. Bush and HIS, and up against these $13,000 per hour GOLD JOHNSON lawyer boys as we are, here!

And they are DUTIES to the Constitution, perry, and thank you for pointing that out, in here!

DUTIES!

That means "must do", doesn't it?

Used to anyway, which is what this thread is really all about, to explore that assertion about DUTY to see if it is still so, in this present day and age of George W. Bush's BIG PUSH to STAMP JUDICIAL INTEGRITY AND RESPONSIBILITY right into the ground, and to replace it instead with a servile, sycophantic toady-ism that will do exactly as George W. Bush and TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY Delay tell it to do, which serves to strip us here in America of true JUSTICE, and to instead give us this MOCKERY which follows:

NO REPUBLICAN IN AMERICA IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW!

ANYONE WHO THINKS A REPUBLICAN IN AMERICA IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW IS THEMSELVES A DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT!

THE STATE HAS A CONTINUING DUTY TO REPUBLICANS TO PUT THESE PEOPLE AWAY IN SECURE MENTAL FACILITIES RUN BY CORPORATIONS LOYAL TO THE STATE, FOR THE GOOD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN AMERICA!

That's the opposite of the type of true JUDICIAL ACTIVISM that the HEART AND SOUL of OUR America want and deserve, and that, perry, is what this thread is all about - in that struggle for JUSTICE, here in OUR America, which side is going to win - George W. Bush, or the PEOPLE of OUR America!

SO!

Stay tuned!

And once again, thank you all for your continued patience with what is a difficult subject, and for your continued interest, as well!

And for those of you who may not be able to access Adobe to read this "Message From The President" of the Albany County (New York) Bar Association for March 2003, on the subject of whether or not lawyers in the Northern District of New York have "ethics", as we commoners might consider that word, here is the relevant part of that address in its entirety, for your convenience:

THE ETHICIST

"I have knowingly defended a number of guilty men."

"But the guilty never escape unscathed!"

"My fees are sufficient punishment for anyone!"

- F. Lee Bailey

Does anyone really think lawyering involves ethical behavior?

Some people do!

There are courses in legal ethics required for admission to the bar.

A separate test in legal ethics is supposed to measure one's moral fitness for the practice of law.

We are required to have a few hours of ethical training as part of mandatory Continuing Legal Education.

WHOOP DE DOO!

Did you ever sit through one of these lectures?

For the most part, they are lessons on how not to get sued, i.e., "Don't steal your client's money"; "Don't take a case if you don't know what you're doing"; and my personal favorite, "Don't have sex with your client."

Does any of this have to do with ethics, i.e., the betterment of society, moral duty or the distinction between good and bad?

I don't think so!

I recently spoke to a class at Hartwick College on legal ethics.

They were struggling with a truly moral issue, i.e., the termination of life and the role of the health care professional.

As I spoke, I realized that the practice of law is essentially amoral.

Our advice to clients is not designed to guide anyone in ethical behavior.

We do not exist to tell anyone what is right or wrong.

We are all but prohibited from doing so!

Our duty is to advidse of the legal consequences of actions, and to promote the interests of our client within the boundaries of the legal system.

For this reason, we do not necessarily advise the guilty to accept their punishment, nor do we chastise the adulterer, the negligent driver and the trespasser.

We advise.

In matrimonial law, after giving the standards expected of spouses in custody, support or distribution, I am often told by the astonished client, "But it's not fair!"

However, as my fellow Schenectady legal pundit Vince Capasso is fond of saying, "If you want fair, go to Cobleskill."

"They have a fair, there."

"Otherwise, here's the law."

So, we don't deal in fairness, we deal in legal results, without regard to ethics.

You think clients come to us for our opinions on good and evil?

Think again, Jack.

We are not the clergy.

After all, it is just "Ethical Considerations" in the Code of Professional Responsibility, as in "OK, I've considered it, now here's what we do ....."

It is this fine line between the practice of law and the absence of moral judgment that confounds the public in so many ways.

After all, we stand in defense of the most heinous members of our society, and I'm not just talking about defense negligence lawyers here, of course.

- President, Albany County Bar Association, March 2003

"THINK AGAIN, JACK, WE, are not the clergy!"

Powerful words, eh!

And this is straight from the HORSE'S MOUTH, himself, the PRESIDENT of the COUNTY OF ALBANY, STATE OF NEW YORK BAR ASSOCIATION, in March of 2003, about two months BEFORE the ORIGINAL COMPLAINT was filed in this above matter in Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York!

"So, we don't deal in fairness, we deal in legal results, without regard to ethics."

Without regard to ethics!

SO!

How about that, will you?

AND ....

To be quite frank, THAT is what OUR complaints in Rensselaer County are all about, no ethics, and corruption, as a result, to OUR detriment, in OUR own homes and communities.

What is interesting to note and observe, if one has Adobe and so can open the file, is that directly following this message above from the President of the Albany County Bar Association to its members, the highest judges in the State of New York are then pictured in prominent display in that same "e-publication", or "e-zine", as endorsing this STATEMENT OF POSITION above by the President of the Albany County Bar Association that:

"So, we don't deal in fairness, we deal in legal results, without regard to ethics."

That, folks, is the highest judiciary in the State of New York, speaking to us, the common folks over here in Rensselaer County, in a loud and clear voice, as to "ITS" opinion about OUR citizen's view of what a court of law in the Town of Poestenkill, the County of Rensselaer, the State of New York, and the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York should be all about, which to us, IS THE LAW, and the Constitution, and that is that!

In OUR VIEW, which is exemplified in the October 2003 decision of Federal Judge Lynn N. Hughes in Matter of Wilson, and more to the point in the 2002 decision of Judge Hurd in Ruhlmann, judges, ALL judges, are supposed to stand up to that amoral standard exemplified by the Albany County Bar Association PRESIDENT, and it is extremely dangerous to OUR liberty when judges do not cleave to the very high standards of ATTORNEY conduct set by Judge Hughes in Wilson.

And there, America, and the world as well, is the "rub", here, WHERE, a small group of powerless people in a small town in the vastness of OUR America, WHO ARE FOR THE LAW, as that law has been stated in 2002, by JUDGE HURD in the FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, have been CRUSHED by the self-avowed amoralists in Albany County, in the State of New York, who control what they call the "LEGAL SYSTEM", without any regard for ethics, at all, while we needed a real CITIZEN'S COURT OF LAW such as that in the Southern District of Texas, in the courtroom of Judge Hughes, where attorneys are held to the standard that we would have employed in the Northern District of New York, as well!

WE ARE THOSE, WHO IN MUTE WITNESS, STAND AND OBSERVE;

AND NOW, WE SPEAK, FOR JUSTICE, HERE IN OUR AMERICA!

Hence, this thread!

To tell OUR story, before we are gone!