BUSH APPOINTEE in Northern District of New York, Deals Right to Dissent a Death Blow! Options

[Livyjr]

"Bush's Judges Already Making Their Mark"

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - No need to wait until President Bush appoints a Supreme Court justice to see how he will make his mark on the federal judiciary.

"When the president talks about strict construction, everyone knows what he's talking about."

Overall, in his four-plus years in office, Bush has pushed a Republican-leaning federal judiciary farther to the right with more than 200 appointments to appellate and district courts.

By the end of his second term, Bush could eclipse Presidents Clinton and Reagan in the number of judges selected — and leave an ideological imprint on the courts for generations to come.

Since 1968, when Nixon was elected, Republican presidents have appointed 1,040 judges; Democrats have named 625.

The cumulative effect, said political scientist Donald Songer of the University of South Carolina, is that "the last three Republican presidents' nominees control virtually the whole judiciary."

People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, titled its 2004 study of Bush's judicial appointees "Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears."

It concluded that Bush appointees already have moved to limit significantly congressional authority and protection of individual rights.

"For many, many of the nominees in the lower courts, the Bush administration has been decidedly pushing toward judges with a pretty firm right-wing ideology," said Elliot Mincberg, the group's legal director.

Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, said that when it comes to the courts, Bush "gets it" in a way that even his father and Reagan did not.

His nominees "understand the problems with the way the Constitution has been interpreted and will go about fixing that in their own decisions," she said.

U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

Rights Guaranteed, Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

And so, it comes down to the United States Constitution!

And Ruhlmann, where Clinton-appointee, and alleged "judicial activist" Judge David N. Hurd stated as follows in 2002 with respect to the "law" of the land in this matter:

"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 Judge Gary L. Sharpe has reversed that "law", saying in his March 31, 2005 decision that a doctor who has had no contact whatsoever with a person DOES NOW HAVE THE AUTHORITY to have whomever they wish locked up, there is where the Constitutional issue enters in to this appeal, and to us as citizens up here who are adversely affected by this ruling of Judge Sharpe's, that is where the effort should be, especially in light of the long history in this matter of "using" the law as weapon to inflict blunt-force trauma on a person because they are attempting to use their First Amendment Right to petition for redress of grievance!

Think on this for a moment, if you can!

With this March 31, 2005 ruling of Judge Sharpe as "law", where a doctor who has never seen you, and does not know you, and has never heard of you, nor you him, can still order that you be incarcerated in a secure mental institution with no due process of law afforded you whatsoever, what kind of world is that, and yet, for us up here, that is what we now have, since 8/22/01, where a doctor at Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York, who had never seen PLAINTIFF or ever had any contact with him, still ordered him to be incarcerated in a secure mental institution as a dangerous mental patient!

What kind of a person can do such a thing to another human being, for money, allegedly, and what kind of "legal system" protects such a man?

That's the nuts and bolts of what we are talking about in here, right there: what kind of legal system protects such a man?

A MAN OR WOMAN WHO CANNOT IN GOOD FAITH AND CONSCIENCE UPHOLD THE AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND ITS DUAL REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW, FOR ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS REGARDLESS OF CLASS, SHOULD NOT BE A FEDERAL COURT JUDGE IN OUR AMERICA!

NO COMPROMISE, MR. REID!

http://www.congress.org to let him know!

THEORECTICALLY ......

OR HYPOTHETICALLY ......

According to some words, anyway .....

That can be found .....

On a piece of paper .....

Called the CONSTITUTION .....

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .....

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws .....

AND WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN?

And perhaps more to the point of this discussion in here .....

Which comes to America ....

And the candid world ....

From out of Rensselaer County .....

In the State of New York .....

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS .....

TO THE CITIZENS .....

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .....

WHO ARE NOT ALSO CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

OF THE MARCH 31, 2005 FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DECISION .....

UNDER DISCUSSION IN HERE ....

A DECISION THAT WAS "RUBBER-STAMPED" .....

BY THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN NEW YORK CITY .....

IN DECEMBER OF 2005 .....

That is where this thread now turns its attention to .....

And so .....

TO BE CONTINUED .....

[Livyjr]

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws .....

AND WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN?

Privileges or Immunities Clause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Privileges or Immunities Clause is a provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It is unique among constitutional provisions in that it was all but read out of the Constitution in a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court (see Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873) and has remained almost dormant since.

It was perhaps originally intended to incorporate the "first eight amendments" of the U.S. Bill of Rights against state laws, much of which has instead been achieved by means of "substantive due process."

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ......

Legal scholars agree on little beyond the conclusion that the clause does not mean what the Supreme Court said it meant in 1873.

Some theories were noted in dissent to Saenz v. Roe:

Harrison, Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, 101 Yale L. J. 1385, 1418 (1992) (Clause is an antidiscrimination provision)

D. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court 341-351 (1985) (same)

2 W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States 1089-1095 (1953) (Clause incorporates first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights)

M. Curtis, No State Shall Abridge 100 (1986) (Clause protects the rights included in the Bill of Rights as well as other fundamental rights)

B. Siegan, Supreme Court's Constitution 46-71 (1987) (Clause guarantees Lockean conception of natural rights)

Ackerman, Constitutional Politics/Constitutional Law, 99 Yale L. J. 453, 521-536 (1989) (same)

J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust 28 (1980) (Clause "was a delegation to future constitutional decision-makers to protect certain rights that the document neither lists ... or in any specific way gives directions for finding")

R. Berger, Government by Judiciary 30 (2d ed. 1997) (Clause forbids race discrimination with respect to rights listed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866)

R. Bork, The Tempting of America 166 (1990) (Clause is inscrutable and should be treated as if it had been obliterated by an ink blot)

It is perhaps the dispute over the clause's meaning that has rendered it, for now, a trivial part of constitutional law.

External links

Reviving the Privileges or Immunities Clause to Redress the Balance Among States, Individuals, and the Federal Government (Cato Policy Analysis)

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege...munities_Clause

[Livyjr]

October 13, 1988

Dr. Ian T. Loudon, M.D.
Regional Health Director
State of New York Department of Health
Albany Regional Office
Building 7A
State Office Building Campus
Albany, New York 12226

Dear Dr. Loudon,

As of October 13, 1988, our Director of Environmental Health/Associate Public Health Engineer has been placed on a paid leave of absence status for thirty working days.

A copy of my memorandum to the County Executive on this matter, which cites contributing factors, is attached hereto.

Although there are other options available for dealing with this issue, I HAVE HOPES THAT THE LEAST PAINFUL AND MOST HUMANITARIAN APPROACH HAS BEEN INITIALLY TAKEN.

WHETHER PLAINTIFF SEES IT THAT WAY OR NOT, I CAN'T SAY.

Kenneth Van Praag
Rensselaer County Public Health Director

MARCH 13, 1989

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY PERSONNEL DIRECTOR FELIX PUGLIESE, AKA "IRON FELIX", aka "THE IRON MAN"

Q: Do you recall meeting with the PLAINTIFF in the hall and having him discuss his suspension with you as you walked out to your car?

PUGLIESE: YES.

I recall ....

YES.

It occurred in the parking lot .....

And as I was proceeding to my car, PLAINTIFF asked me if he could speak to me for a few moments.

Q: PLAINTIFF told you that he had been suspended for 30 days?

PUGLIESE: I don't know that he told me he was suspended because I don't know if that's a fact.

I believe he had used the word "suspended", but the fact of the matter was at that point, he was on a leave of absence .....

So ...

If it was in that time frame ....

It wasn't during a suspension ...

It was during a leave of absence .....

Q: What did you tell him?

PUGLIESE: I can't be exact in all my words ....

But in general conversation ...

I indicated to him that in order for him to be terminated, which he had a concern about, he would have to be brought up on charges .....

That the charges would have to be given him in writing ...

That he would have an opportunity to respond to those charges ....

That in the interim of the hearing, he could be suspended without pay for up to thirty days .....

If a hearing was not conducted within the thirty-day limit that the Civil Service Law mandated that he be put back on the payroll ....

And that he may or may not be allowed to come to work after thirty days ....

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER YOU GAVE PLAINTIFF ANY ADVICE ABOUT WHETHER HE SHOULD TRY TO KEEP HIS JOB?

PUGLIESE: I told him that based upon what he had been telling me ....

I felt he was certainly putting himself into a GREAT PERSONAL NEGATIVE SITUATION .....

In that ....

IF HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID BEING CHARGED ....

HE SHOULD WORK IT OUT BETWEEN HIM AND HIS SUPERVISOR .....

And that, you know ....

HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER WAS GOING TO BE EXAMINED .....

MAY 25, 1989

PRESS STATEMENT OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOHN L. BUONO CONCERNING HIS DECREE THAT DAY THAT THE PLAINTIFF HEREIN, A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS WELL AS A NEW YORK STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, COULD NO LONGER PRACTICE IN THE RENSSELAER COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT IN HIS CAPACITY AS HEALTH DISTRICT ASSOCIATE PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEER

"I cannot in good conscience condone the conduct of an employee who consistently stated that he worked for the State of New York, rather than Rensselaer County ....."

U.S. SUPREME COURT

Slaughterhouse Cases

83 U.S. 36

BRADLEY, J., Dissenting Opinion

Mr. Justice BRADLEY, also dissenting.

I concur in the opinion which has just been read by Mr. Justice Field, but desire to add a few observations for the purpose of more fully illustrating my views on the important question decided in these cases, and the special grounds on which they rest.

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, section 1, declares that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.

The legislature of Louisiana, under pretence of making a police regulation for the promotion of the public health, passed an act conferring upon a corporation, created by the act, the exclusive right, for twenty-five years, to have and maintain slaughterhouses, landings for cattle, and yards for confining cattle intended for slaughter, within the parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard, a territory containing nearly twelve hundred square miles, including the city of New Orleans; and prohibiting all other persons from building, keeping, or having slaughterhouses, landings for cattle, and yards for confining cattle intended for slaughter within the said limits; and requiring that all cattle and other animals to be slaughtered for food in that district should be brought to the slaughterhouses and works of the favored company to be slaughtered, and a payment of a fee to the company for such act.

It is contended that this prohibition abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, especially of the plaintiffs in error, who were particularly affected thereby, and whether it does so or not is the simple question in this case.

And the solution of this question depends upon the solution of two other questions, to-wit:

First. Is it one of the rights and privileges of a citizen of the United States to pursue such civil employment as he may choose to adopt, subject to such reasonable regulations as may be prescribed by law?

Secondly. Is a monopoly, or exclusive right, given to one person to the exclusion of all others, to keep slaughterhouses, in a district of nearly twelve hundred square miles, for the supply of meat for a large city, a reasonable regulation of that employment which the legislature has a right to impose?

The first of these questions is one of vast importance, and lies at the very foundations of our government.

The question is now settled by the fourteenth amendment itself, that citizenship of the United States is the primary citizenship in this country, and that State citizenship is secondary and derivative, depending upon citizenship of the United States and the citizen's place of residence.

The States have not now, if they ever had, any power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or persons.

A citizen of the United States has a perfect constitutional right to go to and reside in any State he chooses, and to claim citizenship therein, and an equality of rights with every other citizen, and the whole power of the nation is pledged to sustain him in that right.

He is not bound to cringe to any superior, or to pray for any act of grace, as a means of enjoying all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.

And when the spirit of lawlessness, mob violence, and sectional hate can be so completely repressed as to give full practical effect to this right, we shall be a happier nation, and a more prosperous one, than we now are.

Citizenship of the United States ought to be, and, according to the Constitution, is, a sure and undoubted title to equal rights in any and every States in this Union, subject to such regulations as the legislature may rightfully prescribe.

If a man be denied full equality before the law, he is denied one of the essential rights of citizenship as a citizen of the United States.

TO BE CONTINUED ....

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Slaughterhouse/Bradley.asp

[Livyjr]

U.S. SUPREME COURT

Slaughterhouse Cases

83 U.S. 36

BRADLEY, J., Dissenting Opinion

Mr. Justice BRADLEY, also dissenting.

The States have not now, if they ever had, any power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or persons.

A citizen of the United States has a perfect constitutional right to go to and reside in any State he chooses, and to claim citizenship therein, and an equality of rights with every other citizen, and the whole power of the nation is pledged to sustain him in that right.

He is not bound to cringe to any superior, or to pray for any act of grace, as a means of enjoying all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.

And when the spirit of lawlessness, mob violence, and sectional hate can be so completely repressed as to give full practical effect to this right, we shall be a happier nation, and a more prosperous one, than we now are.

Citizenship of the United States ought to be, and, according to the Constitution, is, a sure and undoubted title to equal rights in any and every States in this Union, subject to such regulations as the legislature may rightfully prescribe.

If a man be denied full equality before the law, he is denied one of the essential rights of citizenship as a citizen of the United States.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Slaughterhouse/Bradley.asp

Thomas, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 98—97

RITA L. SAENZ, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., PETITIONERS v. BRENDA ROE and ANNA DOE etc.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[May 17, 1999]

Justice Thomas, with whom the Chief Justice joins, dissenting.

I join The Chief Justice’s dissent.

I write separately to address the majority’s conclusion that California has violated “the right of the newly arrived citizen to the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by other citizens of the same State.” Ante, at 12.

In my view, the majority attributes a meaning to the Privileges or Immunities Clause that likely was unintended when the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted and ratified.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” U.S. Const., Amdt. 14, §1.

Unlike the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, which have assumed near-talismanic status in modern constitutional law, the Court all but read the Privileges or Immunities Clause out of the Constitution in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 (1873).

There, the Court held that the State of Louisiana had not abridged the Privileges or Immunities Clause by granting a partial monopoly of the slaughtering business to one company. Id., at 59—63, 66.

The Court reasoned that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was not intended “as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State.” Id., at 74.

Rather the “privileges or immunities of citizens” guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment were limited to those “belonging to a citizen of the United States as such.” Id., at 75.

The Court declined to specify the privileges or immunities that fell into this latter category, but it made clear that few did.

See id., at 76 (stating that “nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted,” including “those rights which are fundamental,” are not protected by the Clause).

Unlike the majority, I would look to history to ascertain the original meaning of the Clause. 1

At least in American law, the phrase (or its close approximation) appears to stem from the 1606 Charter of Virginia, which provided that “all and every the Persons being our Subjects, which shall dwell and inhabit within every or any of the said several Colonies … shall HAVE and enjoy all Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities … as if they had been abiding and born, within this our Realme of England.” 7

Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters and Other Organic Laws 3788 (F. Thorpe ed. 1909).

Other colonial charters contained similar guarantees. 2

Years later, as tensions between England and the American Colonies increased, the colonists adopted resolutions reasserting their entitlement to the privileges or immunities of English citizenship. 3

The colonists’ repeated assertions that they maintained the rights, privileges and immunities of persons “born within the realm of England” and “natural born” persons suggests that, at the time of the founding, the terms “privileges” and “immunities” (and their counterparts) were understood to refer to those fundamental rights and liberties specifically enjoyed by English citizens, and more broadly, by all persons.

Presumably members of the Second Continental Congress so understood these terms when they employed them in the Articles of Confederation, which guaranteed that “the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.” Art. IV.

The Constitution, which superceded the Articles of Confederation, similarly guarantees that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Art. IV, §2, cl. 1.

Justice Bushrod Washington’s landmark opinion in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (No. 3, 230) (CCED Pa. 1825), reflects this historical understanding.

In Corfield, a citizen of Pennsylvania challenged a New Jersey law that prohibited any person who was not an “actual inhabitant and resident” of New Jersey from harvesting oysters from New Jersey waters. Id., at 550.

Justice Washington, sitting as Circuit Justice, rejected the argument that the New Jersey law violated Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause.

He reasoned, “we cannot accede to the proposition … that, under this provision of the constitution, the citizens of the several states are permitted to participate in all the rights which belong exclusively to the citizens of any other particular state, merely upon the ground that they are enjoyed by those citizens.” Id., at 552.

Instead, Washington concluded:

We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign.

What these fundamental principles are, it would perhaps be more tedious than difficult to enumerate.

They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads:

Protection by the government;

The enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety;

Subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole.

The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise;

To claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus;

To institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state;

And an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state;

The elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state in which it is to be exercised.

These, and many others which might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities.” Id. at 551—552.

Washington rejected the proposition that the Privileges and Immunities Clause guaranteed equal access to all public benefits (such as the right to harvest oysters in public waters) that a State chooses to make available.

Instead, he endorsed the colonial-era conception of the terms “privileges” and “immunities,” concluding that Article IV encompassed only fundamental rights that belong to all citizens of the United States. 4 Id., at 552.

Justice Washington’s opinion in [u]Corfield indisputably influenced the Members of Congress who enacted the Fourteenth Amendment[/u].

When Congress gathered to debate the Fourteenth Amendment, members frequently, if not as a matter of course, appealed to [u]Corfield, arguing that the Amendment was necessary to guarantee the fundamental rights that Justice Washington identified in his opinion.

See Harrison, Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, 101 Yale L. J. 1385, 1418 (1992) (referring to a Member’s “obligatory quotation from Corfield”).

For just one example, in a speech introducing the Amendment to the Senate, Senator Howard explained the Privileges or Immunities Clause by quoting at length from Corfield. 5

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2765 (1866).

Furthermore, it appears that no Member of Congress refuted the notion that Washington’s analysis in Corfield undergirded the meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. 6

That Members of the 39th Congress appear to have endorsed the wisdom of Justice Washington’s opinion does not, standing alone, provide dispositive insight into their understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.

Nevertheless, their repeated references to the Corfield decision, combined with what appears to be the historical understanding of the Clause’s operative terms, supports the inference that, at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, people understood that “privileges or immunities of citizens” were fundamental rights, rather than every public benefit established by positive law.

Accordingly, the majority’s conclusion – that a State violates the Privileges or Immunities Clause when it “discriminates” against citizens who have been domiciled in the State for less than a year in the distribution of welfare benefit appears contrary to the original understanding and is dubious at best.

As The Chief Justice points out, ante at 1, it comes as quite a surprise that the majority relies on the Privileges or Immunities Clause at all in this case.

That is because, as I have explained supra, at 1—2, The Slaughter-House Cases sapped the Clause of any meaning.

Although the majority appears to breathe new life into the Clause today, it fails to address its historical underpinnings or its place in our constitutional jurisprudence.

Because I believe that the demise of the Privileges or Immunities Clause has contributed in no small part to the current disarray of our Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, I would be open to reevaluating its meaning in an appropriate case.

Before invoking the Clause, however, we should endeavor to understand what the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment thought that it meant.

We should also consider whether the Clause should displace, rather than augment, portions of our equal protection and substantive due process jurisprudence.

The majority’s failure to consider these important questions raises the specter that the Privileges or Immunities Clause will become yet another convenient tool for inventing new rights, limited solely by the “predilections of those who happen at the time to be Members of this Court.”

Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 502 (1977).

I respectfully dissent.

Notes

1. Legal scholars agree on little beyond the conclusion that the Clause does not mean what the Court said it meant in 1873. See, e.g., Harrison, Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, 101 Yale L. J. 1385, 1418 (1992) (Clause is an antidiscrimination provision); D. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court 341—351 (1985) (same); 2 W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States 1089—1095 (1953) (Clause incorporates first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights); M. Curtis, No State Shall Abridge 100 (1986) (Clause protects the rights included in the Bill of Rights as well as other fundamental rights); B. Siegan, Supreme Court’s Constitution 46—71 (1987) (Clause guarantees Lockean conception of natural rights); Ackerman, Constitutional Politics/Constitutional Law, 99 Yale L. J. 453, 521—536 (1989) (same); J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust 28 (1980) (Clause “was a delegation to future constitutional decision-makers to protect certain rights that the document neither lists … or in any specific way gives directions for finding”); R. Berger, Government by Judiciary 30 (2d ed. 1997) (Clause forbids race discrimination with respect to rights listed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866); R. Bork, The Tempting of America 166 (1990) (Clause is inscrutable and should be treated as if it had been obliterated by an ink blot).

2. See 1620 Charter of New England, in 3 Thorpe, at 1839 (guaranteeing “[l]iberties, and franchizes, and Immunities of free Denizens and naturall Subjects”); 1622 Charter of Connecticut, reprinted in 1 id., at 553 (guaranteeing “[l]iberties and Immunities of free and natural Subjects”); 1629 Charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 3 id., at 1857 (guaranteeing the “liberties and Immunities of free and naturall subjects”); 1632 Charter of Maine, in 3 id., at 1635 (guaranteeing “[l]iberties[,] Francheses and Immunityes of or belonging to any of the naturall borne subjects”); 1632 Charter of Maryland, in 3 id., at 1682 (guaranteeing “Privileges, Franchises and Liberties”); 1663 Charter of Carolina, in 5 id., at 2747 (holding “liberties, franchises, and privileges” inviolate); 1663 Charter of the Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in 6 id., at 3220 (guaranteeing “libertyes and immunityes of ffree and naturall subjects”); 1732 Charter of Georgia, in 2 id., at 773 (guaranteeing “liberties, franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural born subjects”).

3. See, e.g., The Massachusetts Resolves, in Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis 56 (E. Morgan ed. 1959) (“Resolved, That there are certain essential Rights of the British Constitution of Government, which are founded in the Law of God and Nature, and are the common Rights of Mankind–Therefore, … Resolved that no Man can justly take the Property of another without his Consent . . . this inherent Right, together with all other essential Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of the People of Great Britain have been fully confirmed to them by Magna Charta”); The Virginia Resolves, id., at 47—48 (“[T]he Colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all Liberties, Privileges, and Immunities of Denizens and natural Subjects, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the Realm of England”); 1774 Statement of Violation of Rights, 1 Journals of the Continental Congress 68 (1904) (“[O]ur ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England … Resolved … [t]hat by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered or lost any of those rights”).

4. During the first half of the 19th century, a number of legal scholars and state courts endorsed Washington’s conclusion that the Clause protected only fundamental rights. See, e.g., Campbell v. Morris, 3 Harr. & M. 535, 554 (Md. 1797) (Chase, J.) (Clause protects property and personal rights); Douglass v. Stephens, 1 Del. Ch. 465, 470 (1821) (Clause protects the “absolute rights” that “all men by nature have”); 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 71—72 (1836) (Clause “confined to those [rights] which were, in their nature, fundamental”). See generally Antieau, Paul’s Perverted Privileges or the True Meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four, 9 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1, 18—21 (1967) (collecting sources).

5. He also observed that, while, Supreme Court had not “undertaken to define either the nature or extent of the privileges and immunities,” Washington’s opinion gave “some intimation of what probably will be the opinion of the judiciary.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2765 (1866).

6. During debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Members of Congress also repeatedly invoked Corfield to support the legislation. See generally, Siegan, Supreme Court’s Constitution, at 46—56. The Act’s sponsor, Senator Trumble, quoting from Corfield, explained that the legislation protected the “fundamental rights belonging to every man as a free man, and which under the Constitution as it now exists we have a right to protect every man in.” Cong. Globe, supra, at 476. The Civil Rights Act is widely regarded as the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., J. tenBroek, Equal Under Law 201 (rev. ed. 1965) (“The one point upon which historians of the Fourteenth Amendment agree, and, indeed, which the evidence places beyond cavil, is that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to place the constitutionality of the Freedmen’s Bureau and civil rights bills, particularly the latter, beyond doubt”).

http://www.supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-97.ZD1.html

[Livyjr]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)

DAVID E. ROOK, ESQUIRE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AFFIRMS AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am an attorney and counselor at law associated with the law offices of Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP, attorneys representing the Defendants Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342, John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415, Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS") herein, AND AS SUCH, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS HERETOFORE HAD HEREIN.

8. Despite affording GREAT LIBERALITY to PLAINTIFF as a pro se litigant, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT fails to set forth ANY SET OF FACTS that would entitle him to RELIEF FROM ANY NAMED DEFENDANT and more specifically from any of the SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS.

10. THE PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AND DOCUMENTS SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT HE WAS REFERRED TO THE STAFF OF SAMARITAN HOSPITAL AND UPON RECEIVING INFORMATION ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR AND HISTORY FROM RELIABLE SOURCES EXERCISED THEIR STATUTORY AUTHORITY UNDER NYSMHL §9.39 and §9.40 TO CERTIFY AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" TO SAMARITAN HOSPITAL'S SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.

12. ANY ACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN by the SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS were taken under the AUTHORITY of NYS Mental Hygiene Law and were taken FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND SOCIETY AT LARGE.

Furthermore, all of the actions taken by the Samaritan Defendants in connection with PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY ADMISSION are privileged by NYS Mental Hygiene Law.

ANY ATTEMPT TO CHARACTERIZE PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS SUPPORTING A CLAIM FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT MUST FAIL DUE TO THIS PRIVILEGE.

DATED: November 10, 2003
            Albany, New York

David E. Rook

U.S. SUPREME COURT

Slaughterhouse Cases

83 U.S. 36

BRADLEY, J., Dissenting Opinion

The States have not now, if they ever had, any power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or persons.

A citizen of the United States has a perfect constitutional right to go to and reside in any State he chooses, and to claim citizenship therein, and an equality of rights with every other citizen, and the whole power of the nation is pledged to sustain him in that right.

He is not bound to cringe to any superior, or to pray for any act of grace, as a means of enjoying all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.

And when the spirit of lawlessness, mob violence, and sectional hate can be so completely repressed as to give full practical effect to this right, we shall be a happier nation, and a more prosperous one, than we now are.

Citizenship of the United States ought to be, and, according to the Constitution, is, a sure and undoubted title to equal rights in any and every States in this Union, subject to such regulations as the legislature may rightfully prescribe.

If a man be denied full equality before the law, he is denied one of the essential rights of citizenship as a citizen of the United States.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Slaughterhouse/Bradley.asp

Thomas, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 98—97

RITA L. SAENZ,  DIRECTOR,  CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., PETITIONERS v. BRENDA ROE and ANNA DOE etc.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[May 17, 1999]

Justice Thomas, with whom the Chief Justice joins, dissenting.

Instead, Washington concluded:

We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign.

What these fundamental principles are, it would perhaps be more tedious than difficult to enumerate.

They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads:

Protection by the government;

The enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety;

Subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole.

To institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state;

These, and many others which might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities.” Id. at 551—552.

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 PLAINTIFF, 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.

Clearly .....

In this case under discussion in here ....

Where a federal District Court Judge ....

In the federal District Court of New York .....

Appointed by REPUBLICAN George W. Bush ....

Has thrown out .....

A federal civil rights lawsuit .....

Based on 14th Amendment procedural and substantive due process ...

AFTER TAKING ....

HIS JUDICIAL PEN ....

AND CHANGING THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE ....

SO THAT HE WOULD THEN HAVE ....

AN EXCUSE ....

NO MATTER HOW FLIMSY ....

TO TOSS THE CASE ...

Something very fundamental .....

With respect to CITIZENSHIP ....

Here in OUR America ....

HAS BEEN ALTERED .....

And that is what we are exploring .....

And discussing ....

In this thread right now .....

The IMPLICATIONS of this March 31, 2005 federal court decision .....

ON ALL OF US ....

Here in OUR America .....

WHERE THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ....

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

Has upheld ....

AN EXECUTIVE GRANT OF AUTHORITY .....

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

TO NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ......

A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

REGULATED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ....

WHICH EXECUTIVE GRANT OF AUTHORITY ....

ALLOWS NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ......

TO DETERMINE ....

WHO .....

HERE IN OUR AMERICA ....

SHOULD BE INCARCERATED .....

IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILITY .....

OPERATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE LICENSE ....

BY NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ....

IN THE CITY ....

OF TROY, NEW YORK ....

BASED ON ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL ...

OTHER THAN THE WORD .....

OF A MEMBER ...

OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY .....

THAT INCARCERATING THIS PERSON ....

AS AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT ....

WOULD BE ....

FOR THE BENEFIT .....

OF THE INCARCERATED PERSON ....

AND SOCIETY AT LARGE .....

[Livyjr]

Immunity (legal)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Immunity confers a status on a person or body that places him/her/it above the law and makes that person or body free from otherwise legal obligations such as, for example, liability for torts or damages or prosecution under criminal law for criminal acts.

There are various types of immunity, such as judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity, parliamentary immunity, immunity from prosecution, diplomatic immunity and sovereign immunity.

Sovereign immunity is based on the idea that a sovereign is superior to all in authority and power.

It prevents, in advance, a suit or prosecution against a sovereign, being a monarch, ruler, or government, without the sovereign's consent.

Judicial immunity, which finds its origin in sovereign immunity, is the absolute immunity of a judge or magistrate from any kind of civil liability for an act performed in the judge's official capacity.

Hence, while sitting on the bench the judge cannot be sued for defamation if he or she makes a statement about one of the parties before the court that might otherwise be considered slander.

Like judicial immunity, the prosecutor, who is acting under the direction of the sovereign or crown to prosecute cannot be held liable for acts done as an agent of the sovereign.

This is distinguished from false arrest.

Parliamentary immunity is granted to elected government officials during their official acts in parliament, congress or other public deliberative organ of government.

Such immunity is seen to be a means to the free discussion of ideas, although when it is abused there may be ways to surmount such immunity; this was invoked in the case of Jürgen Möllemann.

Immunity from prosecution occurs when a prosecutor grants immunity to a witness in exchange for testimony.

It is immunity because the prosecutor essentially agrees to never prosecute the crime that the witness might have committed in exchange for that testimony.

In international criminal law, countries which are signatories to treaties may sign with the reservation that they are specifically exempted from prosecution, thus granting themselves immunity.

For example, in 1948 the United States signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide with the proviso that no claim of genocide could be brought against it at the International Court of Justice without its consent.

It later invoked this immunity to deflect charges of genocide brought against it by Yugoslavia.

Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_%28legal%29

[Livyjr]

Clearly .....

In this case under discussion in here ....

Where a federal District Court Judge ....

In the federal District Court of New York .....

Appointed by REPUBLICAN George W. Bush ....

Has thrown out .....

A federal civil rights lawsuit .....

Based on 14th Amendment procedural and substantive due process ...

AFTER TAKING ....

HIS JUDICIAL PEN ....

AND CHANGING THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE ....

SO THAT HE WOULD THEN HAVE ....

AN EXCUSE ....

NO MATTER HOW FLIMSY ....

TO TOSS THE CASE ...

Something very fundamental .....

With respect to CITIZENSHIP ....

Here in OUR America ....

HAS BEEN ALTERED .....

And that is what we are exploring .....

And discussing ....

In this thread right now .....

The IMPLICATIONS of this March 31, 2005 federal court decision .....

ON ALL OF US ....

Here in OUR America .....

WHERE THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ....

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

Has upheld ....

AN EXECUTIVE GRANT OF AUTHORITY .....

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

TO NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ......

A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

REGULATED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ....

WHICH EXECUTIVE GRANT OF AUTHORITY ....

ALLOWS NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ......

TO DETERMINE ....

WHO .....

HERE IN OUR AMERICA ....

SHOULD BE INCARCERATED .....

IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILITY .....

OPERATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE LICENSE ....

BY NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ....

IN THE CITY ....

OF TROY, NEW YORK ....

BASED ON ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL ...

OTHER THAN THE WORD .....

OF A MEMBER ...

OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY .....

THAT INCARCERATING THIS PERSON ....

AS AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT ....

WOULD BE ....

FOR THE BENEFIT .....

OF THE INCARCERATED PERSON ....

AND SOCIETY AT LARGE .....

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)

DAVID E. ROOK, ESQUIRE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AFFIRMS AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am an attorney and counselor at law associated with the law offices of Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP, attorneys representing the Defendants Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342, John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415, Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS") herein, AND AS SUCH, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS HERETOFORE HAD HEREIN.

12. ANY ACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN by the SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS were taken under the AUTHORITY of NYS Mental Hygiene Law and were taken FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND SOCIETY AT LARGE.

Furthermore, all of the actions taken by the Samaritan Defendants in connection with PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY ADMISSION are privileged by NYS Mental Hygiene Law.

ANY ATTEMPT TO CHARACTERIZE PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS SUPPORTING A CLAIM FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT MUST FAIL DUE TO THIS PRIVILEGE.

THE EXISTENCE OF THE PRIVILEGE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, MAY BE DETERMINED BY PRESUMING PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS TO BE TRUE AND REFERENCING THE DOCUMENTS APPENDED TO HIS COMPLAINT.

DATED: November 10, 2003
            Albany, New York

David E. Rook

"Justices Strengthen Right to Confront Witnesses"

By DAVID STOUT, NY Times

Published: March 8, 2004

In reversing the conviction today, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, cited the familiar phrase in the Sixth Amendment that in all criminal prosecutions the defendant shall enjoy the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

"The right to confront one's accusers is a concept that dates back to Roman times," Justice Scalia wrote.

The TRASHMAN!

We're still chuckling about that one up here, and it is days ago that we heard the joke, that Timmy Holt, the "TRASHMAN" for the Rensselaer County Office Building in Troy, New York, or head of custodial services actually, which includes cleaning rest rooms in addition to simply taking out the trash, is the MYSTERIOUS "RELIABLE SOURCE" that we have been hearing about now, since August 2001, in fact, when we learned that the PLAINTIFF in this matter was what Bernadette Rotter Hallam at Northeast Health CORPORATE HQ. called a "special file", which is someone in Rensselaer County who can be removed at a moment's notice, and that notice comes to Carol Fiorino, a nurse at Samaritan Hospital, from Timmy Holt, whose job in the Rensselaer County Office Building is to make sure the trash is taken out everyday, which then converts him into a "health officer", in the eyes of David Rook, with the GOLD JOHNSON law firm, who is defending the "objective reasonableness" of this arrangement, where in Rensselaer County in the State of New York, determinations as to who is mentally ill and dangerous, and thus in need of immediate incarceration in Samaritan Hospital's secure mental facility, or political GULAG, are left to the head of custodial services for the Rensselaer County office Building!

Mr BIG, revealed, at last!

It is an inside joke, of course, up here in Rensselaer County, where Tommy O'Connor hails from:

"Hey, Timmy, Kathy Jimino gots some trash she wants you to get rid of!"

"Take care of it, will you!"

And so, it is done!

By the TRASHMAN!

And now Tommy O'Connor is bringing the Justices of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals into the joke, "see what the TRASHMAN took out here .....", and let me tell you, that has caught our attention, big time, and so .....

Privilege

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about permission granted by law or other rules.

A privilege—etymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individual—is an honour, or permissive activity granted by another person or a government.

A privilege is not a right and in some cases can be revoked.

For example, in some countries driving on publicly maintained roads is a privilege; in others it is a right.

If one violates certain rules, driving privileges can be revoked, and if one causes harm to another while exercising the right to travel just compensation may be sought and awarded.

Defining the difference between a 'privilege' and a 'right' is quite simple: a right is inherent, while a privilege is granted.

In authentic democracies a 'privilege' is granted to a few after birth, and a 'right' is an entitlement to all mankind from birth.

A privileged class, in less-than-perfect democracies, is often embodied in political power and wealth.

Compare elite.

One of the objectives of the French Revolution was the abolition of privilege.

This meant the removal of separate laws for different social classes (nobility, clergy and ordinary people), instead subjecting everyone to the same common law.

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege

[Livyjr]

Clearly .....

In this case under discussion in here ....

Where a federal District Court Judge ....

In the federal District Court of New York .....

Appointed by REPUBLICAN George W. Bush ....

Has thrown out .....

A federal civil rights lawsuit .....

Based on 14th Amendment procedural and substantive due process ...

AFTER TAKING ....

HIS JUDICIAL PEN ....

AND CHANGING THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE ....

SO THAT HE WOULD THEN HAVE ....

AN EXCUSE ....

NO MATTER HOW FLIMSY ....

TO TOSS THE CASE ...

Something very fundamental .....

With respect to CITIZENSHIP ....

Here in OUR America ....

HAS BEEN ALTERED .....

And that is what we are exploring .....

And discussing ....

In this thread right now .....

The IMPLICATIONS of this March 31, 2005 federal court decision .....

ON ALL OF US ....

Here in OUR America .....

WHERE THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ....

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

Has upheld ....

AN EXECUTIVE GRANT OF AUTHORITY .....

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

TO NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ......

A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

REGULATED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ....

WHICH EXECUTIVE GRANT OF AUTHORITY ....

ALLOWS NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ......

TO DETERMINE ....

WHO .....

HERE IN OUR AMERICA ....

SHOULD BE INCARCERATED .....

IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILITY .....

OPERATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE LICENSE ....

BY NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ....

IN THE CITY ....

OF TROY, NEW YORK ....

BASED ON ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL ...

OTHER THAN THE WORD .....

OF A MEMBER ...

OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY .....

THAT INCARCERATING THIS PERSON ....

AS AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT ....

WOULD BE ....

FOR THE BENEFIT .....

OF THE INCARCERATED PERSON ....

AND SOCIETY AT LARGE .....

And so .....

Immunity (legal)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Immunity confers a status on a person or body that places him/her/it above the law and makes that person or body free from otherwise legal obligations such as, for example, liability for torts or damages or prosecution under criminal law for criminal acts.

Privilege

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A privilege—etymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individual—is an honour, or permissive activity granted by another person or a government.

Defining the difference between a 'privilege' and a 'right' is quite simple: a right is inherent, while a privilege is granted.

In authentic democracies a 'privilege' is granted to a few after birth, and a 'right' is an entitlement to all mankind from birth.

A privileged class, in less-than-perfect democracies, is often embodied in political power and wealth.

Periodically .....

Someone will ask me ....

In a "sidebar" .....

Why I bother going on in here ....

When it clearly will do no good for the PLAINTIFF in here .....

WHO HAS IN FACT .....

BEEN "BRANDED" .....

By the State of New York .....

As an alleged dangerous mental patient .....

DESPITE THERE BEING NO EVIDENCE .....

WHATSOEVER ....

TO SUPPORT THAT CHARGE ....

WITH THAT BRANDING .....

Being loaded ...

Onto a computer system ...

That the State of New York maintains ....

For its "law enforcement" purposes .....

A sort of "TRASH TO BE TAKEN OUT" list .....

And all I can ever say ...

Is that the conversation ...

Is not yet over .....

And that is that .....

And as the DRED SCOTT decision .....

Or Roe v. Wade clearly demonstrate .....

Just because a judge has ruled ...

That really doesn't end something .....

To the contrary ...

IT STARTS SOMETHING NEW .....

And so ...

That is why I am still here .....

Looking at OUR laws .....

AND OUR HISTORY ....

As a nation ...

And as a people ....

In an attempt .....

To determine ....

WHAT THAT "SOMETHING NEW" ....

In this particular case might be ....

And so ....

For all of its potential ....

As an alleged "BEACON OF HOPE" .....

For beleaguered peoples .....

Around the world .....

The United States of America .....

Really has quite an ugly history .....

THAT HAS JUST GOTTEN UGLIER ....

With the March 31, 2005 Federal Court decision .....

In this matter .....

WHICH REQUIRES THE PLAINTIFF .....

AND US ......

THE CITIZENS .....

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .....

WHO RESIDE .....

IN RENSSELAER COUNTY .....

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

TO CRINGE .....

TO REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE KATHLEEN JIMINO .....

AND REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH "BIG JOE" BRUNO .....

AND REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI ....

WHO CONTROLS .....

THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH .....

WHICH STATE AGENCY .....

HAS GRANTED AUTHORITY .....

TO JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN .....

A CORPORATE MEDICAL DOCTOR .....

IN TROY, NEW YORK ....

TO HAVE ANYONE HE WISHES ....

INCARCERATED .....

IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILITY .....

OPERATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE LICENSE .....

BY NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. .....

In the City of Troy, New York .....

Despite any statutes .....

Or laws to the contrary .....

Which were passed ....

By the New York State Legislature .....

PURSUANT TO .....

OUR NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION .....

AND FURTHER .....

REQUIRES US .....

THE CITIZENS .....

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .....

WHO RESIDE ....

IN RENSSELAER COUNTY .....

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

TO NOT ONLY HAVE TO ......

"PRAY FOR ANY ACT OF GRACE ...."

"AS A MEANS ..."

"OF ENJOYING ...."

"ALL THE RIGHTS ...."

"AND PRIVILEGES ...."

"ENJOYED ..."

"BY OTHER CITIZENS" ......

SUCH AS JEFFREY PELLETIER OF POESTENKILL, NEW YORK .....

WHO WAS ABLE TO PHYSICALLY ASSAULT THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MATTER ON A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE ......

IN THE TOWN OF POESTENKILL, NEW YORK ...

WITH COMPLETE IMPUNITY ...

AND IMMUNITY ...

FROM PROSECUTION .....

BUT TO HAVE TO PAY AS WELL ......

IN THE FORM OF "PROTECTION" ......

As Jeffrey Pelletier of Poestenkill, New York was able to do .....

"PROTECTION" .....

That enabled .....

Jeffrey Pelletier .....

Of Poestenkill, New York .....

TO "PURCHASE" .....

FROM JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN .....

AND NORTHEAST HEALTH .....

A "NEW" .....

AND PATENTLY FALSE .....

"IDENTITY" .....

FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN HERE ....

WHICH "IDENTITY" .....

BRANDS PLAINTIFF FOREVER NOW ....

THANKS TO THE MARCH 31, 2005 FEDERAL COURT DECISION IN HERE .....

WHERE THE BUSH-APPOINTEE .....

ON THE FEDERAL BENCH .....

IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .....

OPENLY USED ....

HIS JUDICIAL IMMUNITY ....

TO MALICIOUSLY .....

AND INTENTIONALLY ....

"SMEAR" THE PLAINTIFF HEREIN ......

IN HIS MARCH 31, 2005 DECISION UNDER DISCUSSION IN HERE ....

WITH OUTRIGHT UNSUPPORTED FALSEHOODS .....

CONCERNING ....

THE ALLEGED STATE ....

OF PLAINTIFF'S MENTAL HEALTH ....

And so .....

As was said by the one United States Supreme Court Justice back in the latter days of the 1800's .....

Right after this nation ...

Had just concluded ......

What was in reality .....

A second bloody civil war ......

When the spirit of lawlessness and mob violence in this nation can be so completely repressed as to give full practical effect to OUR RIGHT .....

IN THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER ...

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

To enjoy all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens .......

Such as Jeffrey Pelletier of Poestenkill, New York .....

We shall be a happier nation, and a more prosperous one, than we now are .....

And so ......

THIS THREAD ....

BECAUSE .....

As this lone justice on the United States Supreme Court said back in 1873 .....

"Citizenship of the United States ought to be, and, according to the Constitution, is, a sure and undoubted title to equal rights in any and every States in this Union, subject to such regulations as the legislature may rightfully prescribe ......"

AND THAT IS WHERE THIS THREAD IS COMING FROM .....

OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS LATER .....

WHERE NOT ONLY ONE MAN ......

BUT A WHOLE COMMUNITY .....

HAS BEEN DENIED ......

FULL EQUALITY ......

BEFORE THE "LAW" .....

IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT .....

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .....

BY A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE .....

PUT ON THE BENCH .....

IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ...

BY GEORGE W. BUSH .....

AND THE REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED UNITED STATES SENATE ......

And so .....

IF IT IS TRUE .....

That a man denied full equality before the law is denied one of the essential rights of citizenship as a citizen of the United States ......

THEN IT IS EQUALLY TRUE .....

FOR A COMMUNITY .....

OF MEN ...

AND WOMEN .....

WHO ARE ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS .....

And so .....

This thread .....

To talk about it ...

And so .....

[Livyjr]

AN OPEN LETTER ......

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RE: THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION OF NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: JULY 3, 2006

SIR:

In an article entitled "A gavel for Donohue? - Lieutenant governor confirms her name has been submitted by Gov. Pataki for federal district judge" by ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union, first published, Friday, March 3, 2006, it was reported that REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue is up for an appointment to a federal judgeship after REPUBLICAN  Gov. George Pataki submitted her name to the Bush administration.

In that article, it was reported that:

"It has typically been assumed that if Donohue was given a judgeship, it would be a sign Pataki was about to leave office and wanted to pass New York into the care of Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, rather than to the lieutenant governor, who -- like most of her predecessors -- has had little involvement in the day-to-day running of the state."

Subsequently, in an article entitled "Donohue nominated for federal judgeship - Lieutenant governor faces scrutiny of Senate panel after selection by Bush for $165,200 position" by MARC PARRY, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union, first published Thursday, June 29, 2006, it was reported that the White House had nominated New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue to a lifetime appointment on a federal bench.

That Thursday, June 29, 2006 Times Union article then quotes Your Office as follows:

"Over the next few weeks, we'll be looking closely at Mary Donohue's nomination, which was formally sent to the Senate today," Sen. Charles Schumer, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.

The New York Democrat added, "I look forward to receiving her answers to the committee's questionnaire and her hearing, and I will make a decision on her nomination after reviewing the full record."

QUESTION 1: DOES YOUR OFFICE CONSIDER THAT A "PROPER USE" OF A JUDICIAL SEAT ON THE BENCH IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: GIVING ONE TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE SO THAT REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

QUESTION 2: DOES YOUR OFFICE INTEND TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S NOMINATION OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE FOR A SEAT ON THE BENCH IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHEN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A POLITICAL FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SO THAT REPUBLICAN  NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

QUESTION 3: HOW WOULD THE APPOINTMENT OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO THE FEDERAL BENCH AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SERVE TO PROTECT OUR CONSTUTUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIALS, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

For all of its potential ....

As an alleged "BEACON OF HOPE" .....

For beleaguered peoples .....

Around the world .....

The United States of America .....

Really has quite an ugly history .....

THAT HAS JUST GOTTEN UGLIER ....

With the March 31, 2005 Federal Court decision .....

In this matter .....

WHICH REQUIRES THE PLAINTIFF .....

AND US ......

THE CITIZENS .....

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .....

WHO RESIDE .....

IN RENSSELAER COUNTY .....

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

TO CRINGE .....

TO REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE KATHLEEN JIMINO .....

AND REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH "BIG JOE" BRUNO .....

AND REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI ....

WHO CONTROLS .....

THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH .....

WHICH STATE AGENCY .....

HAS GRANTED AUTHORITY .....

TO JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN .....

A CORPORATE MEDICAL DOCTOR .....

IN TROY, NEW YORK ....

TO HAVE ANYONE HE WISHES ....

INCARCERATED .....

IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILITY .....

OPERATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE LICENSE .....

BY NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. .....

In the City of Troy, New York .....

Despite any statutes .....

Or laws to the contrary .....

Which were passed ....

By the New York State Legislature .....

PURSUANT TO .....

OUR NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION .....

And so ....

"Let there be White Leagues formed in every town, village and hamlet of the South, and let us organize for the great struggle which seems inevitable."

"We have no war to make against the United States Government, but against the republican party our hate must be unquenchable, our war indeterminable and merciless."

"Fast fleeting away is the day of wordy protests and idle appeals to the magnanimity of the republican party."

"By brute force they are endeavoring to force us into acquiescence to their hideous program."

"We have submitted long enough to indignities, and it is time to meet brute-force with brute-force."

"Every Southern State should swarm with White Leagues, and we should stand ready to act the moment Grant signs the civil-rights bill."

"It will not do to wait till radicalism has fettered us to the car of social equality before we make an effort to resist it."

"The signing of the bill will be a declaration of war against the southern whites."

"It is our duty to ourselves, it is our duty to our children, it is our duty to the white race whose prowess subdued the wilderness of this continent, whose civilization filled it with cities and towns and villages ... to let northern radicals understand that military supervision of southern elections and the civil-rights bill mean war, and that war means bloodshed, and that we are terribly in earnest, and even they, fanatical as they are, may retrace their steps before it is too late."

SOURCE: Atlanta News, "Meet Brute Forces With Brute Forces," September 10, 1874.

[Livyjr]

"It is our duty to ourselves, it is our duty to our children, it is our duty to the white race whose prowess subdued the wilderness of this continent, whose civilization filled it with cities and towns and villages ... to let northern radicals understand that military supervision of southern elections and the civil-rights bill mean war, and that war means bloodshed, and that we are terribly in earnest, and even they, fanatical as they are, may retrace their steps before it is too late."

SOURCE:  Atlanta News, "Meet Brute Forces With Brute Forces," September 10, 1874.

"Bush to make first NAACP appearance today"

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:36 a.m., Thursday, July 20, 2006

WASHINGTON -- For five years in a row, President Bush has declined invitations to address the annual NAACP convention.

This year, with the Senate poised to renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Bush said yes.

The White House says Bush wants to address the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on Thursday to show his commitment to civil rights.

"The president has had five years to prepare for this speech," Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, past chairman of the Congressional Black Democratic Caucus, said Wednesday.

"I hope that this time, he makes it worth the wait."

Democrats have called on Bush to use his appearance to renew the Voting Rights Act.

"He could sign it right here on this stage," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told the NAACP on Wednesday, eliciting cheers from the audience.

The House voted overwhelmingly last week to extend provisions of the landmark civil rights act that President Johnson signed after violence erupted in the South over voting rights for blacks.

The Senate is expected to pass it on Thursday, although probably not before Bush's midmorning appearance at the NAACP.

Every president for the past several decades has spoken to the Baltimore-based group.

Until now, Bush, who received 11 percent of the black vote in 2004, had been the exception.

His appearance comes in a critical midterm election year, when Republicans fear losing control of Congress.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said that while there are political differences, the NAACP's new leader, Bruce Gordon, has good relations with Bush.

Gordon has met with Bush three times in the year he's headed the civil rights group.

That compares to one meeting Bush had with Gordon's predecessor, Kweisi Mfume, a former Democratic congressman.

"It is clear that in this nation, racism and discrimination are legally unacceptable, but there are also residues of the past that we have to address," Snow said in previewing the speech.

"We have to find ways to make sure that the road to opportunity is clear for one and all."

Snow denied claims that this was Bush's way of atoning for the government's slow response to Hurricane Katrina.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson and some black elected officials alleged that indifference to black suffering and racial injustice was to blame for the sluggish reaction to the disaster.

In September 2005, Bush's top advisers met with black leaders to discuss their concerns.

"I think the president wants to make his voice heard," Snow said about Bush's speech.

"He has an important role to play not only in making the case for civil rights but, maybe more importantly, the case for unity."

Cummings, D-Md., said as the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina approaches, Bush needs to explain what he plans to do to help the thousands of families in the Gulf Coast region who remain homeless and jobless.

He said the president also needs to address other issues of concern to blacks, including access to health care and the minimum wage, which has remained at $5.15 for nearly a decade.

"If the tax cuts are working, why then -- at 9 percent -- is the unemployment rate in the African American community nearly double the national rate?" Cummings asked.

------

On the Net:

The White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

NAACP: http://www.naacp.org

end quotes

GEORGE W. BUSH .....

HAS MADE .....

HIS VOICE HEARD .....

TO US .....

AMERICAN CITIZENS .....

UP HERE .....

IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .....

WITH HIS APPOINTMENT ....

OF GARY L. SHARPE .....

TO THE FEDERAL BENCH .....

IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .....

And so ...

THIS THREAD .....

TO TALK ABOUT ...

WHAT WE HEARD HIM SAY .....

ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS ...

WITH THAT APPOINTMENT .....

And so .....

[Livyjr]

"McCain And The NY GOP"

July 11, 2006 at 5:31 pm

by Elizabeth Benjamin, Albany, New York Times Union

An interesting part of the Esquire story that hasn’t been touched on is the part about Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, (or as he’s referred to in the piece: “old-school Joe Bruno”…”perhaps New York’s most powerful grassroots Republican”) who held a picnic McCain attended while he was in town.

“Bruno—a strong-jawed, thirty-year senator—and about a thousand of his supporters have been waiting in a steady rain to shake McCain’s hand or touch him on the elbow."

"These folks will do whatever Bruno asks of them, and given the 'graciousness of today’s visit,' he is exactly the sort of man who will one day ask them to vote early and often for John McCain.”

It seems the senator really buys in to the idea of Bruno-as-top-dog-Republican in New York.

AN OPEN LETTER ......

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RE: THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION OF NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: JULY 3, 2006

SIR:

DOES YOUR OFFICE INTEND TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S NOMINATION OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE FOR A SEAT ON THE BENCH IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHEN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A POLITICAL FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SO THAT REPUBLICAN  NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

The Albany, New York Times Union

March 3, 1995

State investigates Rensselaer County agency - Inquiry focues on qualifications of Health Department staff to provide engineering services"

by Joseph Picchi, Staff Writer

THE COUNTY SLICED $58,000 OUT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSONNEL, FORCING THE AGENCY TO CONTRACT OUT THE SERVICES TO TWO PRIVATE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, CARL AIKEN AND PETER CHIEFARI.

They do the environmental engineering work AND APPROVE SUBDIVISION PLANS.

"Bruno blocks wetland shield - Senate leader's opposition to widely supported bill that would extend protection to smaller areas raises questions of conflict of interest" 
 
By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Sunday, July 3, 2005

ALBANY -- For more than a year, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno has blocked widely supported wetlands legislation that would limit development on luxury homesites his family's business recently sold for more than $1.1 million.

In a 1995 letter to Army Corps brass, First Grafton engineer Peter A. Chiefari urged federal officials to be swift in allowing the project to move forward after First Grafton was cited for building a 1.7-mile road over wetlands without a permit.

"The price range for the lots has been set at from $250,000 to $400,000 each," wrote Chiefari, who did not return a call or e-mail for comment.

"Failure to obtain a timely approval may result in serious financial harm to First Grafton with consequent liability."

With just a gesture .....

REPUBLICAN New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph "Big Joe the Hammer" Bruno .....

Can have who he considers an "enemy" of himself .....

Like the PLAINTIFF herein ....

A disabled combat veteran .....

Crushed .....

Like an empty Coors beer can ......

WITH COMPLETE IMPUNITY ....

Laws to the contrary be damned .....

And with a "law" .....

"Big Joe" .....

Can reward .....

Those he considers his "friends" .....

And so ....

"Pay boost for twice-fired official - Bruno pushes bill to raise pension for a former business associate"

By JAMES M. ODATO, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Friday, July 21, 2006

ALBANY -- Sen. Joseph Bruno is seeking a law to give a former business associate with a dishonorable public career thousands of dollars in extra pension benefits.

The bill would add almost four years of extra state service time to boost the retirement payout to Peter A. Chiefari, 60, a longtime Rensselaer County resident who now appears to be living most of the year in Dunedin, Fla.

If Bruno's bill becomes law, Chiefari's pension would rise to $59,925 a year from $54,272.

Chiefari, who has held various private and public jobs, was fired by two state agencies during his service in the Pataki administration and forced into retirement in 2005.

He was terminated by the state Division of Military & Naval Affairs in 1996 for disobeying Gov. George Pataki's policies, according to people who worked for the administration at the time.

He got a second chance with the state when the Department of Labor hired him in January 1997.

In January 2000, he was fired for using state resources and much of his work time on his private affairs.

The Inspector General's Office audited his phone records and found hundreds of minutes of calls to the town of Schodack, with which he was doing private business, and to a real estate office for which he once worked -- Baer Reality, run by Kenneth Baer, Bruno's appointee on the state lobbying commission.

He had lied about his business relationships, inspector general's investigators said.

He got hired a third time by the state in January 2001.

Despite Pataki's hiring freeze, the DOT hired Chiefari after he got on a Civil Service list and the department was allowed to add engineers for road safety.

He started at $40,000, but his pay rose to $70,000.

At the Labor Department, where he had served as the assistant director of safety and health, he was paid $99,973 a year.

Then, although he officially retired from public service in 2000 by arranging to qualify himself for a special early retirement package passed by the Legislature, he retired a second time in 2005 when he was under investigation again.

That final state retirement came as the state Inspector General's Office was questioning him for taking the DOT job in 2001 and lying when he applied about never being fired.

The inspector general referred the case to State Police, who declined to proceed with a criminal investigation.

Chiefari also served as the private engineer on the First Grafton Corp. real estate development project that Bruno and partners invested in during the 1990s.

Chiefari was fined and suspended from practice in 1996 by the state Education Department for actions he took to propel the project to build homes along an isolated lake in the Rensselaer County town of Grafton.

Suspension of his engineering license was stayed in exchange for a one-year probation sentence.

Chiefari admitted submitting a state environmental form with inaccurate information, SED records show.

As priority bills were being rushed to print in the final scheduled week of this year's legislative session, the Bruno-led Senate Committee on Rules introduced a special retirement bill June 19 that would benefit only Chiefari.

It claims he is owed 3.66 additional years of service time that would cost the state $49,000 in payments to the State and Local Employees' Retirement System, administered by the state comptroller's office.

The bill text says Chiefari served public employers for more than 24 years and already has accumulated 29.22 years of service time for pension purposes but was denied time for service between 2001 and 2005 -- the years he worked as a civil engineer for DOT.

It says he was misled by retirement system officials that the years would be granted him after he returned to state service following his move to take an early retirement deal in 2000.

Chiefari did not return a call left with his wife, Lois Phillips, the longtime town of Schodack attorney, at his Florida address.

Bruno's spokesman, Matthew Walter, said the bill for Chiefari is no more than a routine piece of legislation advanced for a person desiring his full pension benefit.

Hundreds of such bills are introduced, Walter said.

Typically, he said, senators try to resolve such disputes at the agency and comptroller levels before seeking a law.

He said Bruno sought the bill after Chiefari, a constituent, asked for help.

Jeffrey Gordon, a spokesman for the comptroller's office, agreed many such laws are proposed, but few are passed.

He said Bruno's bill seeks to create "new law" for Chiefari.

After getting fired by the state, Chiefari worked 16 days during 2000 for the town of Nassau to qualify for an early retirement incentive offered to public workers under a bill signed into law by Pataki, Gordon said.

That law allowed Chiefari to retire with 2.25 extra years of service time tacked onto his pension benefit, Gordon said.

But that incentive time and the pension were taken away retroactive to 2000 when he returned to the state in 2001.

Bruno's bill would get Chiefari back the 2.25 years plus other adjustments that cut his pension under the rules of the 2000 incentive deal.

His pension now is actually $150 a year less than when he originally retired in 2000, Gordon said.

M. Odato can be reached at 454-5083 or by e-mail at jodato@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

And here, an astute reader has just made the connection that this IS the Motion for Injunctive Relief that was discussed way back in the beginning of this thread, and that we have come back, full-circle as it were, to the circumstances surrounding how that motion came to be before the Court in this matter in the first place, as an attempt to seek justice equal to that afforded the political defendants in this matter, which just never happened, because the formal motion was never acted on by the Court:

"As for PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, THERE IS NO REASON TO ADDRESS THE MERITS OF HIS APPLICATION SINCE THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY!"

On or about August 14, 2004, the contents of the letter to Judge Walter were formalized in an AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 65, and that motion, with NOTICE was formally served on Eliot Spitzer and ALL other parties, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in relevant part, as follows:

PLAINTIFF NYSPE, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the following statements are true:

4.  Annexed hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof is a July 9, 2004 letter from PLAINTIFF pro se to Rensselaer County Court Judge Patrick J. McGrath complaining of continued intimidation and threats of violence and bodily harm to myself made by defendant Jeffrey Pelletier on July 9, 2004 in connection with this above matter. (See, Amended Complaint, paras. 5-15)

5.  Annexed hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof is a July 13, 2004 letter to PLAINTIFF from Judge McGrath wherein Judge McGrath states in relevant part as follows:

"This will acknowledge the court's receipt of your letter dated July 9, 2004, and the attachments thereto, all of which I have reviewed."

"Needless to say, your allegations are disturbing, especially as they encompass potential federal, as well as state, criminal charges, in that they include, among others, an allegation of false imprisonment in a federal facility, Stratton VA Medical Center."

6.  Thus is formed a basis to believe that plaintiff was harmed in the State of New York by the actions of the defendants on and after August 7, 2001. (See, Amended Complaint, paras. 6-30)

DATED:  August 13, 2004
              Poestenkill, N.Y.

                 
signed: PLAINTIFF Pro Se

October 13, 1988

Dr. Ian T. Loudon, M.D.
Regional Health Director
State of New York Department of Health
Albany Regional Office
Building 7A
State Office Building Campus
Albany, New York 12226

Dear Dr. Loudon,

As of October 13, 1988, our Director of Environmental Health/Associate Public Health Engineer has been placed on a paid leave of absence status for thirty working days.

A copy of my memorandum to the County Executive on this matter, which cites contributing factors, is attached hereto.

Although there are other options available for dealing with this issue, I HAVE HOPES THAT THE LEAST PAINFUL AND MOST HUMANITARIAN APPROACH HAS BEEN INITIALLY TAKEN.

WHETHER PLAINTIFF SEES IT THAT WAY OR NOT, I CAN'T SAY.

Kenneth Van Praag
Rensselaer County Public Health Director

Periodically .....

Someone will ask me ....

In a "sidebar" .....

Why I bother going on in here ....

When it clearly will do no good for the PLAINTIFF in here .....

WHO HAS IN FACT .....

BEEN "BRANDED" .....

By the State of New York .....

As an alleged dangerous mental patient .....

DESPITE THERE BEING NO EVIDENCE .....

WHATSOEVER ....

TO SUPPORT THAT CHARGE ....

WITH THAT BRANDING .....

Being loaded ...

Onto a computer system ...

That the State of New York maintains ....

For its "law enforcement" purposes .....

A sort of "TRASH TO BE TAKEN OUT" list .....

And all I can ever say ...

Is that the conversation ...

Is not yet over .....

And that is that .....

And as the DRED SCOTT decision .....

Or Roe v. Wade clearly demonstrate .....

Just because a judge has ruled ...

That really doesn't end something .....

To the contrary ...

IT STARTS SOMETHING NEW .....

And so ...

CONTINUING OFFENSE:

Type of crime which is committed over time as, for example, a conspiracy .....

As to period of statutue of limitation, the LAST ACT of the offense controls for commencement of the period ......

A "continuing offense," such that only the last act thereof witihin the period of the statute of limitations need be alleged in the indictment or information, is one which may consist of separate acts or a course of conduct but which arises from that singleness of thought, purpose or action which may be deemed a single impulse ......

- Black's Law Dictionary

[Livyjr]

CONTINUING OFFENSE:

Type of crime which is committed over time as, for example, a conspiracy .....

As to period of statutue of limitation, the LAST ACT of the offense controls for commencement of the period ......

A "continuing offense," such that only the last act thereof witihin the period of the statute of limitations need be alleged in the indictment or information, is one which may consist of separate acts or a course of conduct but which arises from that singleness of thought, purpose or action which may be deemed a single impulse ......

- Black's Law Dictionary

IT IS INCANDESCENTLY CLEAR ....

FROM THE AUGUST 16, 2002 AFFIRMATION ABOVE HERE ....

OF LISA ULLMAN, being a duly licensed attorney in the State of New York and an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL in the offices of Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York ....

That on August 22, 2001 ....

DESPITE THE LAW AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

John Christian Braaten had in fact ORDERED the immediate incarceration of PLAINTIFF as an alleged mental patient ....

Despite the fact that he had never examined PLAINTIFF ...

And despite the fact that there was no evidence or probable cause to support what Braaten had unlawfully done ....

And so ....

WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS IN FACT TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AT THE STRATTON VA HOSPITAL ON AUGUST 22, 2001 .....

BY THE LAW AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

At the minimum ....

That was UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF PLAINTIFF ....

Which is a crime in the State of New York ....

According to § 135.05 of the New York State Penal Law ....

Which New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has a sworn duty, through his OATH OF OFFICE, to uphold .....

And so ....

Right now ...

The question that this thread is presenting ....

Based upon this position taken by United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in this Jefferson case ....

IS WHY ....

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ....

IS ALLOWING NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ELIOT SPITZER ....

TO BURY EVIDENCE OF THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES IN THIS MATTER ....

And so ....

"So, Livyjr," writes a concerned reader, "If I understand what actually did transpire up there in the federal Northern District of New York in this matter under discussion in here, and I believe that I do, in order to provide political protection to the defendants in this matter, which he certainly appears to have done, what Bush-appointee federal District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe did was to knowingly and wilfully publish as his decision in this matter a FALSEHOOD contrary to the evidence before him on March 31, 2005 in his capacity as a federal District Court Judge in the federal Northern District of New York, which is what this thread is all about ..."

And once again ...

I cannot argue with this statment ...

Because to us up here ...

Who are affected by this March 31, 2005 federal court decision ....

That is exactly what happened ..

And so ...

As this reader states ..

That is what this particular thread is all about ...

And so ....

July 29, 2004

Dear PLAINTIFF:

Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece requested that I respond to your recent letter addressed to Hon. Donald E. Walter, Docket No. 77.

As you know, shortly after your letter was received, this matter was returned from Judge Walter to the original District Judge and Magistrate Judge assigned to this case, Docket No. 78.

At this time, motions to dismiss filed on behalf of the defendants are pending and will be addressed by the Court in due course.

YOUR LETTER TOUCHES UPON SEVERAL DIFFERENT MATTERS RELATED TO THIS LITIGATION AND HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COURT.

Please be advised, however, that all requests for judicial action must be addressed to the Court by a motion filed in compliance with the Local Rules of Practice of the Northern District.

Accordingly, no rulings or determinations of any kind will be made at this time with regard to the matters you raise!

Very truly yours,

Marguerite A. Conan, Esq.
Staff Attorney for the Federal District Court of the Northern District of New York 

cc:  ALL Parties

On or about August 14, 2004, the contents of the letter to Judge Walter were formalized in an AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 65, and that motion, with NOTICE was formally served on Eliot Spitzer and ALL other parties, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in relevant part, as follows:

PLAINTIFF NYSPE, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the following statements are true:

3. I make this affidavit pursuant toFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 65 for a preliminary injunction in this above matter ENJOINING DEFENDANTS FROM CONTINUING TO TREAT AS VALID IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK a New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order issued to the Rensselaer County defendants by defendant John Christian Braaten on August 22, 2001; said injunctive relief returning PLAINTIFF to his status as a non-dangerous person fully capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself as it was on August 7, 2001, with his professional reputation and standing in the State of New York as a New York State licensed professional engineer and associate public health engineer in the State of New York fully restored to him as it was on August 7, 2001. (See, Amended Complaint, paras. 6-8)

4.  Annexed hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof is a July 9, 2004 letter from PLAINTIFF pro se to Rensselaer County Court Judge Patrick J. McGrath complaining of continued intimidation and threats of violence and bodily harm to myself made by defendant Jeffrey Pelletier on July 9, 2004 in connection with this above matter. (See, Amended Complaint, paras. 5-15)

5.  Annexed hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof is a July 13, 2004 letter to PLAINTIFF from Judge McGrath wherein Judge McGrath states in relevant part as follows:

"This will acknowledge the court's receipt of your letter dated July 9, 2004, and the attachments thereto, all of which I have reviewed."

"Needless to say, your allegations are disturbing, especially as they encompass potential federal, as well as state, criminal charges, in that they include, among others, an allegation of false imprisonment in a federal facility, Stratton VA Medical Center."

6.  Thus is formed a basis to believe that plaintiff was harmed in the State of New York by the actions of the defendants on and after August 7, 2001. (See, Amended Complaint, paras. 6-30)

DATED:  August 13, 2004
              Poestenkill, N.Y.
                 
signed: PLAINTIFF Pro Se

TO: Hon. Gary L. Sharpe, Federal District Judge, Northern District of New York

Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:

1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.

I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.

2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.

4. On or about August 13, 2004, PLAINTIFF served the instant motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin DEFENDANTS from treating the 9.45 order issued on August 22, 2001 as valid.

5. As more fully detailed in the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS' Memorandum of Law in Opposition, PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.

6. This matter arises from a dispute between PLAINTIFF and one of his neighbors regarding the issuance of a sewage construction permit by the Rensselaer County Department of Health in July 2001.

In August 2001, PLAINTIFF met with various members of the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS regarding the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the sewage construction permit.

7. During the course of his "investigation" into the issuance of the sewage permit, PLAINTIFF became increasingly agitated and ultimately made threats to various DEFENDANTS herein.

On the morning of August 22, 2001, Carol Fiorino, a registered nurse with Samaritan Hospital, was contacted regarding the actions of PLAINTIFF.

8. Ms. Fiorino WAS INFORMED BY A RELIABLE SOURCE that PLAINTIFF had a history of psychiatric illness and had made numerous threats against his neighbor to various DEFENDANTS herein.

Ms. Fiorino reported the information conveyed to her to John Christian Braaten, M.D., a member of the staff of the Good Samaritan Hospital Behavioral Health Crisis Department.

UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY DR. BRAATEN, HE EXERCISED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY pursuant to NYS Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 and 9.40 and CERTIFIED THAT AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" to Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility was warranted.

A copy of the EMERGENCY ADMISSION FORM executed by Dr. Braaten is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".

9. The Department of Veterans Affairs Police at the Stratton VA Medical Center in Albany, New York were notified regarding Plaintiff's history and actions.

The VA Police contacted New York State Trooper, Chris O'Brien, regarding PLAINTIFF, and obtained a copy of the DIRECT ADMISSION paperwork.

10. Around noontime on August 22, 2001, PLAINTIFF presented himself voluntarily at the emergency room of the VAMC FOR TREATMENT.

While at the VAMC, PLAINTIFF was evaluated by William F. Cox, M.D., IN THE SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.

Shortly after the arrival of an Albany, New York Police Officer on PLAINTIFF's behalf, PLAINTIFF was released from the VAMC ....

AT NO TIME WAS PLAINTIFF PICKED UP OR HELD IN CONNECTION WITH THE 9.45 order. 

DATED: September 20, 2004
            Albany, New York

And here, an astute reader has just made the connection that this IS the Motion for Injunctive Relief that was discussed way back in the beginning of this thread, and that we have come back, full-circle as it were, to the circumstances surrounding how that motion came to be before the Court in this matter in this first place, as an attempt to seek justice equal to that afforded the political defendants in this matter, which just never happened, because the formal motion was never acted on by the Court:

"As for PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, THERE IS NO REASON TO ADDRESS THE MERITS OF HIS APPLICATION SINCE THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY!"

- Gary L. Sharpe, Federal District Court Judge, Northern District of New York, March 31, 2005

And once again ....

It is time ....

In here ....

To pause for a moment of reflection .....

On what we have been talking about since this thread started .....

Back in April of 2005 .....

And it is summed up above here ....

As concisely as I can have it be .....

And this brings us to today ...

And tomarrow ...

And the day after ....

Since as I have said before .....

IN OUR COMMUNITY UP HERE IN THE CORRUPT STATE OF NEW YORK ....

This March 31, 2005 decision to toss this federal civil rights lawsuit by this Bush-appointee judge in the federal Northern District of New York .....

Did not end anything at all .....

As should be clear from this above definition ....

Of what a CONTINUING OFFENSE consists of .....

And what I am going to do at this point ....

In the life of this thread ....

Is go back over the list of questions that I have received over time in connection with this matter .....

To make sure that all relevant points have been covered ...

And in the meantime ....

I have been asked ...

To post ....

The motion papers ....

For INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ....

That the federal court never addressed ....

In their entirety ....

And so ....

TO BE CONTINUED ....

[Livyjr]

"Livyjr," a concerned reader asks, "Can you point us to anything in the record, outside of PLAINTIFF's own statements, that would make it clear to us readers out here that New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer himself would have known that Julie M. Sheridan was knowingly and willfully lying to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals when she told that body that PLAINTIFF was never INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED to the Stratton VA Hospital on August 22, 2001?"

And that answer is yes ....

For it would indeed be foolish on my part ...

To fall into the trap ...

Of having made statements ...

That ultimately .....

Cannot be corroborated .....

By some independent evidence ....

And so ...

Here, I simply go back in time ...

To an AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN ...

Dated August 16, 2002 .....

About one (1) year after the August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN went down ......

That was submiited by Spitzer's Office .....

To Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr. .....

A Justice of the New York State Supreme Court ....

In Rensselaer County .....

Early on in connection with this matter ....

That ultimately made its way to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City ....

This past fall ...

And in that August 16, 2002 AFFIRMATION ......

Ms. Ullman is quoted as follows:

LISA ULLMAN, being a duly licensed attorney in the State of New York and an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL in the offices of Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, does hereby affirm under penalties of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106:

1. I am an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE STAFF OF ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General of the State of New York, ATTORNEY for the State respondents in this proceeding.

I HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED THIS CASE AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE FILE.

I make this affirmation in opposition to PETITIONER'S (PLAINTIFF) motion for leave to reargue and renew.

2. This proceeding was commenced by pro se petitioner PLAINTIFF under Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules ("CPLR"), who requested a court order compelling the release of certain mental health records.

SPECIFICALLY, PETITIONER HAD BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45 FOR SEVERAL HOURS ON AUGUST 22, 2001, and had obtained redacted versions of documents pertaining to that COMMITMENT.

IN THIS PROCEEDING, HE SOUGHT A COURT ORDER COMPELLING RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE HIM WITH UNREDACTED VERSIONS OF THOSE DOCUMENTS.

And in the meantime ....

I have been asked ...

To post ....

The motion papers ....

For INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ....

That the federal court never addressed ....

In their entirety ....

And so ....

TO BE CONTINUED ....

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)

DAVID E. ROOK, ESQUIRE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AFFIRMS AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am an attorney and counselor at law associated with the law offices of Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP, attorneys representing the Defendants Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342, John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415, Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS") herein, AND AS SUCH, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS HERETOFORE HAD HEREIN.

6. As described more thoroughly in Samaritan Defendants' MEMORANDUM OF LAW, PLAINTIFF'S "AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 42 USCS § 1983" should be dismissed.

7. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FAILS TO MEET THE PLEADING STANDARDS SET FORTH AT FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b) and 10(b).

8. Despite affording GREAT LIBERALITY to PLAINTIFF as a pro se litigant, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT fails to set forth ANY SET OF FACTS that would entitle him to RELIEF FROM ANY NAMED DEFENDANT and more specifically from any of the SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS.

9. PLAINTIFF APPEARS TO SUFFER FROM A HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS.

HIS ALLEGATIONS COUPLED WITH DOCUMENTS APPENDED TO HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT SUGGEST PLAINTIFF BECAME INCREASINGLY AGITATED ULTIMATELY RESULTING IN THREATS BEING MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF TO VARIOUS PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PRIVATE CITIZENS.

10. THE PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AND DOCUMENTS SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT HE WAS REFERRED TO THE STAFF OF SAMARITAN HOSPITAL AND UPON RECEIVING INFORMATION ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR AND HISTORY FROM RELIABLE SOURCES EXERCISED THEIR STATUTORY AUTHORITY UNDER NYSMHL §9.39 and §9.40 TO CERTIFY AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" TO SAMARITAN HOSPITAL'S SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.

11. Dr. Braaten signed the certificate for emergency admission upon information provided to him by a registered professional nurse, Ms. FIORINO.

The allegations in the COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATE OF EMERGENCY ADMISSION signed by DR. BRAATEN  reveal the PLAINTIFF'S admission to be an emergency admission and not an involuntary commitment.

The procedures and due process safeguards in New York's REGULATORY SCHEME for mental health admissions differ depending upon whether the PLAINTIFF is secured under an emergency admission or an involuntary commitment.

12. ANY ACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN by the SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS were taken under the AUTHORITY of NYS Mental Hygiene Law and were taken FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND SOCIETY AT LARGE.

Furthermore, all of the actions taken by the Samaritan Defendants in connection with PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY ADMISSION are privileged by NYS Mental Hygiene Law.

ANY ATTEMPT TO CHARACTERIZE PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS SUPPORTING A CLAIM FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT MUST FAIL DUE TO THIS PRIVILEGE.

THE EXISTENCE OF THE PRIVILEGE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, MAY BE DETERMINED BY PRESUMING PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS TO BE TRUE AND REFERENCING THE DOCUMENTS APPENDED TO HIS COMPLAINT.

13. PLAINTIFF APPEARS TO ALLEGE SOME KIND OF DECEIT BY INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS TO SECURE THIS EMERGENCY ADMISSION.

PLAINTIFF REPEATEDLY REFERS TO THE CREATION AND REPORTING OF A "FALSE PERSONA" AND "FALSE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES".

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT DOES NOT CONTAIN A SINGLE REFERENCE TO WHAT WAS "FALSE" OR THE SPECIFICS CONCERNING THE COMMUNICATION OF WHAT WAS "FALSE".

THIS FAILURE OF THE PLEADING IS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE PLEADING'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 9(b) OR SUPPORT ANY POTENTIAL CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON FRAUD OR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION.

DATED: November 10, 2003
            Albany, New York

David E. Rook

On or about August 14, 2004, the contents of the letter to Judge Walter were formalized in an AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 65, and that motion, with NOTICE was formally served on Eliot Spitzer and ALL other parties, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in relevant part, as follows:

PLAINTIFF NYSPE, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the following statements are true:

3. I make this affidavit pursuant toFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 65 for a preliminary injunction in this above matter ENJOINING DEFENDANTS FROM CONTINUING TO TREAT AS VALID IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK a New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order issued to the Rensselaer County defendants by defendant John Christian Braaten on August 22, 2001; said injunctive relief returning PLAINTIFF to his status as a non-dangerous person fully capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself as it was on August 7, 2001, with his professional reputation and standing in the State of New York as a New York State licensed professional engineer and associate public health engineer in the State of New York fully restored to him as it was on August 7, 2001. (See, Amended Complaint, paras. 6-8)

"As for PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, THERE IS NO REASON TO ADDRESS THE MERITS OF HIS APPLICATION SINCE THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY!"

- Gary L. Sharpe, Federal District Court Judge, Northern District of New York, March 31, 2005

"Livyjr, please pardon the interruption," says a reader .....

"But could you please clarify for the record who ASSISTANT NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL LISA ULLMAN is referring to in her August 16, 2002 affirmation as the 'State respondents in this proceeding', and what relevance that proceeding has to the federal court proceeding that is being discussed in here?"

And that answer, from the caption on Ms. Ullman's August 16, 2002 affirmation, is as follows:

* The New York State Office of Mental Health;

* James L. Stone, Commissioner, New York State Office of Mental Health;

* Barbara A. Soldano, Chairperson, Clinical Record Access Committee, New York State Office of Mental Health;

* Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive;

* Northeast Health, Inc.; and

* HUMAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION ....

All of whom were under the "protection" of Ms. Ullman in that initial proceeding .....

And so ....

As to the relevance ...

For that ...

We will turn to the pages ...

Of a March 6, 2002 AFFIDAVIT of Ms. Ullman's "CLIENT", Barbara A. Soldano ....

Which affidavit was submitted to New York State Supreme Court for Rensselaer County by Ms. Ullman .....

In support of her successful bid in that court to:

1) Keep from PLAINTIFF pertinent information as to the identities of those who were involved in the August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN ......

So as to "BURN UP" the statute of limitations for those involved ....

Whose identities were being kept "CONFIDENTIAL" .....

By the Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York ....

And .....

2) To keep the sworn testimony of the Albany, New York Police officer out of the record in connection with the PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN ......

Both of which were to PLAINTIFF's detriment .....

In the State of New York ...

Where the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS working against PLAINTIFF ....

WAS ONLY FOUR MONTHS ....

And so ...
 
In that March 6, 2002 AFFIDAVIT of Ms. Ullman's "CLIENT", Barbara A. Soldano ....

Ms. Soldano, while under oath, explains the purpose of that particular proceeding as follows, beginning in paragraph #4, and from her words, the relevance of that proceeding to the federal court proceedings under discussion in here, will become clear, to wit:

4. IN THIS PROCEEDING, PETITIONER PLAINTIFF CHALLENGES A DETERMINATION MADE BY ME, IN MY CAPACITY AS COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON, ON OCTOBER 31, 2001.

AS DETAILED BELOW, MY DETERMINATION AFFIRMED ANOTHER RESPONDENT'S DECISION TO DENY PLAINTIFF ACCESS TO PARTICULAR CLINICAL RECORDS, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MENTAL HYGIENE LAW §33.16©(4).

5. Specifically, petitioner PLAINTIFF seeks disclosure of two names which were REDACTED from two particular documents.

6. Exhibit A, dated August 22, 2001 is a document entitled "Samaritan Hospital Behavioral Health Crisis Department" and dated August 22, 2001.

THE DOCUMENT STATES THAT, BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY A PERSON WHOSE NAME WAS REDACTED, A "9.45 ORDER" WAS PREPARED AND SENT BY FACSIMILE TO POLICE OFFICERS.

ACCORDING TO EXHIBIT A, THE UNIDENTIFIED INFORMANT ADVISED THAT PETITIONER WAS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, "MAKING THREATS" AND "THREATENING BLOODSHED."

8. Exhibit B, dated August 22, 2001, is entitled "EMERGENCY OR C.P.E.P. EMERGENCY ADMISSION .... CUSTODY/TRANSPORT OF A PERSON ALLEGED TO BE MENTALLY ILL TO A HOSPITAL APPROVED TO RECEIVE EMERGENCY OR C.P.E.P. ADMISSIONS".

The form contains information under the section entitled "§9.45 Mental Hygiene Law" and "REQUEST BY A DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES OR DESIGNEE".

IN SHORT, THIS FORM APPEARS TO BE THE "9.45 ORDER" REFERENCED IN EXHIBIT A.

And stopping right here for a moment ....

And comparing what the OFFICE OF NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ELIOT SPITZER was telling New York State Supreme Court for Rensselaer County about the existence of the "9.45 ORDER" in March of 2002 ....

To what the OFFICE OF NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ELIOT SPITZER was telling the federal SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS in New York City about the existence of the "9.45 ORDER" in the fall of 2005 .....

That "Thus, PLAINTIFF was not in fact involuntarily committed, and his section 1985 conspiracy claim premised on that commitment necessarily fails ....." .....

WE BEGIN TO CLEARLY DISCERN THE NATURE OF THE FALSEHHODS THAT THE OFFICE OF NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ELIOT SPITZER WAS PEDDLING TO THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS MATTER IN THE FALL OF 2005 .......

WITH COMPLETE AND TOTAL IMPUNITY TO PEDDLE WHATEVER LIES AND FALSEHOODS THAT OFFICE WANTED TO PEDDLE IN THAT COURT ...

And so ....

To be continued ....

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO FRCP 65

DEBRA J. YOUNG, ESQUIRE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AFFIRMS AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am an attorney and counselor at law associated with the law offices of Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP, attorneys representing the Defendants Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342, John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415, Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS") herein, AND AS SUCH, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS HERETOFORE HAD HEREIN.

2. I make this affirmation in opposition to PLAINTIFF's request for a preliminary injunction.

It appears from PLAINTIFF'S MOTION that PLAINTIFF seeks an order "ENJOINING DEFENDANTS FROM CONTINUING TO TREAT AS VALID IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK A NEW YORK STATE MENTAL HYGIENE 9.45 ORDER ISSUED BY DEFENDANT JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN ON AUGUST 22, 2001" and an order "RETURNING PLAINTIFF TO HIS STATUS AS A NON-DANGEROUS PERSON FULLY CAPABLE OF SURVIVING SAFELY BY HIMSELF AS IT WAS ON AUGUST 7, 2001, WITH HIS PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION AND STANDING IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS A NEW YORK STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS IT WAS ON AUGUST 7, 2001, ALONG WITH SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF AS THE COURT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER."

3. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, PLAINTIFF filed "Amended CIVIL RIGHTS Complaint Pursuant to 42 USCS 1983" on August 22, 2003.

THEREAFTER, DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT.

4. BASICALLY, IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS CIVIL RIGHTS ON AUGUST 22, 2001 WHEN CERTAIN CO-DEFENDANTS REQUESTED THE SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS TO ISSUE WHAT IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS A "PICK-UP" ORDER PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45.

5. THE SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS ADMITTEDLY ISSUED THE 9.45 ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF ON AUGUST 22, 2001.

However, PLAINTIFF was never "picked-up" or transported to Samaritan Hospital as a result of this order as he voluntarily went to the VA Medical Center in Albany where he was evaluated and released.

6. As a result of the events in August 2001, PLAINTIFF commenced an Article 78 proceeding in New York State Supreme court and then commenced the instant action in federal court.

PLAINTIFF NOW MOVES FOR THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DESCRIBED ABOVE.

DATED: September 17, 2004

[Livyjr]

AN OPEN LETTER ......

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RE: THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION OF NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: JULY 3, 2006

SIR:

In an article entitled "A gavel for Donohue? - Lieutenant governor confirms her name has been submitted by Gov. Pataki for federal district judge" by ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union, first published, Friday, March 3, 2006, it was reported that REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue is up for an appointment to a federal judgeship after REPUBLICAN  Gov. George Pataki submitted her name to the Bush administration.

In that article, it was reported that:

"It has typically been assumed that if Donohue was given a judgeship, it would be a sign Pataki was about to leave office and wanted to pass New York into the care of Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, rather than to the lieutenant governor, who -- like most of her predecessors -- has had little involvement in the day-to-day running of the state."

Subsequently, in an article entitled "Donohue nominated for federal judgeship - Lieutenant governor faces scrutiny of Senate panel after selection by Bush for $165,200 position" by MARC PARRY, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union, first published Thursday, June 29, 2006, it was reported that the White House had nominated New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue to a lifetime appointment on a federal bench.

That Thursday, June 29, 2006 Times Union article then quotes Your Office as follows:

"Over the next few weeks, we'll be looking closely at Mary Donohue's nomination, which was formally sent to the Senate today," Sen. Charles Schumer, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.

The New York Democrat added, "I look forward to receiving her answers to the committee's questionnaire and her hearing, and I will make a decision on her nomination after reviewing the full record."

QUESTION 1: WAS YOUR OFFICE NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OF THIS NOMINATION BY REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI THAT HE WANTED TO GIVE A FEDERAL JUDGESHIP TO MARY DONOHUE SO THAT REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

QUESTION 2: DOES YOUR OFFICE CONSIDER THAT A "PROPER USE" OF A JUDICIAL SEAT ON THE BENCH IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: GIVING ONE TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE SO THAT REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

QUESTION 3: DOES YOUR OFFICE INTEND TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S NOMINATION OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE FOR A SEAT ON THE BENCH IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHEN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A POLITICAL FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SO THAT REPUBLICAN  NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

QUESTION 4: HOW WOULD THE APPOINTMENT OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO THE FEDERAL BENCH AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SERVE TO PROTECT OUR CONSTUTUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIALS, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

Sincerely ......

If any of you out there in OUR America .....

Or the world for that matter ....

Are concerned ....

As are we up here ...

In Rensselaer County ...

In the State of New York ....

With the INDEPENDENCE ....

And INTEGRITY ....

OF OUR FEDERAL JUDICIARY ...

WHO ARE APPOINTED FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES ....

And you wish to make comments ....

To Senator Schumer ....

Or anyone else in OUR government for that matter ....

And all of the news media  ....

Here in OUR America as well ....

ON THIS JUDICIAL NOMINATION .....

Click on this URL to take action now

http://capwiz.com/congressorg/pyv/electors/

Then look to your left ....

And click on CONGRESS ....

Then scroll down until you come to JUDICIARY ....

And when you click on that ....

The names of all of the members of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee will come up .....

Including the name Charles Schumer ....

And when you click on those names ....

Their individual page will come up ...

And under their picture ...

You will see SEND A MESSAGE ....

And just click on that ....

And paste a copy of this OPEN LETTER in the body of your letter ...

If you don't have words of your own to express your concerns with ....

And so ...

STRIKE A BLOW ....

FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE ....

THIS INDEPENDENCE DAY ....

JUST SAY NO ....

TO REPUBLICAN GEORGE W. BUSH ....

HANDING OUT ...

FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS ....

TO UNQUALIFIED PERSONS ....

LIKE PATAKI-CHEERLEADER MARY DONOHUE ....

AS POLITICAL FAVORS ...

TO POLITICALLY-CONNECTED PEOPLE ...

LIKE REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI ...

OF NEW YORK STATE ....

And so ...

With just a gesture .....

REPUBLICAN New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph "Big Joe the Hammer" Bruno .....

Can have who he considers an "enemy" of himself .....

Like the PLAINTIFF herein ....

A disabled combat veteran .....

Crushed .....

Like an empty Coors beer can ......

WITH COMPLETE IMPUNITY ....

Laws to the contrary be damned .....

And with a "law" .....

"Big Joe" .....

Can reward .....

Those he considers his "friends" .....

And so ....

"Pay boost for twice-fired official - Bruno pushes bill to raise pension for a former business associate" 
 
By JAMES M. ODATO, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union 

First published: Friday, July 21, 2006

ALBANY -- Sen. Joseph Bruno is seeking a law to give a former business associate with a dishonorable public career thousands of dollars in extra pension benefits.

The bill would add almost four years of extra state service time to boost the retirement payout to Peter A. Chiefari, 60, a longtime Rensselaer County resident who now appears to be living most of the year in Dunedin, Fla.

If Bruno's bill becomes law, Chiefari's pension would rise to $59,925 a year from $54,272.
 
Chiefari, who has held various private and public jobs, was fired by two state agencies during his service in the Pataki administration and forced into retirement in 2005.

M. Odato can be reached at 454-5083 or by e-mail at jodato@timesunion.com.

"No, Sen. Bruno - The majority leader pushes pension legislation that would benefit a single constituent"

Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Sunday, July 23, 2006

And now, Chiefari's law.

Or would it be Bruno's law?

It's been about a decade since New York and other states have taken to naming legislation after people, and even animals, often the victims of horrible criminal behavior.

What's next, quite possibly, are laws that might as well be named after the beneficiaries of special treatment by state government.

Or, perhaps, the politicians shameless enough to extend it to them.

Here's state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno trying to get legislation passed to increase the pension benefits of a constituent, former business associate and former state employee named Peter Chiefari.

Just for Mr. Chiefari.

What did Mr. Chiefari do to deserve such personal attention at the hands of one of the most powerful people in state government?

That much is hard to say.

His record stands out only because it's so undistinguished.

Twice he was fired from state jobs, first the Division of Military & Naval Affairs in 1996 and then the Department of Labor in 2000, before he finally was forced back into retirement in 2005.

Still, if it's up to Mr. Bruno, Mr. Chiefari's pension will be going up, from $54,272 a year to $59,925 a year.

As James M. Odato of our Capitol bureau reported last week, a bill was introduced by the Senate Committee on Rules, which Mr. Bruno of course controls, in the final days of the legislative session last month that would add almost four years -- and with it, more than $5,000 a year in pension benefits -- to what's known as Mr. Chiefari's accumulated state service time.

Nice deal, isn't it?

Mr. Chiefari does go back a bit with Mr. Bruno.

When he was fired at the Department of Labor, it was for spending too much of the state's time on his own affairs.

Those included a real estate business run by Kenneth Baer, Sen. Bruno's appointee on the state lobbying commission.

Mr. Chiefari also was the private engineer on a real estate development project that Sen. Bruno and some partners invested in during the 1990s.

All this comes out as Gov. Pataki is trying to get a pension law passed that would benefit many members of his administration who'll be leaving office with him at the end of the year.

Troubling as that is, a Chiefari-Bruno law would be worse.

Congratulations, senator.

You've outdone them all.

[Livyjr]

"As for PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, THERE IS NO REASON TO ADDRESS THE MERITS OF HIS APPLICATION SINCE THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY!"

- Gary L. Sharpe, Federal District Court Judge, Northern District of New York, March 31, 2005

And in the meantime ....

I have been asked ...

To post ....

The motion papers ....

For INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ....

That the federal court never addressed ....

In their entirety ....

And so ....

TO BE CONTINUED ....

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO FRCP 65

DEBRA J. YOUNG, ESQUIRE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AFFIRMS AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am an attorney and counselor at law associated with the law offices of Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP, attorneys representing the Defendants Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342, John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415, Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS") herein, AND AS SUCH, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS HERETOFORE HAD HEREIN.

2. I make this affirmation in opposition to PLAINTIFF's request for a preliminary injunction.

It appears from PLAINTIFF'S MOTION that PLAINTIFF seeks an order "ENJOINING DEFENDANTS FROM CONTINUING TO TREAT AS VALID IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK A NEW YORK STATE MENTAL HYGIENE 9.45 ORDER ISSUED BY DEFENDANT JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN ON AUGUST 22, 2001" and an order "RETURNING PLAINTIFF TO HIS STATUS AS A NON-DANGEROUS PERSON FULLY CAPABLE OF SURVIVING SAFELY BY HIMSELF AS IT WAS ON AUGUST 7, 2001, WITH HIS PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION AND STANDING IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS A NEW YORK STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS IT WAS ON AUGUST 7, 2001, ALONG WITH SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF AS THE COURT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER."

3. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, PLAINTIFF filed "Amended CIVIL RIGHTS Complaint Pursuant to 42 USCS 1983" on August 22, 2003.

THEREAFTER, DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT.

4. BASICALLY, IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS CIVIL RIGHTS ON AUGUST 22, 2001 WHEN CERTAIN CO-DEFENDANTS REQUESTED THE SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS TO ISSUE WHAT IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS A "PICK-UP" ORDER PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45.

5. THE SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS ADMITTEDLY ISSUED THE 9.45 ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF ON AUGUST 22, 2001.

However, PLAINTIFF was never "picked-up" or transported to Samaritan Hospital as a result of this order as he voluntarily went to the VA Medical Center in Albany where he was evaluated and released.

6. As a result of the events in August 2001, PLAINTIFF commenced an Article 78 proceeding in New York State Supreme court and then commenced the instant action in federal court.

PLAINTIFF NOW MOVES FOR THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DESCRIBED ABOVE.

DATED: September 17, 2004

On or about August 14, 2004, the contents of the letter to Judge Walter were formalized in an AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 65, and that motion, with NOTICE was formally served on Eliot Spitzer and ALL other parties, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in relevant part, as follows:

PLAINTIFF NYSPE, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the following statements are true:

3. I make this affidavit pursuant toFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 65 for a preliminary injunction in this above matter ENJOINING DEFENDANTS FROM CONTINUING TO TREAT AS VALID IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK a New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order issued to the Rensselaer County defendants by defendant John Christian Braaten on August 22, 2001; said injunctive relief returning PLAINTIFF to his status as a non-dangerous person fully capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself as it was on August 7, 2001, with his professional reputation and standing in the State of New York as a New York State licensed professional engineer and associate public health engineer in the State of New York fully restored to him as it was on August 7, 2001. (See, Amended Complaint, paras. 6-8)

4.  Annexed hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof is a July 9, 2004 letter from PLAINTIFF pro se to Rensselaer County Court Judge Patrick J. McGrath complaining of continued intimidation and threats of violence and bodily harm to myself made by defendant Jeffrey Pelletier on July 9, 2004 in connection with this above matter. (See, Amended Complaint, paras. 5-15)

5.  Annexed hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof is a July 13, 2004 letter to PLAINTIFF from Judge McGrath wherein Judge McGrath states in relevant part as follows:

"This will acknowledge the court's receipt of your letter dated July 9, 2004, and the attachments thereto, all of which I have reviewed."

"Needless to say, your allegations are disturbing, especially as they encompass potential federal, as well as state, criminal charges, in that they include, among others, an allegation of false imprisonment in a federal facility, Stratton VA Medical Center."

6.  Thus is formed a basis to believe that plaintiff was harmed in the State of New York by the actions of the defendants on and after August 7, 2001. (See, Amended Complaint, paras. 6-30)

DATED:  August 13, 2004
              Poestenkill, N.Y.
                 
signed: PLAINTIFF Pro Se

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CONTINUED ....

7. As to harm that is so imminent as to be irreparable if the Court waits until the end of the trial to resolve the harm, or harm that is threatened which would impair this Court's ability to grant an effective remedy, PLAINTIFF cites the last sentence of the July 13, 2004 McGrath letter annexed hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof where Judge McGrath directs PLAINTIFF TO BRING THE POTENTIAL CRIMINAL MATTERS IN THIS ABOVE ACTION TO THE ATTENTION OF "A COUNTY, STATE OR FEDERAL PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY."

8. AS SHALL BE MADE MORE CLEAR BY THE EVIDENCE ANNEXED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF, HOWEVER, PLAINTIFF IS PRECLUDED FROM DOING SO BY THE ACTIONS OF DEFENDANTS ON AND AFTER AUGUST 22, 2001 (Amended Complaint, p.11, para.30), AND SO IS PRESENTLY WITHOUT EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

9. Hence this Motion for Injunctive Relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65.

10. With respect to the County prosecutorial agency referenced above by Judge McGrath, that would be the Office of the Rensselaer County District Attorney.

11. HOWEVER, NO RELIEF IS COMING TO PLAINTIFF FROM THAT COUNTY PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY, AS DEFENDANTS HAVE ALREADY COMPROMISED THE INTEGRITY OF THAT PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY BY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO IT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF HEREIN, THEREBY INVOLVING IT IN THE AUGUST 22, 2001 "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN" COMPLAINED OF HEREIN.

12. In support of that statement, annexed hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof is a copy of a United States Department of Veterans' Affairs VA Uniform Offense Report dated August 22, 2001 wherein is stated at the bottom of page 2, that "Both (defendants) Reiter and Shea felt that PLAINTIFF would not go the VAMC, SO THEY MADE CONTACT WITH NY STATE POLICE BCI CHRIS O'BRIEN FOR ASSISTANCE."

13. FOR THE RECORD, ON AUGUST 22, 2001, NEW YORK STATE POLICE INVESTIGATOR CHRIS O'BRIEN WAS ASSIGNED TO THE OFFICE OF THE RENSSELAER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, THE SOURCE OF WHICH IS INVESTIGATOR O'BRIEN HIMSELF, INVESTIGATOR O'BRIEN WAS A PART OF THE OFFICE OF THE RENSSELAER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ON AND AFTER AUGUST 22, 2001.

TO BE CONTINUED .....

[Livyjr]

With just a gesture .....

REPUBLICAN New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph "Big Joe the Hammer" Bruno .....

Can have who he considers an "enemy" of himself .....

Like the PLAINTIFF herein ....

A disabled combat veteran .....

Crushed .....

Like an empty Coors beer can ......

WITH COMPLETE IMPUNITY ....

Laws to the contrary be damned .....

And so .....

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CONTINUED ....

10. With respect to the County prosecutorial agency referenced above by Judge McGrath, that would be the Office of the Rensselaer County District Attorney.

11. HOWEVER, NO RELIEF IS COMING TO PLAINTIFF FROM THAT COUNTY PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY, AS DEFENDANTS HAVE ALREADY COMPROMISED THE INTEGRITY OF THAT PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY BY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO IT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF HEREIN, THEREBY INVOLVING IT IN THE AUGUST 22, 2001 "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN" COMPLAINED OF HEREIN.

"Bruno: Not interested in AG job"

By: James V. Franco, The Record

12/07/2001

ALBANY - Despite reports to the contrary, Rensselaer County District Attorney Kenneth Bruno will not challenge sitting state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer next year, who on Thursday announced he will run for a second term.

Spitzer "is prepared to run an energetic race and believes he has a strong record," said spokesman Darren Dopp.

"He's looking forward to the race."

Bruno, son to powerful Republican state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, coasted to his second four-year term last year by defeating attorney Timothy Nugent, a Democrat.

"I am not interested in the least," Kenneth Bruno said of the AG's position.

"The voters of Rensselaer County kept me in this job for another four years, and I appreciate that."

" ... I love this job, and I will continue to work hard for the people of Rensselaer County."

He said he does not have "the faintest idea" who would drop his name.

"Rumors float around all the time," he said.

"There have been a lot of rumors about me in the past, and I am sure there will be more in the future."

Earlier this year, Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue's name was dropped as a potential candidate to challenge Spitzer, but she dispelled that notion - and any speculation that she wants to be a judge - earlier this month when she announced she intends to run along side Gov. George Pataki.

Pataki has not officially announced he will seek a third term, but it appears likely.

It has also been reported that Syracuse attorney Rick Guy, 40, may be considering a run at Spitzer.

The former Syracuse city councilman is under consideration by President Bush for appointment as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York.

Despite the election being less than a year away, GOP officials are holding any other potential candidates, if there are indeed any other strong candidates, close to the vest.

"It's really too early to speculate at this point," said Todd E. Alhart, communications director for the state Republican Committee.

"There is plenty of time before the campaign, and we are not going to get caught up in speculation."

Spitzer, a Manhattan Democrat, narrowly beat one-term incumbent Denis Vacco for the $151,500-a-year job in 1998.

He has addressed such politically popular issues as gun control, acid rain and PCB pollution in the Hudson River.

Perhaps more importantly, however, he has avoided any major blunders in a state that offers him a huge enrollment advantage.

Spitzer's family's real estate fortune helped him beat Vacco in 1998, and any opponent will likely have to raise a considerable amount of money to wage a serious challenge.

http://www.troyrecord.com/site/news.cfm?ne...G=461&...&rfi=6

[Livyjr]

TO: Hon. Gary L. Sharpe, Federal District Judge, Northern District of New York

Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:

1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.

I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.

2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.

8. Ms. Fiorino WAS INFORMED BY A RELIABLE SOURCE that PLAINTIFF had a history of psychiatric illness and had made numerous threats against his neighbor to various DEFENDANTS herein.

Ms. Fiorino reported the information conveyed to her to John Christian Braaten, M.D., a member of the staff of the Good Samaritan Hospital Behavioral Health Crisis Department.

UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY DR. BRAATEN, HE EXERCISED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY pursuant to NYS Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 and 9.40 and CERTIFIED THAT AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" to Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility was warranted.

A copy of the EMERGENCY ADMISSION FORM executed by Dr. Braaten is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".

9. The Department of Veterans Affairs Police at the Stratton VA Medical Center in Albany, New York were notified regarding Plaintiff's history and actions.

The VA Police contacted New York State Trooper, Chris O'Brien, regarding PLAINTIFF, and obtained a copy of the DIRECT ADMISSION paperwork.

10. Around noontime on August 22, 2001, PLAINTIFF presented himself voluntarily at the emergency room of the VAMC FOR TREATMENT.

While at the VAMC, PLAINTIFF was evaluated by William F. Cox, M.D., IN THE SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.

Shortly after the arrival of an Albany, New York Police Officer on PLAINTIFF's behalf, PLAINTIFF was released from the VAMC ....

AT NO TIME WAS PLAINTIFF PICKED UP OR HELD IN CONNECTION WITH THE 9.45 order. 

DATED: September 20, 2004
            Albany, New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)

DAVID E. ROOK, ESQUIRE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AFFIRMS AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am an attorney and counselor at law associated with the law offices of Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP, attorneys representing the Defendants Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342, John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415, Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS") herein, AND AS SUCH, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS HERETOFORE HAD HEREIN.

12. ANY ACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN by the SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS were taken under the AUTHORITY of NYS Mental Hygiene Law and were taken FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND SOCIETY AT LARGE.

DATED: November 10, 2003
            Albany, New York

David E. Rook

Today, we also received Appellee's briefs from the Rensselaer County defendants, to include REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino, and the Northeast Health defendants, to include John Christian Braaten.

Defendant Jimino is represented by Thomas J. O'Connor, who is the brother of REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Governor Mary O'Connor Donohue.

The version of the "facts" as alleged to the Appeals Court by defendant Jimino are as follows:

During the summer of 2001, PLAINTIFF was involved in a dispute with one of his neighbors concerning the issuance of a sewage construction permit by the Rensselaer County Department of Health.

PLAINTIFF claimed, and continues to claim, that the issuance of the sewage construction permit was fraudulent.

Subsequent to the issuance of the permit by the Department of Health, PLAINTIFF commenced his own private "investigation" into the appropriateness of the permit issued to his neighbor.

During the course of this "investigation, PLAINTIFF met with various members of the Rensselaer County government regarding the circumstances which led to the issuance of the permit by the Department of Health.

As the summer progressed, the dispute between PLAINTIFF and his neighbor continued to escalate.

Ultimately, PLAINTIFF became extremely agitated and began making threats to various defendants in this matter.

On August 22, 2001, Timothy Holt, the Rensselaer County Director of Central Services, shut down the Rensselaer County Office Building as a result of PLAINTIFF's threats of bloodshed.

In addition to shutting the Rensselaer County Office Building, Mr. Holt contacted Carol Fiorino, a registered nurse with Samaritan Hospital, regarding the actions and threats of PLAINTIFF.

Ms. Fiorino was informed that he had a history of psychiatric illness and had recently made numerous threats against his neighbor.

Ms. Fiorino was informed that PLAINTIFF suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.

Based upon her receipt of the information, Ms. Fiorino reported the information to John Braaten, M.D., a member of the staff of Samaritan Hospital.

Upon his review of the information and based on his understanding of PLAINTIFF's psychiatric history, and behavior, Dr. Braaten certified that an "emergency admission" pursuant to New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 was appropriate.

end quotes

In REPUBLICAN-controlled Rensselaer County, questioning the conduct of public officials is evidence of mental illness, as is seeking redress of grievance, and thankfully, for the protection of all the other people in the County of Rensselaer, the State of New York, and America, and probably the world as well, Northeast Health is standing by with a team of doctors who are just ready and waiting to deal very effectively with mentally-ill and extremely dangerous licensed professional engineers in the State of New York such as the PLAINTIFF in this matter, for the public good, of course, thank you very much, indeed.

August 16, 2002

LISA ULLMAN, being a duly licensed attorney in the State of New York and an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL in the offices of Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, does hereby affirm under penalties of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106:

1. I am an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE STAFF OF ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General of the State of New York, ATTORNEY for the State respondents in this proceeding.

I HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED THIS CASE AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE FILE.

I make this affirmation in opposition to PETITIONER'S (PLAINTIFF) motion for leave to reargue and renew.

2. This proceeding was commenced by pro se petitioner PLAINTIFF under Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules ("CPLR"), who requested a court order compelling the release of certain mental health records.

SPECIFICALLY, PETITIONER HAD BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45 FOR SEVERAL HOURS ON AUGUST 22, 2001, and had obtained redacted versions of documents pertaining to that COMMITMENT.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO FRCP 65

DEBRA J. YOUNG, ESQUIRE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AFFIRMS AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am an attorney and counselor at law associated with the law offices of Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP, attorneys representing the Defendants Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342, John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415, Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS") herein ....

AND AS SUCH, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS HERETOFORE HAD HEREIN.

2. I make this affirmation in opposition to PLAINTIFF's request for a preliminary injunction.

4. BASICALLY, IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS CIVIL RIGHTS ON AUGUST 22, 2001 WHEN CERTAIN CO-DEFENDANTS REQUESTED THE SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS TO ISSUE WHAT IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS A "PICK-UP" ORDER PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45.

5. THE SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS ADMITTEDLY ISSUED THE 9.45 ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF ON AUGUST 22, 2001.

However, PLAINTIFF was never "picked-up" or transported to Samaritan Hospital as a result of this order as he voluntarily went to the VA Medical Center in Albany where he was evaluated and released.

DATED: September 17, 2004

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CONTINUED ....

10. With respect to the County prosecutorial agency referenced above by Judge McGrath, that would be the Office of the Rensselaer County District Attorney.

11. HOWEVER, NO RELIEF IS COMING TO PLAINTIFF FROM THAT COUNTY PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY, AS DEFENDANTS HAVE ALREADY COMPROMISED THE INTEGRITY OF THAT PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY BY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO IT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF HEREIN, THEREBY INVOLVING IT IN THE AUGUST 22, 2001 "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN" COMPLAINED OF HEREIN.

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CONTINUED ....

14. With respect to Investigator O'Brien's direct involvement in this matter, and the issue of imminent, irreparable harm to PLAINTIFF in this above matter, annexed hereto as Exhibit D and made a part hereof is a copy of an August 14, 2003 letter which PLAINTIFF had sent to Hon. David N. Hurd and all parties herein a year ago concerning PLAINTIFF's need to have access to Investigator O'Brien if the interests of justice were to be served in this matter.

15. The relevant portion of that letter concerning access to Investigator O'Brien is at p.3 and is as follows:

"By blocking PLAINTIFF's access to Investigator O'Brien, who would be necessary to PLAINTIFF as a witness were PLAINTIFF to have defendant Jeffrey Pelletier prosecuted in criminal court in the State of New York on assault charges, defendant Shea, by and through his attorney Nelson Sheingold, is blocking this PLAINTIFF's access to justice and equal protection of the law in the State of New York , which is the sum and substance of the complaint which this court dismissed."

"By blocking PLAINTIFF's access to Investigator O'Brien, defendant William Shea,, wrapped in the authority of his position as a New York State Veteran's Service Officer, and by and through his attorney Nelson Sheingold, IS GUARANTEEING THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WILL EXPIRE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CAN HAVE DEFENDANT JEFFREY PELLETIER PROSECUTED ON CRIMINAL CHARGES IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, despite the opinion of New York State Police Investigator Chris O'Brien.

[Livyjr]

TO: Hon. Gary L. Sharpe, Federal District Judge, Northern District of New York

Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:

1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.

I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services ....

And as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.

10. AT NO TIME WAS PLAINTIFF PICKED UP OR HELD IN CONNECTION WITH THE 9.45 order. 

DATED: September 20, 2004
            Albany, New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO FRCP 65

DEBRA J. YOUNG, ESQUIRE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AFFIRMS AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am an attorney and counselor at law associated with the law offices of Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP, attorneys representing the Defendants Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342, John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415, Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS") herein ....

AND AS SUCH, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS HERETOFORE HAD HEREIN.

5. THE SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS ADMITTEDLY ISSUED THE 9.45 ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF ON AUGUST 22, 2001.

However, PLAINTIFF was never "picked-up" or transported to Samaritan Hospital as a result of this order as he voluntarily went to the VA Medical Center in Albany where he was evaluated and released.

DATED: September 17, 2004

August 16, 2002

LISA ULLMAN, being a duly licensed attorney in the State of New York and an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL in the offices of Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, does hereby affirm under penalties of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106:

1. I am an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE STAFF OF ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General of the State of New York, ATTORNEY for the State respondents in this proceeding.

I HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED THIS CASE AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE FILE.

I make this affirmation in opposition to PETITIONER'S (PLAINTIFF) motion for leave to reargue and renew.

2. This proceeding was commenced by pro se petitioner PLAINTIFF under Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules ("CPLR"), who requested a court order compelling the release of certain mental health records.

SPECIFICALLY, PETITIONER HAD BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45 FOR SEVERAL HOURS ON AUGUST 22, 2001, and had obtained redacted versions of documents pertaining to that COMMITMENT.

And once again .....

Good morning, America .....

And the candid world as well .....

WHO HAS BEEN WATCHING OUR AMERICA .....

BY INVITATION .....

Since 1776 .....

When "facts" .....

Were submitted ....

To that candid world ......

By the PEOPLE ..

Of the original thirteen states .....

Of the "United States of America" ....

As to why ...

The PEOPLE ...

Of the United States of America .....

Were severing their ties .....

With the King ...

And PEOPLE ...

Of Great Britain .....

And so .....

WHERE HAVE WE GOTTEN TO SINCE THEN .....

Might be a sub-title ...

To this thread .....

Where we are taking a close look ...

A "hard look" .....

At how ...

A law-abiding disabled veteran .....

In the State of New York .....

Who had his liberty stripped from him ...

By the defendants in this matter .....

On August 22, 2001 ....

WAS DENIED ACCESS ....

TO JUSTICE ...

IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT .....

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ...

BY A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE .....

APPOINTED BY GEORGE W. BUSH ....

BASED ON NOTHING MORE ...

THAN THE OUTRIGHT LIES ...

AND FALSEHOODS ....

OF THESE LAWYERS ABOVE HERE ....

THIS SHAWN T. NASH, ESQUIRE ....

AND DEBRA J. YOUNG, ESQUIRE ....

OUTRIGHT LIES .....

AND FALSEHOODS .....

THAT WERE COUNTENANCED .....

ACCEPTED ...

AND APPROVED OF ...

BY THE BUSH-APPOINTEE JUDGE ....

AND NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ELIOT SPITZER .....

WHOSE OWN OFFICE ....

KNEW OF ...

AND THEN ...

COVERED OVER ....

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER .....

TO "DEFEND" ....

THE PRACTICE .....

OF PROVIDING ....

PROTECTION ....

FROM THE LAW ....

TO "CONNECTED" ....

OR "PROTECTED" .....

PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

WHO "PURCHASE" THAT PROTECTION .....

FROM THOSE IN POWER UP HERE .....

IN GOVERNMENT ...

WHO HAVE THAT "PROTECTION" ....

TO SELL ...

And so ....

When you read the words of these three lawyers above here .....

And as you consider the contents of this thread ....

Keep in mind ...

That of the three ...

ONLY LISA ULLMAN .....

OF ELIOT SPITZER'S "SHOP" .....

IS TELLING THE TRUTH ....

ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY DID OCCUR .....

ON AUGUST 22, 2001 .....

AT THE STRATTON VA HOSPITAL .....

IN CORRUPT ALBANY, NEW YORK .....

WHILE THE OTHER TWO ....

NASH .....

AND YOUNG ...

ARE LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH .....

INTO THE SYMPATHETIC EAR .....

OF THE BUSH-APPOINTEE FEDERAL JUDGE .....

WHO TOSSED ....

THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT UNDER DISCUSSION IN HERE ....

BASED ON THOSE "SWEET LIES" ...

AND NOTHING MORE ....

And so .....

[Livyjr]

"Study condemns Bush legal tactic - Legal panel calls use of "signing statements" a constitutional issue"

By MICHAEL ABRAMOWITZ, Washington Post
First published: Monday, July 24, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.

In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined.

The panel members described the development as a serious threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances, and they urged Congress to pass legislation permitting court review of such statements.

"The President is indicating that he will not either enforce part or the entirety of congressional bills," said ABA President Michael Greco.

"We will be close to a constitutional crisis if this issue, the President's use of signing statements, is left unchecked."

The report seemed likely to fuel the controversy over signing statements, which Bush has used to challenge laws ranging from a congressional ban on torture and a request for data on the Patriot Act, to whistle-blower protections and the banning of U.S. troops in fighting rebels in Colombia.

Administration officials describe them as a part of routine presidential practice.

"Presidents have issued signing statements since the early days of our country," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Sunday.

"President Bush's signing statements are consistent with prior administrations' signing statements."

"He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate way."

Bush has vetoed only one bill since taking office, a bill approved by Congress last week relaxing his limits on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research.

But he has on many occasions signed bills, then issued statements reserving the right not to enforce or execute parts of the new laws, on the grounds that they infringe on presidential authority or violate other constitutional provisions.

Perhaps the most prominent example was legislation last year banning cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners at U.S. detention centers.

Bush signed the bill into law after a struggle with Congress, then followed it with an official statement indicating he might waive the ban under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, if necessary to prevent a terror attack.

Determining the rarity of this approach is a matter of some dispute.

The Justice Department has said Bush has issued 110 signing statements, compared with President Bill Clinton's 80.

In testimony last month before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michelle Boardman denied Bush was trying to "cherry pick" among parts of a duly enacted law.

"Presidential signing statements are, rather, a statement by the President explaining his interpretation of and responsibilities under the law," she said.

The ABA task force, chaired by Miami attorney Neil Sonnett, cites research that Bush in his signing statements has collectively lodged more than 800 challenges to provisions of laws passed by Congress.

Task force members said the nature of the challenges has also changed under Bush, with many objections being lodged under the "unitary executive" theory, the idea that congressional checks on the president's power are limited.

If the President has constitutional problems with a bill, the task force said, he should convey those concerns to Congress before it reaches his desk.

The panel said signing statements should not be a substitute for vetoing bills the President considers unconstitutional.

"The President's constitutional duty is to enforce laws he has signed into being unless and until they are held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or a subordinate tribunal," panel members wrote.

"The Constitution is not what the President says it is."

"The President greatly respects the roles of the branches of our government," Perino said, "and anyone to suggest otherwise is ignoring the facts of our continued efforts to work with the Hill on all matters of legislation."

The impact of the report on the administration is uncertain, given the belief by many conservatives and some members of the Bush administration that the ABA is liberally biased.

Early in its tenure, the administration ended the association's special role in evaluating judicial nominations.

The 10-member ABA panel includes at least three well-known conservatives or Republicans: former congressman Mickey Edwards, R-Okla., former FBI Director William Sessions and former Reagan Justice Department member Bruce Fein.

It also includes former appellate Judge Patricia Wald, former Stanford Law School Dean Kathleen Sullivan and Harvard law professor Charles J. Ogletree Jr.

The report will be considered by the full ABA at its meeting next month.