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

[Livyjr]

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

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

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

"Livyjr, for the sake of clarity in here, would you please post what this Bush-appointee federal judge stated in his March 31, 2005 decision in this federal court matter as his version of the events of August 22, 2001 that led him to toss out this federal civil rights lawsuit on March 31, 2005, and then compare that version of events with what Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman was telling a New York State Supreme Court Judge for Rensselaer County under penalty of perjury in 2002 about the same set of events?"

And so ....

THE ANATOMY OF A SLICK COVER-UP IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CONTINUES ......

As follows:

On August 9, 2001, defendant REITER (Rensselaer County Director of Veterans' Services) WARNED PLAINTIFF to "BACK OFF" the Pelletier investigation BECAUSE HE (Pelletier) WAS A "PROTECTED PERSON" IN THE COUNTY.

Thereafter, he (PLAINTIFF) claims that Jimino (REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE KATHLEEN JIMINO) conspired with Cybulski (COUNTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES) to obtain a fraudulent involuntary commitment order AND A MEDICAL CERTIFICATION from Samaritan Hospital.

Specifically, Cybulski conspired with Braaten (a Samaritan physician) to procure the alleged fraudulent order and medical certifcation WITHOUT HAVING EXAMINED PLAINTIFF.

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.

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

DATED: September 17, 2004

"WHILE BRAATEN COMPLETED A PICK-UP ORDER FOR THE STATE POLICE TO DETAIN AND TRANSPORT PLAINTIFF TO THE SAMARITAN MENTAL FACILITY, HE WAS NEVER TRANSPORTED OR DETAINED AT SAMARITAN."

- Footnote #9 to March 31, 2005 Decision of Federal District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe Under Discussion herein

AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN

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.

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 ....

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

OCTOBER 20, 1992 - EXAMINATION OF DR. LAWRENCE C. KOLB, M.D. by REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT A. SMITH, ESQUIRE

SMITH: I believe at one point in your testimony, you characterized PLAINTIFF as a man of high principles  and I believe you also said in words or substance that he was accepting of directions and orders.

IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

KOLB: IT WAS MY ESTIMATION OF THE MAN'S PERSONAL MAKE-UP!

July 15, 2004

TO: Hon. Donald E. Walter, Senior Federal District Judge from Louisiana

Your Honor:

On May 12, 2004, I received a Notice from Hon. Frederick Scullin, Chief District Court Judge, Northern District of New York, informing me that the above matter has been transferred to Your Honor for disposition "by motion or trial".

And since I understand that Your Honor is coming into the Northern District of New York from the Southern District of Louisiana, I also wish at this time to clarify those "state issues" by bringing them to the Court's attention at this time.

With respect to my disability, specifically, I would ask that the Court take judicial notice of the August 14, 1991 Notice of Board Decision of the New York State Workers' Compensation Review Board finding in my favor in Matter of PLAINTIFF v. Rensselaer County Department of Health, W.C.B. (blank), which is annexed hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof.

Pursuant to section 18 of Article I of the New York State Constitution, where the events in question and at issue herein occurred, "Nothing contained in this constitution shall be construed to limit the power of the legislature to enact laws for the protection of the lives, health, or safety of employees".

Section 18 of Article I of the New York State Constitution further states that nothing contained in the New York State Constitution shall be construed to "limit the power of the legislature to enact laws for the adjustment, determination and settlement, with or without trial by jury, of issues which may arise under such legislation."

Thus, in the State of New York, it is a Constitutional right of an employee to have his or her life, health and safety protected from an employer ....

And in the instant matter, on August 14, 1991, in the decision annexed hereto as Exhibit A ....

The New York State Workers' Compensation Review Board ....

Which had sole jurisdiction in the matter pursuant to New York State Workers' Compensation Law ....

Found that upon review of the entire record before it .....

Including medical reports of Doctors KOLB .....

And SHEREMETA ....

And PLAINTIFF's own statements ....

That record constituted prima facie medical evidence ....

That my life, health and safety .....

Had been put in harm's way .....

As an employee of the Rensselaer County Department of Health in 1988 .....

That I had in fact been harmed .....

In regard to my life, health and safety in 1988 during my employment with the Rensselaer County Department of Health ....

And that as a consequence .....

As a matter of law in the State of New York .....

I was entitled to an award of damages from the Rensselaer County Department of Health.

In the State of New York, the Workers' Compensation Review Board had jurisdiction to be the "exclusive trier of facts" in that matter, so that in the instant case, with respect to my standing as a disabled person herein, both the County of Rensselaer employees named above and the State of New York employee, as well as the Office of the New York State Attorney General who is providing legal counsel for that state employee, are all bound by those findings pursuant to the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata in the State of New York.

Furthermore, by New York State law, in the case of any direct or indirect challenges to those findings, as appears to be the case herein by the Rensselaer County defendants, and State defendant William Shea, it is the responsibility of the Office of the New York State Attorney General to defend those findings of the New York State Workers' Compensation Review Board annexed hereto as Exhibit A, which duty appears to be coming into conflict herein in its defense of defendant William Shea in this above matter, which conflict contributes to my present state of distress and mental anguish in this instant matter, where I am prey to defendant Jeffrey Pelletier without apparent recourse to justice in my home town in the State of New York as a result of the August 22, 2001 "psychiatric takedown" complained of in the Amended Complaint herein.

Thanking Your Honor in advance for your prompt consideration of this matter, I remain

                                    Respectfully yours,

                                    Plaintiff pro se

CC:  Office of the Attorney General
New York State
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

Thuillez, Ford Law Firm
Donald P. Ford, Esq.
20 Corporate Woods Boulevard
6th Floor
Albany, New York 12211

Colleen H. Whalen, Esq.
P.O. Box 899 1743 Route 9
Clifton Park, New York 12065

DeGraff Foy Law Firm
George J. Szary, Esq.
90 State Street
Albany, New York 12207

Engel Law Firm
Kevin Engel, Esq.
73 Troy Road, Suite 2C
East Greenbush, New York 12061

David T. Luntz, Esq.
Ryan & Smallacombe, PLLC
100 State Street, Suite 800
Albany, New York 12207

Napierski, Vandenburgh & Napierski, L.L.P.
Thomas J. O'Connor, Esq.
296 Washington Ave. Ext.
Albany, New York 12203

Morton D. Shulman
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1000
Averill Park, New York 12018

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

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.

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.

DATED: September 20, 2004
            Albany, New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EXAMINATION OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOHN L. BUONO, BY ORDER, HELD AT THE CONFERENCE ROOM A, RENSSELAER COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING, TROY, NEW YORK

SEPTEMBER 27, 1994

Q: Did there come a time in May 1993 when you were consulted about a WORKER'S COMPENSATION proceeding that PLAINTIFF had initiated?

BUONO: YES.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE THAT ON OR ABOUT JULY 18, 1993 THAT THE COUNTY HAD ENTERED INTO A STIPULATION THAT PLAINTIFF HAD SUFFERED A PARTIAL DISABILITY AS A RESULT OF A WORK-RELATED ILLNESS THAT WAS GENERATED DURING THE TIME HE WAS EMPLOYED AS THE ENGINEER FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT?

BUONO: I'M AWARE OF THAT, YES!

Q: And ultimately, prior to the time that the stipulation was entered into, did you consent to it?

BUONO: YES ....

OCTOBER 20, 1992 - EXAMINATION OF DR. LAWRENCE C. KOLB, M.D. by REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT A. SMITH, ESQUIRE, continued

SMITH: And what was the basis for your estimate of that personal make-up?

KOLB: Well, I had taken his history, I had taken a developed mental history on both his early life and his life at home and the way he was raised .....

THE WAY DOCTORS GET A GENERAL IDEA OF PERSONALITY ....

SMITH: And when did you form that particular conclusion that he was accepting of direction of others?

KOLB: I formed it when I first saw him and again when I listened to his account of how he did his work .....

SMITH: SO IT WAS HIS ACCOUNT OF HOW HE DID HIS WORK AND HIS APPEARANCE BEFORE YOU THAT LED TO THAT CONCLUSION?

KOLB: Yes .....

SMITH: THERE WASN'T ANY INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION OF THAT?

KOLB: NO, IT WAS A PSYCHOLOGICAL OPINION, PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT .....

[Livyjr]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EXAMINATION OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOHN L. BUONO, BY ORDER, HELD AT THE CONFERENCE ROOM A, RENSSELAER COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING, TROY, NEW YORK

SEPTEMBER 27, 1994

Q: Did there come a time in May 1993 when you were consulted about a WORKER'S COMPENSATION proceeding that PLAINTIFF had initiated?

BUONO: YES.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE THAT ON OR ABOUT JULY 18, 1993 THAT THE COUNTY HAD ENTERED INTO A STIPULATION THAT PLAINTIFF HAD SUFFERED A PARTIAL DISABILITY AS A RESULT OF A WORK-RELATED ILLNESS THAT WAS GENERATED DURING THE TIME HE WAS EMPLOYED AS THE ENGINEER FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT?

BUONO: I'M AWARE OF THAT, YES!

Q: And ultimately, prior to the time that the stipulation was entered into, did you consent to it?

BUONO: YES ....

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.

8. Ms. Fiorino WAS INFORMED BY A RELIABLE SOURCE that PLAINTIFF had a history of psychiatric illness ....... .......

DATED: September 20, 2004
            Albany, New York

STIPULATION:

A material condition, requirement, or article in an agreement ......

The name given to any agreement made by the attorneys engaged on opposite sides of a cause (ESPECIALLY IF IN WRITING) regulating any matter incidental to the proceedings or trial, which falls within their jurisdiction.

Voluntary agreement between opposing council concerning disposition OF SOME RELEVANT POINT SO AS TO OBVIATE NEED FOR PROOF OR TO NARROW RANGE OF LITIGABLE ISSUES ......

AN AGREEMENT, ADMISSION OR CONFESSION MADE IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING BY THE PARTIES THERETO OR THEIR ATTORNEYS .......

SUCH ARE EVIDENTIARY DEVICES USED TO SIMPLIFY AND EXPEDITE TRIALS BY DISPENSING WITH THE NEED TO PROVE FORMALLY UNCONTESTED FACTUAL ISSUES .......

- Black's Law Dictionary

[Livyjr]

TRAVESTY:

A DEBASED, DISTORTED, OR GROSSLY INFERIOR IMITATION .....

AS IN TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE ....

- Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary

[Livyjr]

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

"Livyjr, I'm still trying to understand the gist of this July 29, 2004 letter from this Marguerite Conan to the PLAINTIFF, specifically, why a case from the State of New York would be transferred to a judge from Louisiana, which not only has a completely different body of law from that which exists in the State of New York, but also is over one thousand miles away, which would seem to preclude the PLAINTIFF from having his day in court, when the court is so far distant away from him, and so, can you shed any further light on this issue, for me, thank you?"

And yes .....

We wonder about that, too .....

Quite often, actually ....

And so, yesterday ....

I went and dug out a copy of what was called the REFERRAL ORDER .....

Transferring this matter over to this Judge from Louisiana .....

Which was date-stamped on May 11, 2004 ....

About two months BEFORE PLAINTIFF sent the judge from Louisiana his July 15, 2004 letter we have been citing from in here ..........

And what that REFERRAL ORDER says is as follows:

Due to the number of motions now pending in the Northern District of New York, the SECOND CIRCUIT COUNCIL has authorized the HON. DONALD E. WALTER to sit by designation in the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK from MAY 1, 2004, THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2004.

The Order was signed by Hon. Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., Chief U.S. District Judge ......

ON MAY 11, 2004 ....

TEN (10) DAYS AFTER THAT JUDGE FROM LOUISIANA ....

HAD BEEN DESIGNATED ....

TO SIT IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

BY THE SECOND CIRCUIT COUNCIL ......

WHEREVER .....

AND WHATEVER ...

THAT IN FACT MIGHT BE ....

And only one other case besides the PLAINTIFF's was transferred over to this judge from Louisiana ......

WHO THE PLAINTIFF NEVER HEARD A WORD FROM, PERIOD ......

AS IF HE NEVER EXISTED .....

Which is what prompted the PLAINTIFF, two months later, to send his letter on July 15, 2004 that we have been quoting from in here .....

And shortly after PLAINTIFF sent that letter .....

Which was apparently intercepted by this Randolph Treece .....

And sent over to this lawyer for the court, Marguerite Conan ....

Instead of to the Judge from Louisiana .....

Who the case had been assigned to, for "DISPOSITION BY TRIAL AND/OR MOTION" ......

The PLAINTIFF learned from this Marguerite Conan of the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM ....

ON JULY 29, 2004 .....

THREE (3) MONTHS BEFORE THIS LOUISIANA JUDGE'S TENURE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WAS SET TO EXPIRE ......

That for some unexplained reason .....

The case had been taken back away from him .....

And apparently reassigned ......

Back to Judge Hurd ....

WHO HAD RULED ...

IN A SIMILAR CASE .....

IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

IN 2002 ......

Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services et al., 234 F.Supp.2d 140, 169 (NDNY 2002) .....

THAT A VERY SIMILAR SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES .....

TO THOSE COMPLAINED OF ...

IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ....

CONSTITUTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW ....

WHICH IS WHAT RENSSELAER COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT JUDGE HON. PATRICK McGRATH .....

FOUND ON JULY 13, 2004, AS WELL .....

Where in 2002 .....

Judge Hurd had held .....

"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!" .....

Judge McGrath held .....

That it also violated state and federal criminal statutes .....

And so ....

THAT IS WHAT TRIGGERED THIS EXCHANGE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF .....

AND THE FEDERAL JUDGE FROM LOUISIANA .....

WHO WAS NEVER SEEN OR HEARD FROM ....

BY ANY OF US UP HERE .....

AND WHETHER THAT IS WHAT CAUSED CHIEF JUDGE SCULLIN .....

OR MARGUERITE CONAN ......

OR WHOMEVER .....

TO PULL THIS CASE BACK AWAY FROM THAT LOUISIANA JUDGE .....

WE JUST DON'T KNOW .....

IN HER LETTER TO PLAINTIFF .....

THIS MARGUERITE CONAN SAYS:

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.

BUT THAT IS NOT EXACTLY TRUE .....

SINCE PLAINTIFF WAS JUST LEARNING FROM HER ...

THAT THIS HAD HAPPENED ...

And so ......

ALL THE FEDERAL COURT DID .....

FROM THE TIME THAT THIS CASE WAS FILED .....

WITH THE FEDERAL COURT ...

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

WAS TO BOUNCE THIS CASE AROUND ...

LIKE A LITTLE RUBBER BALL ...

NOW IT'S HERE ...

WHOOPS ...

OH, NOW IT'S OVER THERE ...

NO, IT'S NOT ...

NOW IT'S BACK OVER HERE AGAIN ...

OH, HOW ABOUT THAT ...

NOW IT'S SOMEWHERE ELSE ....

OH, NO ...

IT'S NOT, REALLY ....

IT'S BACK HERE AGAIN ....

And so ...

And to make matters even more confusing .....

Attached to the same REFERRAL ORDER .....

TRANSFERRING THE MATTER TO JUDGE WALTER .....

WAS AN ORDER ....

SIGNED ALSO BY JUDGE SCULLIN ....

REASSIGNING THE CASE ....

TO A "VISITING JUDGE STROM FOR DISPOSITION BY TRIAL OR MOTION" .....

And so .....

IT'S A MOCKERY .....

A TRAVESTY ....

A REAL, LIVE DEBASED, DISTORTED, OR GROSSLY INFERIOR IMITATION .....

OF WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT .....

A CIVIL RIGHTS PROCEEDING .....

IN A REAL FEDERAL COURT TO BE ....

BEFORE GEORGE W. BUSH CONVERTED THEM .....

INTO SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT .....

SOMETHING OBSCENE .....

TO LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZENS ....

SUCH AS US UP HERE .....

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

And so ......

This thread .....

To talk about it .....

And so ....

This post has been edited by Livyjr: Aug 1 2006, 05:56 AM

[Livyjr]

It is time to pause for a second ....

And to take a look .....

At the words .....

In this following sentence .....

From the March 231, 2005 federal District Court decision ....

Under discussion in here ....

ACCORDINGLY, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IS DENIED AS MOOT!

And to then consider .....

The implications .....

Of what that sentence means .....

As we have been doing .....

Since we got that decision .....

Back in March of 2005 .....

AT THE TIME .....

WE STARTED THIS THREAD .....

And it has to do .....

With what the federal District Court ......

Is really saying .....

When it says ....

THIS MOTION ...

OR PRAYER .....

FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF .....

THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW ...

ALONG WITH .....

THE LAW ....

AND EVIDENCE .....

Which support that MOTION .....

IS MOOT ....

And that meaning is this ....

IF .....

THE MOTION ....

IS MOOT ....

THEN ....

THAT MEANS .....

THAT THE MOTION WAS MADE ....

AND IF THE MOTION WAS MADE ......

And was before the COURT .....

THEN .....

IT FOLLOWS ....

THAT PLAINTIFF ....

HAD TO HAVE STANDING .....

IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ....

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

IN THE FIRST PLACE ....

OR ELSE ...

PLAINTIFF ...

NEVER ...

WOULD HAVE BEEN ....

AFFORDED ....

AN OPPOPRTUNITY ...

BY THE COURT ...

TO MAKE AND FILE THAT MOTION ......

IF ....

PLAINTIFF ...

HAD NO STANDING ...

HE NEVER ...

WOULD HAVE BEEN ...

ALLOWED .....

BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ....

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

TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT .....

BUT ...

HE WAS .....

ALLOWED ....

TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT .....

AND HENCE ....

HE DID HAVE STANDING ...

AND SO .....

BY THE THREE-PRONG STANDING TEST ....

SET DOWN .....

BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT .....

IN Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 558 (1992) ....

ELEVEN (11) YEARS BEFORE THE COMPLAINT IN THIS MATTER ....

WAS FILED ...

WITH THE CLERK ....

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

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT .....

DID HAVE MERIT ...

AND HENCE .....

SHOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD .....

BY A JURY ...

BUT FOR ...

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ...

GARY L. SHARPE  .....

ALTERING THE FACTS ....

WITH HIS JUDICIAL PEN ....

SO THAT HE WOULD HAVE A SELF-CREATED PRETEXT ....

ON WHICH TO TOSS THE CASE ....

TO PLAINTIFF'S HARM ....

AND OURS AS WELL ....

And so ....

And shortly after PLAINTIFF sent that letter .....

Which was apparently intercepted by this Randolph Treece .....

And sent over to this lawyer for the court, Marguerite Conan ....

Instead of to the Judge from Louisiana .....

Who the case had been assigned to, for "DISPOSITION BY TRIAL AND/OR MOTION" ......

The PLAINTIFF learned from this Marguerite Conan of the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM ....

ON JULY 29, 2004 .....

THREE (3) MONTHS BEFORE THIS LOUISIANA JUDGE'S TENURE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WAS SET TO EXPIRE ......

That for some unexplained reason .....

The case had been taken back away from him .....

And apparently reassigned ......

Back to Judge Hurd ....

WHO HAD RULED ...

IN A SIMILAR CASE .....

IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

IN 2002 ......

Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services et al., 234 F.Supp.2d 140, 169 (NDNY 2002) .....

THAT A VERY SIMILAR SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES .....

TO THOSE COMPLAINED OF ...

IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ....

CONSTITUTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW ....

WHICH IS WHAT RENSSELAER COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT JUDGE HON. PATRICK McGRATH .....

FOUND ON JULY 13, 2004, AS WELL .....

Where in 2002 .....

Judge Hurd had held  .....

"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!" .....

Judge McGrath held .....

That it also violated state and federal criminal statutes .....

And so ....

Federal question jurisdiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal question jurisdiction is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect.

However, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the newly created federal courts to hear such cases, it initially chose not to allow the lower federal courts to possess federal question jurisdiction for fear that it would make the courts too powerful.

The Federalists briefly created such jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1801, but it was repealed the following year, and not restored until 1885.

The statute is now found at 28 U.S.C. § 1331:

"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

Unlike diversity jurisdiction, which is based on the parties coming from different states, federal question jurisdiction no longer has any amount in controversy requirement - Congress eliminated this requirement in actions against the United States in 1976, and in all federal question cases in 1980.

Therefore, a federal court can hear a federal question case even if no money is sought by the plaintiff.

To meet the requirement of a case "arising under" federal law, the federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's complaint.

There has been considerable dispute over what constitutes a "federal question" in these circumstances, but it is now settled law that the plaintiff cannot seek the jurisdiction of a federal court merely because it anticipates that the defendant is going to raise a defense based on the Constitution, or on a federal statute.

This "well-pleaded complaint" rule has been criticized by legal scholars, but Congress has so far chosen not to change the law, although the Supreme Court has made clear it is free to do so.

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_q...on_jurisdiction

[Livyjr]

UNDERSTANDING THE FEDERAL COURTS

Before a federal court can hear a case, or "exercise its jurisdiction," certain conditions must be met.

First, under the Constitution, federal courts exercise only "judicial" powers.

This means that federal judges may interpret the law only through the resolution of actual legal disputes, referred to in Article III of the Constitution as "Cases or Controversies."

A court cannot attempt to correct a problem on its own initiative, or to answer a hypothetical legal question.

Second, assuming there is an actual case or controversy, the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit also must have legal "standing" to ask the court for a decision.

That means the plaintiff must have been aggrieved, or legally harmed in some way, by the defendant.

Third, the case must present a category of dispute that the law in question was designed to address, and it must be a complaint that the court has the power to remedy.

In other words, the court must be authorized, under the Constitution or a federal law, to hear the case and grant appropriate relief to the plaintiff.

Finally, the case cannot be "moot," that is, it must present an ongoing problem for the court to resolve.

The federal courts, thus, are courts of "limited" jurisdiction because they may only decide certain types of cases as provided by Congress or as identified in the Constitution.

Although the details of the complex web of federal jurisdiction that Congress has given the federal courts is beyond the scope of this brief guide, it is important to understand that there are two main sources of the cases coming before the federal courts: "federal question" jurisdiction, and "diversity" jurisdiction.

In general, federal courts may decide cases that involve the United States government, the United States Constitution or federal laws, or controversies between states or between the United States and foreign governments.

A case that raises such a "federal question" may be filed in federal court.

Examples of such cases might include a claim by an individual for entitlement to money under a federal government program such as Social Security, a claim by the government that someone has violated federal laws, or a challenge to actions taken by a federal agency.

A case also may be filed in federal court based on the "diversity of citizenship" of the litigants, such as between citizens of different states, or between United States citizens and those of another country.

To ensure fairness to the out-of-state litigant, the Constitution provides that such cases may be heard in a federal court.

An important limit to diversity jurisdiction is that only cases involving more than $75,000 in potential damages may be filed in a federal court.

Claims below that amount may only be pursued in state court.

Moreover, any diversity jurisdiction case regardless of the amount of money involved may be brought in a state court rather than a federal court.

Federal courts also have jurisdiction over all bankruptcy matters, which Congress has determined should be addressed in federal courts rather than the state courts.

Through the bankruptcy process, individuals or businesses that can no longer pay their creditors may either seek a court-supervised liquidation of their assets, or they may reorganize their financial affairs and work out a plan to pay off their debts.

Although federal courts are located in every state, they are not the only forum available to potential litigants.

In fact, the great majority of legal disputes in American courts are addressed in the separate state court systems.

For example, state courts have jurisdiction over virtually all divorce and child custody matters, probate and inheritance issues, real estate questions, and juvenile matters, and they handle most criminal cases, contract disputes, traffic violations, and personal injury cases.

In addition, certain categories of legal disputes may be resolved in special courts or entities that are part of the federal executive or legislative branches, and by state and federal administrative agencies.

http://www.www.uscourts.gov/understand03/content_4_0.html

[Livyjr]

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.

LIBERTY INTEREST:

An INTEREST recognized as protected by the DUE PROCESS CLAUSES of state and federal constitutions .....

AS WELL AS INTERESTS CREATED WHEN STATES EITHER LEGISLATIVELY OR ADMINISTRATIVELY IMPOSE LIMITATIONS ON THEIR DISCRETION AND REQUIRE THAT A SPECIFIC STANDARD PREVAIL IN DECISION MAKING .....

- Black's Law Dictionary

NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE I - BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 14. Such parts of the common law and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony, on the nineteenth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-five, and the resolutions of the congress of the said colony, and of the convention of the State of New York, in force on the twentieth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-seven, which have not since expired, or been repealed or altered; and such acts of the legislature of this state as are now in force, shall be and continue the law of this state, subject to such alterations as the legislature shall make concerning the same.

But all such parts of the common law, and such of the said acts, or parts thereof, as are repugnant to this constitution, are hereby abrogated.

"Livyjr, I'm still trying to understand the gist of this July 29, 2004 letter from this Marguerite Conan to the PLAINTIFF, specifically, why a case from the State of New York would be transferred to a judge from Louisiana, which not only has a completely different body of law from that which exists in the State of New York, but also is over one thousand miles away, which would seem to preclude the PLAINTIFF from having his day in court, when the court is so far distant away from him, and so, can you shed any further light on this issue, for me, thank you?"

"Livyjr, you seem to have an understanding of what this above reader was talking about when they made that statement above about Louisiana having a completely different body of law from that which exists in the State of New York; could you address that issue more fully, please?"

Well ...

Here is a question, indeed .....

And it goes to this issue of DUAL CITIZENSHIP ....

That is inherent in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States constitution .....

AS CAST AGAINST ......

THE ISSUE .....

OF THE "FEDERAL QUESTION" .....

As a prerequisite .....

To STANDING .....

In a federal district court .....

Here in OUR America ....

ESSENTIALLY ....

YOU ARE ALWAYS .....

A "CITIZEN" ......

OF THE STATE THAT YOU ARE IN .....

ENTITLED .....

TO THE PROTECTIONS ....

AFFORDED TO CITZENS ....

OF THAT STATE ....

BY ITS LAW ...

AND CONSTITUTION ....

AND HERE ...

THERE ARE HUGE DIFFERENCES .....

IN INTERPRETATION .....

OF THE RIGHTS ....

OF STATE CITIZENS ....

BETWEEN THE TWO .....

LOUISIANA ....

AND NEW YORK ....

LOUISIANA .....

WAS FRENCH .....

AND HAS PARISH LAW ....

WHICH IS UNIQUE TO LOUISIANA ....

LOUISIANA .....

LIKE OTHER STATES IN THE UNION ....

WAS FOR SLAVERY ...

THROUGH THE WAR OF THE REBELLION ....

OR SO ....

AND SO ....

TO US UP HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ...

WHICH LEGALLY ABOLISHED SLAVERY .....

IN 1827 .....

THE LAWS OF LOUISIANA .....

LOOK DIFFERENTLY ....

UPON THE QUESTION ....

OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN ....

THAN DO THOSE ....

OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ...

UNDER ITS OWN CONSTITUTION ....

WHICH DATES BACK ....

TO INDEPENDENCE FROM ENGLAND ....

WHICH GIVES IT A DIFFERENT SLANT .....

AND HISTORY ....

THAN LOUISIANA ....

WHICH WAS PURCHASED FROM FRANCE ....

LONG AFTER INDEPENDENCE ....

FROM ENGLISH TYRANNY HAD BEEN WON .....

And so ....

LAWS AND HISTORY BEING INTERTWINED AS THEY ARE ...

IN TERMS OF INTERPRETATIONS GIVEN .....

BASED UPON PRECEDENTS FORMED .....

IN ONE STATE VERSUS ANOTHER ....

TO US, IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

HAVING OUR RIGHTS UP HERE ...

AS CITIZENS OF STATE OF NEW YORK ....

JUDGED BY STANDARDS EMPLOYED DOWN IN LOUISIANA ....

WOULD CONSTITUTE AN EROSION OF OUR LIBERTY INTERESTS .....

WHICH ARE DETERMINED ....

BY THE CONSTITUTION ....

AND LAWS ....

OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ...

AND NOT THOSE ...

OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA ....

And so ...

And subjecting someone down in Louisiana .....

To an interpretation ....

Of their rights down there .....

According to New York law ....

Would be a similar invasion on their rights .....

By the federal court ......

And so .....

[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.

One level down, dozens of conservative appeals court judges appointed by Bush already are helping to shape the law in ways that ultimately could have as much, and in some ways even more, impact than the nine justices of the nation's highest court.

Since Bush's appellate judges have only gradually taken their seats on benches around the country, and the cases that they draw run the gamut, it's still early to chart their impact on specific issues.

But already it is clear that these judges make up a solidly conservative crowd that tends to lean Bush's way on the big issues of the day.

"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.

Bush's district appointees stand out as particularly conservative on civil liberties cases such as abortion, freedom of speech and gay rights, Carp found.

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.

Federal question jurisdiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal question jurisdiction is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect.

However, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the newly created federal courts to hear such cases, it initially chose not to allow the lower federal courts to possess federal question jurisdiction for fear that it would make the courts too powerful.

The Federalists briefly created such jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1801, but it was repealed the following year, and not restored until 1885.

The statute is now found at 28 U.S.C. § 1331:

"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_q...on_jurisdiction

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

And here .....

With the juxtaposition of these three prior posts above here .....

We start to get ...

To the "GROUND-ZERO" .....

Of this discussion in here .....

Which has to do ....

WITH LAW ...

AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS ...

AND SAFEGUARDS ....

FOR ALL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ALLEGEDLY .....

AND THE MEANS ....

TO VINDICATE THOSE RIGHTS .....

ACCORDING TO THE LAW .....

AS IT IS WRITTEN ....

VERSUS "CONSERVATIVE" POLITICS ....

Which politics .....

Has it in mind ...

To control the courts ....

And have them be ...

As they were in the original colonies ...

Before INDEPENDENCE ....

MERE EXTENSIONS ....

OF THE EXECUTIVE ....

WHO CAN PROTECT ...

WHO HE WILL ....

IN HIS COURTS ...

REGARDLESS OF GUILT .....

AND PUNISH WHO HE WILL ...

IN HIS COURTS ...

INNOCENCE NOTWITHSTANDING .....

OUR COURTS ....

HERE IN OUR AMERICA ....

AS MERE APPENDAGES ....

OF THE SELF-APPOINTED ...

AND SELF-PROCLAIMED ....

UNITARY EXECUTIVE .....

HERE IN OUR AMERICA ....

BY DECREE ....

AS OPPOSED ....

TO BEING ...

A SEPARATE ...

BUT EQUAL ....

BRANCH ....

OF OUR GOVERNMENT ...

HERE IN OUR AMERICA ...

ACCORDING TO OUR CONSTITUTION ...

And so .....

[Livyjr]

Federal question jurisdiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal question jurisdiction is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect.

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

U.S. Constitution: Article III

Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

[Livyjr]

Constitutional Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

The Constitution is many things to many people.

Undoubtedly, it is the frame work for the Government of the United States of America, defining the three branches and clearing delineating the powers of the branches.

It also undoubtedly grants certain power to the federal government and grants others to the states; and it undoubtedly guarantees the basic rights of the people.

The Constitution is short; it cannot and does not attempt to cover every eventuality.

Even when it seems it is clear, there can be conflicting rights, conflicting spheres of power.

When disputes arise, it comes time for people, and most importantly judges of the Judicial Branch, to interpret the Constitution.

The concept of constitutional interpretation is foreign in some countries, where the constitution makes a reasonable effort to cover every eventuality.

These constitutions are generally rigid and little changing, adapting slowly to advances in political views, popular opinion, technology, and changes in government.

The U.S. Constitution, however, has been termed a Living Constitution, in part because it grows and adapts to internal and external pressures, changing from one era and generation to the next.

When a new situation arises, or even a new variation on an old situation, the Constitution is often looked to for guidance.

It is at this point that the various interpretations of the Constitution come into play.

There is no one right way to interpret the Constitution, and people often do not always stick to one interpretation.

Below, then, are the major divisions in interpretation; your own personal beliefs may fall into several of these categories.

Note: the major sources for material for this section were "Constitutional Law: Cases and Commentary" by Daniel Hall, and "On Reading the Constitution" by Lawrence Tribe and Michael Dorf.

Originalism, or, Original Intent

Originalists think that the best way to interpret the Constitution is to determine how the Framers intended the Constitution to be interpreted.

They look to several sources to determine this intent, including the contemporary writings of the framers, newspaper articles, the Federalist Papers, and the notes from the Constitutional Convention itself.

Originalists consider the original intent to be the most pure way of interpreting the Constitution; the opinions of the Framers were, for the most part, well documented.

If there is an unclear turn of phrase in the Constitution, who better to explain it than those who wrote it?

Opponents of originalism note several points.

First, the Constitution may have been the product of the Framers, but it was ratified by hundreds of delegates in 13 state conventions - should not the opinions of these people hold even more weight?

Also, the Framers were a diverse group, and many had issues with specific parts of the Constitution.

Whose opinion should be used?

Next, do the opinions of a small, homogeneous group from 200 years ago have the respect of the huge, diverse population of today?

To a black woman, how much trust can be placed in the thoughts of a white slave owner who's been dead for generations?

In truth, as with all of the following interpretations, most people use originalism when it suits them.

Finding a quote from a framer to support a modern position can be a powerful way to advance your point of view.

Modernism/Instrumentalism

Those who most oppose the Originalist approach often consider themselves to be modernists, or instrumentalists.

A modernist approach to Constitutional interpretation looks at the Constitution as if it were ratified today.

What meaning would it have today, if written today.

How does modern life affect the words of the Constitution?

The main argument against originalism is that the Constitution becomes stale and irrelevant to modern life if only viewed through 18th century eyes.

Additionally, we have more than 200 years of history and legal precedent to look back on, and that we are modern individuals, with as much difficulty in reasonably thinking like 18th century men as those 18th century men would have had trouble thinking like us.

Modernists also contend that the Constitution is deliberately vague in many areas, expressly to permit modern interpretations to override older ones as the Constitution ages.

It is this interpretation that best embodies the Living Constitution concept: the Constitution is flexible and dynamic, changing slowly over time as the morals and beliefs of the population shift.

Modernists do not reject originalism - they recognize that there is value in a historical perspective; but the contemporary needs of society outweigh an adherence to a potentially dangerously outdated angle of attack.

Originalists feel that modernism does a disservice to the Constitution, that the people who wrote it had a pure and valid vision for the nation, and that their vision should be able to sustain us through any Constitutional question.

Literalism - historical

Historical literalists believe that the contemporary writings of the Framers are not relevant to any interpretation of the Constitution.

The only thing one needs to interpret the Constitution is a literal reading of the words contained therein, with an expert knowledge in the 18th century meaning of those words.

The debates leading to the final draft are not relevant, the Federalist Papers are not relevant - only the words.

The historical literalist takes a similar look at the Constitution as an originalist does, but the literalist has no interest in expanding beyond the text for answers to questions.

For example, an historical literalist will see the militia of the 2nd Amendment as referring to all able-bodied men from 17 to 45, just as in the late 18th century, and this interpretation will color that person's reading of the 2nd Amendment.

Literalism - contemporary

Very similar to an historical literalist, a contemporary literalist looks only to the words of the Constitution for guidance, but this literalist has no interest in the historical meaning of the words.

The contemporary literalist looks to modern dictionaries to determine the meaning of the words of the Constitution, ignoring precedent and legal dissertation, and relying solely on the definition of the words.

Just as the historical literalist view parallels the originalist view, but much more narrow in focus, so too does the contemporary literalist mirror the modernist; and again, the main difference is the literalist looks only to the words of the Constitution for meaning.

To expand on the 2nd Amendment example, the contemporary literalist will view the militia as the modern National Guard, and this will color that person's views on the 2nd.

Democratic/normative reinforcement

Finally, the democratic interpretation is the last approach to interpretation.

Democratic interpretation is also known as normative or representation reinforcement.

Democratic proponents advocate that the Constitution is not designed to be a set of specific principles and guidelines, but that it was designed to be a general principle, a basic skeleton on which contemporary vision would build upon.

Decisions as to the meaning of the Constitution must look at the general feeling evoked by the Constitution, then use modern realism to pad out the skeleton.

As evidence, democrats point out that many phrases, such as "due process" and "equal protection" are deliberately vague, that the phrases are not defined in context.

The guidance for interpretation must come from that basic framework that the Framers provided, but that to fill in the gaps, modern society's current morals and feelings must be taken into consideration.

Changes in the Constitution that stem from this kind of philosophy will end up with principles of the population at large, while ensuring that the framers still have a say in the underlying decision or ruling.

This interpretation is seen to enhance democratic ideals and the notion of republicanism.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html

[Livyjr]

U.S. Constitution: Article III

Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Federal question jurisdiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal question jurisdiction is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect.

The statute is now found at 28 U.S.C. § 1331:

"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

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

I have been going very slowly in here these last so many days .....

Checking my facts .....

And thinking carefully .....

On where we are right now in this discussion ....

Which now centers on this July 29, 2004 letter above here ....

To the PLAINTIFF ....

From Marguerite Conan .....

WHO IS AN ATTORNEY .....

Not for the judges involved in this matter ....

BUT FOR THE COURT, ITSELF ....

THE COURT ....

WHICH WAS CREATED ....

BY LAWS OF OUR CONGRESS ...

IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE III ....

OF OUR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ....

TO BE A SEPARATE BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT ....

TO DO US JUSTICE .....

AS OPPOSED TO BEING ...

A POLITICAL TOOL ...

TO REPRESS US ....

HERE IN OUR OWN COUNTRY ...

WHILE PROTECTING ...

ALLEGED CORRUPTION ...

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ...

AND THAT IS THE ISSUE, HEREIN ....

WHO MARGUERITE CONAN IS REALLY SPEAKING FOR ....

When she sent that July 29, 2004 letter to PLAINTIFF .....

Informing him therein ....

That to get further relief from the court ....

HE WOULD HAVE TO FILE A FORMAL MOTION .....

WHICH MEANS ....

THAT ON JULY 29, 2004 ......

PLAINTIFF HAD STANDING IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

BY THE COURT'S OWN LAW ....

AND RULES ....

TO SEEK INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ....

FROM THE FEDERAL COURT ...

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF THAT WAS DENIED HIM ....

BECAUSE STANDING WAS SUBSEQUENTLY STRIPPED FROM HIM ....

BY BUSH-APPOINTEE GARY L. SHARPE .....

AFTER .....

THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATION .....

TOOK THIS CASE AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL JUDGE ....

WHO HAD ACKNOWLEDGED PLAINTIFF'S STANDING ....

AND THE EXISTENCE OF A VALID FEDERAL QUESTION IN THIS MATTER ....

WHEN HE ALLOWED THE PLAINTIFF ...

TO AMEND HIS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ....

OF VIOLATIONS OF HIS FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ....

WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR THE FEDERAL QUESTION, HEREIN ....

AFTER THE PLAINTIFF IN HERE ....

DEMONSTRATED TO THE COURT ...

AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE LANGUAGE ....

IN THIS JULY 29, 2004 LETTER TO THE PLAINTIFF ...

FROM THE COURT ITSELF .....

THAT THERE WAS A FEDERAL QUESTION INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER ....

AND AFTER THE PLAINTIFF HAD DEMONSTRATED TO THE COURT ITSELF ....

THAT HE HAD STANDING AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN ....

TO RAISE THAT FEDERAL QUESTION ....

IN THE DISTRICT COURT ...

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ...

THAT SAME COURT ....

WHICH IS A SEPARATE BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT ...

CREATED BY LAW ....

BY OUR UNITED STATES CONGRESS ...

PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III OF OUR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ....

TURNED AROUND ...

AND STRIPPED THAT STANDING FROM THE PLAINTIFF ...

AN HONORABLY-DISCHARGED DISABLED AMERICAN VETERAN ....

BY THE PLOY ....

OF CHANGING THE MATERIAL FACTS IN THIS MATTER ...

AND BY BURYING ALL EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTED PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM TO STANDING ....

INCLUDING SWORN STATEMENTS ....

BY A NEW YORK STATE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ....

AND AN ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER ....

WHO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GARY L. SHARPE ....

HAS NOW PUBLICLY "PEGGED" AS A LIAR ...

WHICH PUTS THAT OFFICER ....

IN A POSITION OF SPECIAL HARM ...

HELD OUT ....

AS HE WAS ....

BY JUDGE GARY L. SHARPE ...

AS BEING UNTRUTHFUL ....

IN HIS AFFIDAVIT .....

WHICH SUPPORTS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION ON AUGUST 22, 2001 ....

SINCE THE POLICE OFFICER'S NAME AND IDENTITY WERE A PART OF THE PAPERS .....

THAT JUDGE SHARPE PUBLICLY REJECTED ....

AS FALSEHOODS .....

WHEN JUDGE SHARPE HIMSELF CHANGED THE FACTS IN THIS MATTER ...

TO GIVE HIM A PRETEXT ...

HOWEVER FLIMSY ....

ON WHICH TO TOSS THIS CASE ....

MALICIOUSLY IMPUGNING THE INTEGRITY OF THIS POLICE OFFICER ....

ALONG WITH THE PLAINTIFF ....

IN THE COURSE OF SO DOING ....

ON BEHALF OF THE COURT ITSELF ...

TO PROTECT THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS MATTER ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

Constitutional Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

The Constitution is many things to many people.

Undoubtedly, it is the frame work for the Government of the United States of America, defining the three branches and clearing delineating the powers of the branches.

It also undoubtedly grants certain power to the federal government and grants others to the states; and it undoubtedly guarantees the basic rights of the people.

When disputes arise, it comes time for people, and most importantly judges of the Judicial Branch, to interpret the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html

AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN ...

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.

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

These words above here .....

In the upper window .....

From this website ....

On how to interpret ....

The United States Constitution ....

Are for children, here in OUR America .....

Not lawyers ....

Not rocket scientists ....

But children ....

Because children ....

Are the American citizens of tomarrow .....

And so .....

The time to teach them their citizenship responsibilities ....

Is when they are children ....

Which is when I learned mine ...

STARTING IN KINDERGARTEN ....

When I was five years ago ....

And so ...

And the point is ....

That there is nothing complicated ....

About this case that we are discussing in here ....

Other than how to "get rid of it", perhaps .....

And that was easily solved .....

By consultation ...

Between the COURT ....

And the DEFENSE ATTORNEYS .....

And that was that ....

The PLAINTIFF really never played any role in what transpired in this matter ....

Other than filing paperwork ....

And evidence .....

Complaining of a civil rights violation .....

On August 22, 2001 ....

Based on sworn statements ....

By New York State Assistant Attorney General Lisa Ullman ....

In her August 16, 2002 AFFIRMATION above here ....

Where under penalty of perjury .....

Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman ....

Stated clearly ....

And unequivocally ......

That on August 22, 2001 ....

"PETITIONER HAD BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45 FOR SEVERAL HOURS ...."

And so ....

Any questions of fact ....

In this matter ....

As to what transpired at the Stratton VA Hospital .....

In Albany, New York ....

On August 22, 2001 .....

With respect to whether or not PLAINTIFF had been "siezed" ....

And detained ....

Against his will ...

By the time this matter went up to Federal District Court ....

For the Northern District of New York ....

WERE WELL SETTLED ...

By the sworn statements of ....

Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman above here .....

And so ....

SUBSEQUENTLY ....

When the PLAINTIFF did timely file this matter in the Federal District Court ....

For the Northern District of New York ....

For New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer ....

To then get the Federal Court ....

To toss this matter ....

He had to agree ....

WITH THE COURT ....

To toss out ....

Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman's ....

August 16, 2002 AFFIRMATION, above here ....

Which was from a prior proceeding in New York State Supreme Court for Rensselaer County .....

In connection with this same matter ....

And to replace her ....

IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ...

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

With another Assistant New York State Attorney General ....

Named Nelson Sheingold ....

WHO WOULD TELL A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORY ....

UNDER OATH ....

IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ....

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

A "STORY" ....

THAT WAS EXACTLY THAT ....

AN INTENTIONAL FALSEHOOD .....

OR "CONCOCTION" ....

OR INTENTIONAL FABRICATION ....

UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER ....

And contradictory ....

To all of the evidence that did exist ....

Including the statements ....

Of the confining doctor ...

At the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York, Dr. Billy Cox ....

AND THE SWORN STATEMENTS ....

OF THE ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER ....

WHO SECURED PLAINTIFF'S RELEASE ....

FROM INVOLUNTARY PSYCHIATRIC CONFINEMENT ....

AT THE STRATTON VA HOSPITAL ....

IN ALBANY, NEW YORK ....

On August 22, 2001 ....

And so .....

THAT WAS DONE ....

And then ....

THE ONLY OTHER COMPLICATION ....

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

ONCE LISA ULLMAN'S AFFIRMATION WAS TOSSED ....

BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ...

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ...

ALONG WITH HER INTEGRITY ....

IF SHE EVER HAD ANY ...

AND PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION ...

AND CREDIBILITY .....

WAS FOR NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ELIOT SPITZER ....

TO GET THE FEDERAL COURT .....

TO IMPUGN ....

THE INTEGRITY ....

OF THE ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER ....

WHO WAS AN EYE WITNESS ....

TO WHAT OCCURRED .....

IN DR. COX'S OFFICE ....

WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS IN INVOLUNTARY PSYCHIATRIC CONFINEMENT THERE ....

IN THE CUSTODY OF DR. COX ....

OR IN OTHER WORDS ....

TO "SHOP" THE ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER ....

WHICH IS TO SAY ....

"SELL HIM OUT" ....

Along with the law ....

In the State of New York ....

That the Albany, New York Police Officer stood for ....

And so ....

THAT WAS DONE ....

And by doing so .....

BY INTENTIONALLY IMPUGNING THE INTEGRITY OF THIS ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER ....

TO DISCREDIT HIS SWORN STATEMENTS ....

CONCERNING WHAT HE OBSERVED AT THE STRATTON VA HOSPITAL ...

ON AUGUST 22, 2001 ....

THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ....

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ...

ALONG WITH NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ELIOT SPITZER ....

PUT THIS ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER ....

INTO A POSITION OF SPECIAL HARM ....

IN THE CITY OF ALBANY, NEW YORK ....

WHERE TO COVER OVER ALLEGED CRIMES ...

BY THE DEFENDANTS ....

THAT WERE WITNESSED BY THIS ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER ...

THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ...

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

HAS BRANDED HIM .....

AS BEING UNTRUTHFUL ....

IN ESSENCE A LIAR ...

BECAUSE HIS SWORN STATEMENTS ....

SUPPORT THOSE ....

OF ASSISTANT NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL LISA ULLMAN ....

THAT ON AUGUST 22, 2001 ....

"PETITIONER HAD BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45 FOR SEVERAL HOURS ...."

And so ....

[Livyjr]

Constitutional Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

The Constitution is many things to many people.

When disputes arise, it comes time for people, and most importantly judges of the Judicial Branch, to interpret the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html

"Signing off on the law - The American Bar Association is alarmed at President Bush's use of signing statements"

Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Saturday, August 5, 2006

President Bush has vetoed only one bill after nearly six years in office, but that doesn't mean he likes every piece of legislation Congress sends to him for his signature.

Quite the contrary.

He may sign a bill, but he often adds what is known as a "signing statement" that makes clear he does not intend to abide by it, or by some of its provisions, based on constitutional concerns.

Former Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, writing in Roll Call magazine recently, is alarmed by the practice, saying Mr. Bush is treading "into uncharted -- and, I believe -- constitutionally dangerous -- territory."

We agree.

Fortunately, others are equally concerned.

Only recently, a task force of the American Bar Association accused Mr. Bush of sidestepping his constitutional duty to uphold the laws of the land by attaching conditions to legislation he signs into law.

And on the same day, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he's preparing legislation that would enable Congress to sue Mr. Bush in federal court.

It's true that all presidents from George Washington on have used signing statements.

But in most cases, the statements merely provide instructions on how to carry out the new law, although in some instances they have pointed out potential constitutional problems.

But Mr. Bush, who by the ABA's estimate has issued some 800 signing statements, or more than all other presidents combined, has taken the practice to a new level.

His statements often signal that he intends to keep the new laws from ever taking effect.

One example: While Mr. Bush signed into law the amendment by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that banned cruel and degrading treatment of detainees, he added a statement that he believed he has the power to ignore it.

As the ABA notes, signing statements like these short-circuit the checks and balances that are the foundation of our democracy.

If a president so opposes legislation sent to him by Congress, he can veto it.

Congress then has a choice of accepting the president's decision or overriding it.

But Mr. Bush shuts out the legislative branch by signing the law and then unilaterally declaring he has no intention of abiding by it.

Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, downplays such criticism, telling reporters, "A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality."

"It never says, 'We're not going to enact the law.'"

Of course not, but enacting the law isn't the issue.

It's whether Mr. Bush intends to uphold the law he enacts with his signature.

If he does not, then he should be taken to court.

end quotes

And there is the underlying issue in this thread .....

With respect to OUR federal courts ...

Which are being subsumed ....

BACK INTO BEING ....

AN EXTENSION ....

OF THE "UNITARY EXECUTIVE" .....

AS THEY WERE ....

IN THE COLONIAL DAYS ....

BEFORE INDEPENDENCE ...

GAVE US OUR REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT ....

THAT IS BEING ....

TAKEN BACK AWAY FROM US ...

TODAY ....

"THESE STINKING LAWS DON'T MEAN NOTHING ..."

"WE'RE NOT DOING IT THAT WAY, ANY MORE ..."

"YOUR KIND ARE NOT ALLOWED IN HERE NO MORE ..."

"GET OUT ..."

"GET OUT NOW, OR WE'LL HURT YOU ..."

And so ....

It is ...

And so ...

[Livyjr]

Well, in Rensselaer County, just to the east of Albany, New York, THE TRASHMAN COMETH, and if you are for law and order, and no corruption in government up here, then you better damn well be shaking in your boots is the word from Rensselaer County to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, according to Thomas J. O'Connor, brother to REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Governor Mary O'Connor Donohue, and head lawyer for the County of Rensselaer in this appeal.

"THE TRASHMAN!"

That, of course, is REPUBLICAN Timmy Holt, who O'Connor has finally identified as the "man who pulled the plug" on the PLAINTIFF in this matter, by calling over to his "connection" at Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York, a nurse there named Carol Fiorino, who had a doctor there who would sign a New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 "psychiatric arrest order" for her, and so, history, or a warped and twisted Rensselaer County version of it, anyway, was made!

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 so ....

All we can do is wait, to see exactly what it is that New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is going to say, in defense of this practice of Rensselaer County in the State of New York having its man in charge of taking out the trash and cleaning restrooms in the Rensselaer County Office Building also serving in the capacity of the MENTAL HEALTH EXPERT in Rensselaer County who Dr. John Braaten at Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York, takes his marching orders from, as to who in Rensselaer County is really mentally ill, and dangerous, and is therefore in need of immediate incarceration in the GULAG, or secure mental health facility that Northeast Health, Inc. maintains in Troy for just that purpose, to take in those who the TRASHMAN deems "disposable" to society in Rensselaer County, and the State of New York, for the greater good of mankind, of course, as well as the eternal glory of the REPUBLICAN PARTY, who, when they tell you that you are buying STERLING PROTECTION FROM THE LAW from them, mean exactly what they are saying, at least in Rensselaer County, and that is that!

And so ....

And here, a reader has asked whether there was any evidence before Federal District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe and the Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City that would tie together what transpired in Rensselaer County in the State of New York in 1988 and 1989 with what took place subsequently in 2001, when REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino, with the aid and assistance of REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Attorney Robert A. Smith, was able to successfully derail a continuing investigation into corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health under REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Public Director Denise Ayers by the use of the PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN ....

And that answer is most certainly ...

Right at page 270 of the voluminous and encyclopedic RECORD that Jimino's ATTORNEY, the MOST HONORABLE Tommy O'Connor, had before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in his successful effort to have that Court "IMMUNIZE" Jimino and her fellow co-defendants in the matter, along with the assailant in this matter, Jeffrey Pelletier of Poestenkill, New York ....

Page 270 of what is being called the "O'CONNOR BIBLE" up here in the State of New York is a document entitled "SAMARITAN HOSPITAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS DEPARTMENT" .....

This Samaritan Hospital form was originally annexed to the Amended Complaint in the District Court before Judge Sharpe as PLAINTIFF's Exhibit D ....

The form is dated 8/22/01 at 0930 in the morning of that day ....

And it states in relevant part as follows:

"Timothy Holt reports that pt. has long psych. history; IS FORMER COUNTY EMPLOYEE ...."

Timothy Holt, of course, is the REPUBLICAN in charge of making sure the trash is taken out of the Rensselaer County Office Building in a timely manner, and so ..

It is no wonder that REPUBLICAN Jimino would select Holt to "get rid of this trash", referring to the PLAINTIFF in this matter, who was about to institute legal proceedings against Rensselaer County and its Health Department ....

And it is interesting also in the light of this statement by REPUBLICAN Federal Court Judge Sharpe in his decision dated March 31, 2005:

"This COURT has attempted to summarize the litany of unintelligible and conclusory allegations in PLAINTIFF's convoluted COMPLAINT and attached exhibits."

We still look at this statement by this man, and we wonder what on earth he can possibly be talking about ...

Since the Exhibits that he was referring to included this very document above here ......

And that was a Samaritan Hospital form ....

Which means that if it was unintelligible to the judge ....

As it apparently was ...

Then he should have requested some further clarification from the ATTORNEY for Samaritan Hospital, THE MOST HONORABLE Donny "BOB" Ford, ESQUIRE, of the Thuillez, Ford & Gold Johnson firm in Albany, New York ....

And yet ...

He did nothing at all ..

Besides throwing out the Amended Complaint ...

Because this evidence prepared by Samaritan Hospital and the Rensselaer County co-defendants ....

Would never stand scrutiny ...

In the clear light of day ...

Especially before a jury .....

And so ....

"Livyjr, for the sake of clarity in here, would you please post what this Bush-appointee federal judge stated in his March 31, 2005 decision in this federal court matter as his version of the events of August 22, 2001 that led him to toss out this federal civil rights lawsuit on March 31, 2005, and then compare that version of events with what Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman was telling a New York State Supreme Court Judge for Rensselaer County under penalty of perjury in 2002 about the same set of events?"

And of course ...

But ...

First of all, of course, in considering the federal court judge's "version" of events ....

As compared to what Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman had to say about those same events under penalty of perjury in New York State Supreme Court for Rensselaer County on August 16, 2002 .....

We have to consider ....

That when the federal court judge ...

Wrote his March 31, 2005 decision tossing this federal civil rights lawsuit ....

He was actively involved ....

In a COVER-UP ....

Of what both Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman and New York State RESPONDENT Barbara A. Soldano had already sworn to in New York State Supreme Court for Rensselaer County, back in 2002 ....

BECAUSE THAT SWORN VERSION OF THE EVENTS ...

WAS NO LONGER "CONVENIENT" TO THE PURPOSES OF THE DEFENDING ATTORNEYS IN THIS FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDING ....

And since the federal COMPLAINT in this matter before that federal judge was simply a re-statement of what Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman and New York State RESPONDENT Barbara A. Soldano had already sworn to in New York State Supreme Court for Rensselaer County, back in 2002 ....

We have to consider the veracity and integrity of the federal court judge's March 31, 2005 decision ....

In the light of the following language of his first footnote right at the beginning of his March 31, 2005 decision, where he states as follows:

"THIS COURT HAS ATTEMPTED TO SUMMARIZE THE LITANY OF UNINTELLIGIBLE AND CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFF'S CONVOLUTED COMPLAINT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS ....."

Now, that "LITANY OF UNINTELLIGIBLE AND CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS", of course, IS NOT A REFERENCE TO THE PLAINTIFF AT ALL, since the PLAINTIFF WAS BUT SUMMARIZING FOR THE FEDERAL COURT ...

WHAT ASSISTANT NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL LISA ULLMAN AND NEW YORK STATE RESPONDENT BARBARA A. SOLDANO HAD PREVIOUSLY SWORN TO IN NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT FOR RENSSELAER COUNTY ....

And so ....

THE ANATOMY OF A SLICK COVER-UP IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CONTINUES ......

As follows:

On August 9, 2001, defendant REITER (Rensselaer County Director of Veterans' Services) WARNED PLAINTIFF to "BACK OFF" the Pelletier investigation BECAUSE HE WAS A "PROTECTED PERSON" IN THE COUNTY.

Thereafter, he (PLAINTIFF) claims that Jimino (REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE KATHLEEN JIMINO) conspired with Cybulski (COUNTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES) to obtain a fraudulent involuntary commitment order AND A MEDICAL CERTIFICATION from Samaritan Hospital.

Specifically, Cybulski conspired with Braaten (a Samaritan physician) to procure the alleged fraudulent order and medical certifcation WITHOUT HAVING EXAMINED PLAINTIFF.

PLAINTIFF also claims that Braaten conspired with Morris (another Samaritan physician) TO DETAIN PLAINTIFF AS A MENTAL PATIENT AT SAMARITAN.

On August 21, 2001, Morris also allegedly conspired with Fiorino (Samaritan Nurse), Rotter Hallam (Samaritan Nurse), Northeast Health and Samaritan TO CREATE FALSE INFORMATION IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE PICK-UP ORDER TO BE EXECUTED.

That same day, PLAINTIFF alleges that REITER, SHEA and GALLERIE allegedly conspired with AYERS, CHAMPAGNE (RENSSELAER COUNTY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH), Pelletier and Raymond Pelletier to create a "FALSE PERSONA" and a "FALSE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES" IN ORDER TO HAVE HIM COMMITTED TO THE SAMARITAN MENTAL FACILITY.

On August 22, 2001 HOLT (COUNTY DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL SERVICES) SHUT DOWN the Rensselaer County Office Building based on PLAINTIFF'S threatened bloodshed and subsequently contacted the Samaritan defendants with an alleged false report of his conduct.

PLAINTIFF alleges that HALLAM, BRAATEN, FIORINO, GEBHARDT (A TOWN JUSTICE), HORTON and JONES provided false facts concerning PLAINTIFF's "long psychiatric history".

FINALLY, ON AUGUST 22, 2001, PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THAT HE WAS SEIZED AND INVOLUNTARILY DETAINED AT THE MENTAL HEALTH WARD OF THE ALBANY VA HOSPITAL.

WHILE THE COURT'S DETERMINATION ON A RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION IS LIMITED TO THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT IS DEEMED TO INCLUDE AND EXHIBITS AND DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

See Pani v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, 152 F.3d 67,71 (2d Cir. 1998)

WHERE A PLAINTIFF'S OWN EXHIBITS CONTRADICT THE ALLEGATIONS IN HIS COMPLAINT, THE LANGUAGE OF THE EXHIBIT CONTROLS AND THE COURT NEED NOT ACCEPT AS TRUE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT.

HERE, PLAINTIFF FAILS TO ESTABLISH ANY VIOLATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BY THE DEFENDANTS.

IN THIS REGARD, PLAINTIFF SIMPLY CLAIMS CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS WITH NO SUPPORTING FACTS IN HIS COMPLAINT.

EVEN ACCEPTING HIS ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE, THE COURT FNDS THAT THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT CONSISTS OF NOTHING MORE THAN CONCLUSORY STATEMENTS.

IN ADDITION, THE ALLEGATIONS IN HIS COMPLAINT COMPLETELY CONTRADICT THE VERY DOCUMENTS THAT HE ATTACHES TO HIS OWN PLEADING.

THE ONLY VIABLE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM, OF IT CAN BE CALLED THAT, IS BASED ON HIS ALLEGED INVOLUNTARY DETENTION AT THE MENTAL FACILITY OF THE VA HOSPITAL.

HOWEVER, THE VIABILITY OF THIS CLAIM IS BELIED BY THE VA REPORTS ATTACHED TO HIS COMPLAINT.

QUITE SIMPLY, THESE REPORTS SHOW THAT PLAINTIFF VOLUNTARILY ADMITTED HIMSELF TO THE MENTAL FACILITY OF THE VA HOSPITAL.

MOREOVER, THEY SHOW THAT VA TREATING PHYSICIAN, DR. COX, EXAMINED PLAINTIFF AND SUBSEQUENTLY RELEASED HIM FROM THE FACILITY.

THUS, PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM THAT HE WAS INVOLUNTARILY DETAINED AT THE VA HOSPITAL IS UNTRUE.

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ADMITTED PURSUANT TO THE "FRAUDULENTLY" OBTAINED PICK-UP ORDER AS HE ALLEGES IN HIS COMPLAINT BUT WENT TO THE VA HOSPITAL OUT OF HIS OWN VOLITION.

ACCORDNGLY, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION TO SUPPORT A SECTION 1983 CLAIM SINCE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DETAINED.

ACCORDINGLY, DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS ARE GRANTED.

IN ADDITION, THE COURT SUA SPONTE DISMISSES THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE AS TO THE NONMOVING DEFENDANTS.

And there it is ...

As is said up here in the State of New York ...

If you don't look very hard .....

And if you toss out enough evidence ....

IT IS AMAZING WHAT YOU WON'T FIND ....

And so ...

Up here ....

This is what "JUSTICE" in the federal court system really does look like ...

The alleged "PROMISE OF LIBERTY" ....

Which is as empty as empty can possibly be ...

And so ....

LIBERTY INTEREST:

An INTEREST recognized as protected by the DUE PROCESS CLAUSES of state and federal constitutions .....

AS WELL AS INTERESTS CREATED WHEN STATES EITHER LEGISLATIVELY OR ADMINISTRATIVELY IMPOSE LIMITATIONS ON THEIR DISCRETION AND REQUIRE THAT A SPECIFIC STANDARD PREVAIL IN DECISION MAKING .....

- Black's Law Dictionary

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

OCTOBER 20, 1992 - EXAMINATION OF DR. LAWRENCE C. KOLB, M.D. by REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT A. "Big BOB" SMITH

SMITH: I believe at one point in your testimony, you characterized PLAINTIFF as a man of high principles  and I believe you also said in words or substance that he was accepting of directions and orders.

IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

KOLB: IT WAS MY ESTIMATION OF THE MAN'S PERSONAL MAKE-UP!

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

AUGUST 8, 1996

FROM: United States Department of Veterans' Affairs
New York Regional Office
245 West Houston St.
New York, N.Y. 10014

TO: PLAINTIFF

COPY: New York State Division of Veteran's Affairs

We made a decision on your claim for increased compensation.

WHAT WE DECIDED

We found that your disability has increased in severity.

HOW WE MADE OUR DECISION

We carefully all the EVIDENCE we received.

We have attached a copy of the RATING DECISION.

IT SHOWS THE EVIDENCE WE USED AND THE REASONS FOR OUR DECISION.

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

Statement from Dr. Lawrence C. Kolb diagnosed the veteran as suffering from the ADVERSE EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM STRESS on his general well-being that manifested as nausea, insomnia, severe depression, and anxiety.

In addition, the veteran was suffering from severe headaches, neck pain and numbness in his right arm and hand, CAUSED IN PART BY THE AGGRAVATION OF COMBAT-INDUCED PTSD BY THE INTENSE EMOTIONAL TURMOIL ASSOCIATED WITH THE VETERAN'S RECENT WORK-RELATED EXPERIENCES.

DR. KOLB ADVISED THAT THE VETERAN'S MEDICAL CONDITION PRECLUDED HIM FROM CARRYING ON WITH HIS DUTIES AS DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FOR THE RENSSELAER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR AN INDETERMINATE PERIOD OF TIME.

[Livyjr]

EXCERPTS FROM RECORDS OF DR. WILLIAM COX OF ALBANY, NEW YORK VA HOSPITAL ON AUGUST 22, 2001 CONCERNING THIS MATTER:

I reviewed .... faxed information from Bob Reiter and Bill Shea of the Rensselaer County Department of Veterans Affairs, both of whom I also spoke with.

This encounter was initiated by Mr. Reiter and Mr. Shea, who reported that they had telephone contact with PLAINTIFF yesterday (August 21, 2001).

They notified someone at Good Samaritan Hospital in Troy about the situation, and a police retention order pursuant to sec. 9.41 of the Mental Hygiene Law was issued by John Braaten, based on Mr. Reiter and Mr. Shea's verbal report.

Neither Mr. Reiter nor Mr. Shea are credentialed mental health providers, and PLAINTIFF was never examined at Good Samaritan Hospital or any other facility prior to coming here.

When asked about his own expectations for his visit, PLAINTIFF replied, "I need an advocate."

Later, he said, "SANCTUARY!"

He gave a detailed and circumstantial account of his career as an engineer, loosely intertwining that with his status as a fully service-connected, disabled veteran, and his precise concerns about on-going 'corruption' in Rensselaer County, naming several current and former county officials.

He was specifically concerned that, because of his efforts to counter such 'corruption', he may be the subject of immediate arrest in Rensselaer County.

Our records indicate that PLAINTIFF IS NOT CONNECTED WITH MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT.

THE AUTHOR WOULD HAVE RETAINED PLAINTIFF INVOLUNTARILY BUT FOR AN ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER, who reported he "went out to dinner last Sunday (8/19/01)" with him and found him to be in his usual state of mind.

The Albany, New York Police Officer listened patiently while PLAINTIFF reviewed his version of events, and agreed with him.

I ASKED THE ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER IF HE HAD ANY REQUESTS OR CONCERNS ABOUT PLAINTIFF'S MENTAL HEALTH, AND HE REPLIED NEGATIVELY.

IN FACT, THE ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER WAS MORE CONCERNED, AS WAS PLAINTIFF, ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE 9.41 PETITION.

AT THAT POINT, IT WAS MY OPINION THAT PLAINTIFF FELL SHORT OF THE CRITERIA FOR INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT.

signed,

William F. Cox, MD
08/22/01
1602 HOURS

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.

7. 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".

DATED: September 20, 2004
            Albany, New York

And here, a reader has asked me to clarify these terms "collateral estoppel" and "res judicata" with respect to this Worker's Compensation case, and to explain how any of this ties in to this discussion, which seems to go all over the place, and back and forth in time.

Simply stated these "terms" are "doctrines" in the field of law that are intended to leave matters once settled, settled!

Which is to say, that once results binding parties have been reached in one venue, in this case New York State Workers' Compensation Court, then no party bound by that decision can try to do an "end-run-around" those results in another court, where those findings might be relevant, as is the case here, where the decision and findings of the New York State Workers' Compensation Review Board as to how the PLAINTIFF became disabled and unable to work further as Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer in October of 1988 completely refutes and cuts the legs right out from under the "legal theories" of both the County of Rensselaer and the State of New York as to this alleged "long psychiatric history" that they falsely allege PLAINTIFF to have, in order for them to be able to "justify" the 8/22/01 "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN".

July 15, 2004

TO: Hon. Donald E. Walter, Senior Federal District Judge, Louisiana

Your Honor:

First of all, I am a federally certified disabled veteran who is proceeding pro se.

I have fragments from the exploded warhead of an RPG-7 round lodged in my neck near my spine from wounds suffered in combat in Viet Nam in 1969, and as a result, my cervical spine is collapsing because of diagnosed degenerative disk disease.

Over time, and as a direct result of exacerbation due to the incidents complained of in the Amended Civil Rights Complaint before Your Honor, I have but limited use of my right hand and arm.

That is Point I.

These threats of violence or acts of violence towards my person by defendant Jeffrey Pelletier continue to exacerbate this condition, and I wish Your Honor to be appraised of that fact.

Point II:

With respect to my disability, specifically, I would ask that the Court take judicial notice of the August 14, 1991 Notice of Board Decision of the New York State Workers' Compensation Review Board finding in my favor in Matter of PLAINTIFF v. Rensselaer County Department of Health, W.C.B. (blank), which is annexed hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof.

Pursuant to section 18 of Article I of the New York State Constitution, where the events in question and at issue herein occurred, "Nothing contained in this constitution shall be construed to limit the power of the legislature to enact laws for the protection of the lives, health, or safety of employees".

Section 18 of Article I of the New York State Constitution further states that nothing contained in the New York State Constitution shall be construed to "limit the power of the legislature to enact laws for the adjustment, determination and settlement, with or without trial by jury, of issues which may arise under such legislation."

Thus, in the State of New York, it is a Constitutional right of an employee to have his or her life, health and safety protected from an employer, and in the instant matter, on August 14, 1991, in the decision annexed hereto as Exhibit A, the New York State Workers' Compensation Review Board, which had sole jurisdiction in the matter pursuant to New York State Workers' Compensation Law, found that upon review of the entire record before it, including medical reports of Doctors KOLB and SHEREMETA and PLAINTIFF's own statements, that record constituted prima facie medical evidence that my life, health and safety had been put in harm's way as an employee of the Rensselaer County Department of Health in 1988, that I had in fact been harmed in regard to my life, health and safety in 1988 during my employment with the Rensselaer County Department of Health, and that as a consequence, as a matter of law in the State of New York, I was entitled to an award of damages from the Rensselaer County Department of Health.

In the State of New York, the Workers' Compensation Review Board had jurisdiction to be the "exclusive trier of facts" in that matter, so that in the instant case, with respect to my standing as a disabled person herein, both the County of Rensselaer employees named above and the State of New York employee, as well as the Office of the New York State Attorney General who is providing legal counsel for that state employee, are all bound by those findings pursuant to the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata in the State of New York.

Furthermore, by New York State law, in the case of any direct or indirect challenges to those findings, as appears to be the case herein by the Rensselaer County defendants, and State defendant William Shea, it is the responsibility of the Office of the New York State Attorney General to defend those findings of the New York State Workers' Compensation Review Board annexed hereto as Exhibit A, which duty appears to be coming into conflict herein in its defense of defendant William Shea in this above matter, which conflict contributes to my present state of distress and mental anguish in this instant matter, where I am prey to defendant Jeffrey Pelletier without apparent recourse to justice in my home town in the State of New York as a result of the August 22, 2001 "psychiatric takedown" complained of in the Amended Complaint herein.

With respect to my present level of disability, I wish to bring to the Court's attention at this time the findings of fact of the New York State Workers' Compensation Review Board in the first paragraph at page 2 of Exhibit A, wherein is stated:

"In C-4/C-48 dated December 3, 1990, Dr. Sheremeta indicates that he has been treating claimant (PLAINTIFF) since August 13, 1990 for a cervical dorsal strain causally related to an injury of July 26, 1988, when claimant twisted his upper back getting out of the way of a back-hoe".

Pursuant to section 18 of Article I of the New York State Constitution, the Legislature of the State of New York was empowered to enact laws for the adjustment, determination and settlement, with or without trial by jury, of issues which may arise under such legislation, and it was pursuant to such legislation in the State of New York that the findings of the New York State Workers' Compensation Review Board were made.

Accordingly, I wish the Court to take judicial notice of these finding in this proceeding as they are directly germane to the pendent state Constitutional issues in this above matter, as well as the harm that I suffered in connection with this instant matter on and after August 7, 2001.

Thanking Your Honor in advance for your prompt consideration of this matter, I remain

                                    Respectfully yours,

                                    Plaintiff pro se

CC:  Office of the Attorney General
New York State
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

Thuillez, Ford Law Firm
Donald P. Ford, Esq.
20 Corporate Woods Boulevard
6th Floor
Albany, New York 12211

Colleen H. Whalen, Esq.
P.O. Box 899 1743 Route 9
Clifton Park, New York 12065

DeGraff Foy Law Firm
George J. Szary, Esq.
90 State Street
Albany, New York 12207

Engel Law Firm
Kevin Engel, Esq.
                73 Troy Road, Suite 2C
East Greenbush, New York 12061

David T. Luntz, Esq.
Ryan & Smallacombe, PLLC
100 State Street, Suite 800
Albany, New York 12207

Napierski, Vandenburgh & Napierski, L.L.P.
Thomas J. O'Connor, Esq.
296 Washington Ave. Ext.
Albany, New York 12203

Morton D. Shulman
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1000
Averill Park, New York 12018

AUGUST 8, 1996

FROM: United States Department of Veterans' Affairs
          New York Regional Office
          245 West Houston St.
          New York, N.Y. 10014

TO: PLAINTIFF

COPY: New York State Division of Veteran's Affairs

We made a decision on your claim for increased compensation.

WHAT WE DECIDED

We found that your disability has increased in severity.

HOW WE MADE OUR DECISION

We carefully all the EVIDENCE we received.

We have attached a copy of the RATING DECISION.

IT SHOWS THE EVIDENCE WE USED AND THE REASONS FOR OUR DECISION.

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

Statement from Dr. Lawrence C. Kolb diagnosed the veteran as suffering from the ADVERSE EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM STRESS on his general well-being that manifested as nausea, insomnia, severe depression, and anxiety.

In addition, the veteran was suffering from severe headaches, neck pain and numbness in his right arm and hand, CAUSED IN PART BY THE AGGRAVATION OF COMBAT-INDUCED PTSD BY THE INTENSE EMOTIONAL TURMOIL ASSOCIATED WITH THE VETERAN'S RECENT WORK-RELATED EXPERIENCES.

DR. KOLB ADVISED THAT THE VETERAN'S MEDICAL CONDITION PRECLUDED HIM FROM CARRYING ON WITH HIS DUTIES AS DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FOR THE RENSSELAER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR AN INDETERMINATE PERIOD OF TIME.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

OCTOBER 20, 1992 - DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. LAWRENCE C. KOLB, M.D. IN THE PRESENCE OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT A. "Big BOB" SMITH

Q: And how long have you been practicing medicine in the State of New York, Doctor?

KOLB: I have been practicing medicine in the State of New York since 1954.

Q: And how long have you been practicing medicine in general?

KOLB: I received my degree as a Doctor of Medicine in 1934 and I have been licensed in a number of states since then, also serving on the National Board of Medical Examiners.

Q: And would you please indicate the nature of your training and professional education?

KOLB: After I received my degree from the Johns Hopkins University in 1934, I interned first for a year in medicine and then for a year in surgery at the Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, New York.

I then returned to Johns Hopkins and was appointed as a Fellow in neurosurgery and served there from '36 to '41 with a year abroad at the Queen's Square, London Neurological Hospital.

At that point I was called into the U.S. Navy.

Before --- one other year, just after Hopkins, I spent a year in psychiatry at Milwaukee Sanitarium in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Q: And what was your service in the Navy?

KOLB: I was active duty with the Navy from late 1941 until late 1946, serving mostly as a psychiatrist but sometimes as a neurologist.

The majority of that period I was taking care of various people right off the battlefield with additional symptoms now known as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Q: And what rank did you have in the Navy?

KOLB: I was ---- I became a commander in the Navy before my discharge from active duty.

[Livyjr]

EXCERPTS FROM RECORDS OF DR. WILLIAM COX OF ALBANY, NEW YORK VA HOSPITAL ON AUGUST 22, 2001 CONCERNING THIS MATTER:

I reviewed .... faxed information from Bob Reiter and Bill Shea of the Rensselaer County Department of Veterans Affairs, both of whom I also spoke with.

This encounter was initiated by Mr. Reiter and Mr. Shea, who reported that they had telephone contact with PLAINTIFF yesterday (August 21, 2001).

They notified someone at Good Samaritan Hospital in Troy about the situation, and a police retention order pursuant to sec. 9.41 of the Mental Hygiene Law was issued by John Braaten, based on Mr. Reiter and Mr. Shea's verbal report.

Neither Mr. Reiter nor Mr. Shea are credentialed mental health providers, and PLAINTIFF was never examined at Good Samaritan Hospital or any other facility prior to coming here.

signed,

William F. Cox, MD
08/22/01
1602 HOURS

FRAME-UP:

Conspiracy or plot, especially for evil purpose, as to incriminate a person on false evidence ....

FRAMED:

Incrimination of person on false or fabricated evidence ....

When used to describe evidence, word is generally accepted as implying that willful perjurers, suborned by and conspiring with parties in interest to litigation, are swearing or have sworn to matters without any basis in fact ....

Black's Law Dictionary

[Livyjr]

The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State?

By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN
----
Monday, Jan. 09, 2006

When President Bush signed the new law, sponsored by Senator McCain, restricting the use of torture when interrogating detainees, he also issued a Presidential signing statement.

That statement asserted that his power as Commander-in-Chief gives him the authority to bypass the very law he had just signed.

This news came fast on the heels of Bush's shocking admission that, since 2002, he has repeatedly authorized the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant, in flagrant violation of applicable federal law.

And before that, Bush declared he had the unilateral authority to ignore the Geneva Conventions and to indefinitely detain without due process both immigrants and citizens as enemy combatants.

All these declarations echo the refrain Bush has been asserting from the outset of his presidency.

That refrain is simple:

Presidential power must be unilateral, and unchecked.

But the most recent and blatant presidential intrusions on the law and Constitution supply the verse to that refrain.

They not only claim unilateral executive power, but also supply the train of the President's thinking, the texture of his motivations, and the root of his intentions.

They make clear, for instance, that the phrase "unitary executive" is a code word for a doctrine that favors nearly unlimited executive power.

Bush has used the doctrine in his signing statements to quietly expand presidential authority.

In this column, I will consider the meaning of the unitary executive doctrine within a democratic government that respects the separation of powers.

I will ask: Can our government remain true to its nature, yet also embrace this doctrine?

I will also consider what the President and his legal advisers mean by applying the unitary executive doctrine.

And I will argue that the doctrine violates basic tenets of our system of checks and balances, quietly crossing longstanding legal and moral boundaries that are essential to a democratic society.

President Bush's Aggressive Use of Presidential Signing Statements

Bush has used presidential "signing statements" - statements issued by the President upon signing a bill into law -- to expand his power.

Each of his signing statements says that he will interpret the law in question "in a manner consistent with his constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."

Presidential signing statements have gotten very little media attention.

They are, however, highly important documents that define how the President interprets the laws he signs.

Presidents use such statements to protects the prerogative of their office and ensure control over the executive branch functions.

Presidents also -- since Reagan -- have used such statements to create a kind of alternative legislative history.

Attorney General Ed Meese explained in 1986 that:

To make sure that the President's own understanding of what's in a bill is the same . . . is given consideration at the time of statutory construction later on by a court, we have now arranged with West Publishing Company that the presidential statement on the signing of a bill will accompany the legislative history from Congress so that all can be available to the court for future construction of what that statute really means.

The alternative legislative history would, according to Dr. Christopher S. Kelley, professor of political science at the Miami University at Oxford, Ohio, "contain certain policy or principles that the administration had lost in its negotiations" with Congress.

The Supreme Court has paid close attention to presidential signing statements.

Indeed, in two important decisions -- the Chadha and Bowsher decisions - the Court relied in part on president signing statements in interpreting laws.

Other federal courts, sources show, have taken note of them too.

President Bush has used presidential signing statements more than any previous president.

From President Monroe's administration (1817-25) to the Carter administration (1977-81), the executive branch issued a total of 75 signing statements to protect presidential prerogatives.

From Reagan's administration through Clinton's, the total number of signing statements ever issued, by all presidents, rose to a total 322.

In striking contrast to his predecessors, President Bush issued at least 435 signing statements in his first term alone.

And, in these statements and in his executive orders, Bush used the term "unitary executive" 95 times.

It is important, therefore, to understand what this doctrine means.

What Does the Administration Mean When It Refers to the "Unitary Executive"?

Dr. Kelley notes that the unitary executive doctrine arose as the result of the twin circumstances of Vietnam and Watergate.

Kelley asserts that "the faith and trust placed into the presidency was broken as a result of the lies of Vietnam and Watergate," which resulted in a congressional assault on presidential prerogatives.

For example, consider the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which Bush evaded when authorizing the NSA to tap without warrants -- even those issued by the FISA court.

FISA was enacted after the fall of Nixon with the precise intention of curbing unchecked executive branch surveillance.

(Indeed, Nixon's improper use of domestic surveillance was included in Article 2 paragraph (2) of the impeachment articles against him.)

According to Kelley, these congressional limits on the presidency, in turn, led "some very creative people" in the White House and the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to fight back, in an attempt to foil or blunt these limits.

In their view, these laws were legislative attempts to strip the president of his rightful powers.

Prominent among those in the movement to preserve presidential power and champion the unitary executive doctrine were the founding members of the Federalist Society, nearly all of whom worked in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan White Houses.

The unitary executive doctrine arises out of a theory called "departmentalism," or "coordinate construction."

According to legal scholars Christopher Yoo, Steven Calabresi, and Anthony Colangelo, the coordinate construction approach "holds that all three branches of the federal government have the power and duty to interpret the Constitution."

According to this theory, the president may (and indeed, must) interpret laws, equally as much as the courts.

The Unitary Executive Versus Judicial Supremacy

The coordinate construction theory counters the long-standing notion of "judicial supremacy," articulated by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison, which held that the Court is the final arbiter of what is and is not the law.

Marshall famously wrote there:

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

Of course, the President has a duty not to undermine his own office, as University of Miami law professor A. Michael Froomkin notes.

And, as Kelley points out, the President is bound by his oath of office and the "Take Care clause" to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and to "take care" that the laws are faithfully executed.

And those duties require, in turn, that the President interpret what is, and is not constitutional, at least when overseeing the actions of executive agencies.

However, Bush's recent actions make it clear that he interprets the coordinate construction approach extremely aggressively.

In his view, and the view of his Administration, that doctrine gives him license to overrule and bypass Congress or the courts, based on his own interpretations of the Constitution -- even where that violates long-established laws and treaties, counters recent legislation that he has himself signed, or (as shown by recent developments in the Padilla case) involves offering a federal court contradictory justifications for a detention.

This is a form of presidential rebellion against Congress and the courts, and possibly a violation of President Bush's oath of office, as well.

After all, can it be possible that that oath means that the President must uphold the Constitution only as he construes it - and not as the federal courts do?

And can it be possible that the oath means that the President need not uphold laws he simply doesn't like - even though they were validly passed by Congress and signed into law by him?

Analyzing Bush's Disturbing Signing Statement for the McCain Anti-Torture Bill

Let's take a close look at Bush's most recent signing statement, on the torture bill.

It says:

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.

In this signing statement, Bush asserts not only his authority to internally supervise the "unitary executive branch," but also his power as Commander-in-Chief, as the basis for his interpretation of the law -- which observers have noted allows Bush to create a loophole to permit the use of torture when he wants.

Clearly, Bush believes he can ignore the intentions of Congress.

Not only that but by this statement, he has evinced his intent to do so, if he so chooses.

On top of this, Bush asserts that the law must be consistent with "constitutional limitations on judicial power."

But what about presidential power?

Does Bush see any constitutional or statutory limitations on that?

And does this mean that Bush will ignore the courts, too, if he chooses - as he attempted, recently, to do in the Padilla case?

The Unitary Executive Doctrine Violates the Separation of Powers

As Findlaw columnist Edward Lazarus recently showed, the President does not have unlimited executive authority, not even as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

Our government was purposely created with power split between three branches, not concentrated in one.

Separation of powers, then, is not simply a talisman: It is the foundation of our system.

James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, No. 47, that:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

Another early American, George Nicholas, eloquently articulated the concept of "power divided" in one of his letters: The most effectual guard which has yet been discovered against the abuse of power, is the division of it.

It is our happiness to have a constitution which contains within it a sufficient limitation to the power granted by it, and also a proper division of that power.

But no constitution affords any real security to liberty unless it is considered as sacred and preserved inviolate; because that security can only arise from an actual and not from a nominal limitation and division of power.

Yet it seems a nominal limitation and division of power - with real power concentrated solely in the "unitary executive" - is exactly what President Bush seeks.

His signing statements make the point quite clearly, and his overt refusal to follow the laws illustrates that point:

In Bush's view, there is no actual limitation or division of power; it all resides in the executive.

Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense:

In America, the law is king.

For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.

The unitary executive doctrine conflicts with Paine's principle - one that is fundamental to our constitutional system.

If Bush can ignore or evade laws, then the law is no longer king.

Americans need to decide whether we are still a country of laws - and if we are, we need to decide whether a President who has determined to ignore or evade the law has not acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government.

Jennifer Van Bergen, a journalist with a law degree, is the author of THE TWILIGHT OF DEMOCRACY: THE BUSH PLAN FOR AMERICA (Common Courage Press, 2004). She writes frequently on civil liberties, human rights, and international law. Her book, ARCHETYPES FOR WRITERS, about the characterization method she developed and taught at the New School University, will be out in 2006. She can be reached at jvbxyz@earthlink.net.

http://www.writ.news.findlaw.com/commentar...109_bergen.html

MAY 25, 1989

PRESS STATEMENT OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOHN L. BUONO CONCERNING HIS DECREE THAT DAY THAT THE PLAINTIFF HEREIN, 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 ....."

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

OCTOBER 20, 1992 - EXAMINATION OF DR. LAWRENCE C. KOLB, M.D. by REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT A. "Big BOB" SMITH

SMITH: I believe at one point in your testimony, you characterized PLAINTIFF as a man of high principles  and I believe you also said in words or substance that he was accepting of directions and orders.

IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

KOLB: IT WAS MY ESTIMATION OF THE MAN'S PERSONAL MAKE-UP!

AUGUST 8, 1996

FROM: United States Department of Veterans' Affairs
          New York Regional Office
          245 West Houston St.
          New York, N.Y. 10014

TO: PLAINTIFF

COPY: New York State Division of Veteran's Affairs

We made a decision on your claim for increased compensation.

WHAT WE DECIDED

We found that your disability has increased in severity.

HOW WE MADE OUR DECISION

We carefully all the EVIDENCE we received.

We have attached a copy of the RATING DECISION.

IT SHOWS THE EVIDENCE WE USED AND THE REASONS FOR OUR DECISION.

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

Statement from Dr. Lawrence C. Kolb diagnosed the veteran as suffering from the ADVERSE EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM STRESS on his general well-being that manifested as nausea, insomnia, severe depression, and anxiety.

In addition, the veteran was suffering from severe headaches, neck pain and numbness in his right arm and hand, CAUSED IN PART BY THE AGGRAVATION OF COMBAT-INDUCED PTSD BY THE INTENSE EMOTIONAL TURMOIL ASSOCIATED WITH THE VETERAN'S RECENT WORK-RELATED EXPERIENCES.

DR. KOLB ADVISED THAT THE VETERAN'S MEDICAL CONDITION PRECLUDED HIM FROM CARRYING ON WITH HIS DUTIES AS DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FOR THE RENSSELAER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR AN INDETERMINATE PERIOD OF TIME.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STIPULATION:

A material condition, requirement, or article in an agreement ......

The name given to any agreement made by the attorneys engaged on opposite sides of a cause (ESPECIALLY IF IN WRITING) regulating any matter incidental to the proceedings or trial, which falls within their jurisdiction.

Voluntary agreement between opposing council concerning disposition OF SOME RELEVANT POINT SO AS TO OBVIATE NEED FOR PROOF OR TO NARROW RANGE OF LITIGABLE ISSUES ......

AN AGREEMENT, ADMISSION OR CONFESSION MADE IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING BY THE PARTIES THERETO OR THEIR ATTORNEYS .......

SUCH ARE EVIDENTIARY DEVICES USED TO SIMPLIFY AND EXPEDITE TRIALS BY DISPENSING WITH THE NEED TO PROVE FORMALLY UNCONTESTED FACTUAL ISSUES .......

- Black's Law Dictionary

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

OCTOBER 20, 1992 - DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. LAWRENCE C. KOLB, M.D. IN THE PRESENCE OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT A. "Big BOB" SMITH, continued .....

Q: And could you please indicate whether you have had any academic positions in the field of medicine?

KOLB: After leaving the Navy, I was appointed an associate in the Washington School of Psychiatry, serving in that position and also as a research doctor at the National Institute of Mental Health.

In 1950, I was appointed a consultant of the Mayo Clinic and an associate professor in the University of Minnesota.

In 1954, I came to New York as the professor and Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, and became Director of the New York State Psychaitric Institute.

I served in that position until 1978 when I came to Albany, and was appointed --- retiring from those positions, I was appointed as a professor at the Albany medical School.

Q: And when did you become a specialist in the field of neurology and psychiatry?

KOLB: I was qualified in both fields in 1941.

[Livyjr]

Federal question jurisdiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal question jurisdiction is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Partial text of Reply Brief sent to Second Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC by appellant PLAINTIFF on 25 July 2005 in answer to BRIEF of Thomas O'Connor, on behalf of Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino et al, to include Timothy Holt, Carl Richard Aiken, NYSPE, and Kevin Joseph McGrath, the New York State licensed surveyor who was at the same time the "lead professional" for developer Jeffrey Pelletier, and the Chairman of the Poestenkill Town Planning Board, and the Brief of the Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson Law Firm on behalf of John Christian Braaten et al, to include nurse Carol Fiorino, and Northeast Health, Inc. and Samaritan Hospital, and the Brief of nurse Andrea Gallerie:

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

As can be readily discerned from a review of page 455 of the extensive Appendix ("RCA") Rensselaer County State Actors Kathleen Jimino, Joseph Cybulski, Timothy Holt, Denise Ayers, NYSRPN, Roy Champagne, Robert Reiter, Kevin Joseph McGrath, NYSLS, and Carl Richard Aiken, NYSPE, have submitted to this Court pursuant to Appellate Rule 30(b)(1) in support of the issues Rensselaer County State Actors are presenting this Court for review in this appeal, the facts before the Court in the appeal are few, they are simple, and they are conceded by appellees. 

Nor are they challenged by Appellant. 

According to those facts, on August 7, 2001, appellee Jeffrey Pelletier assaulted PLAINTIFF on Liberty Lane in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, State of New York for the express purpose of denying PLAINTIFF rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to PLAINTIFF by the United States Constitution, and 18 USC 1512(b) & 1513(b) of the laws of the United States. 

18 USC 1512(b) of the laws of the United States, entitled "Tampering with a witness", states in relevant part to this appeal that "whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to, (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; (2) cause or induce any person to - (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding ....... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." 

No party to this appeal, either appellant, or appellees, disputes that this assault by Pelletier took place, for the express purposes stated in the record, which is to say, to intentionally harm and intimidate PLAINTIFF, both as a witness, and as a victim, so as to deter him by acts of overt physical violence from seeking redress of grievance against Pelletier, Aiken and McGrath with respect to the Rensselaer County sewage permit at issue in the courts of the State of New York where this matter was originally served and filed, prior to it being brought on in Federal District Court in June of 2001.

(For Constitutional Torts in the State of New York, see, Ricky Brown et al. v. State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, 192 [Ct. of Appeals 1996]). 

Nor can they deny the assault, since the videotape of the Pelletier assault on PLAINTIFF is a part of the "evidence" in the possession of Northeast Health State Actor John Christian Braaten at the time he executed the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order (Brief of Braaten at 7) at issue herein, as well as a New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 direct psychiatric admission for PLAINTIFF to both the Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York, a co-appellee of Braaten, and the VA Hospital in Albany, New York despite never having seen PLAINTIFF in his life. 

With these simple facts well-settled, and agreed to among the parties herein, this appeal presents this Court, then, with a simple question of law, that being the objective reasonableness of Braaten's actions on August 22, 2001, where Timothy Holt, the alleged "reliable source" Braaten relied upon in determining that PLAINTIFF was a alleged dangerous mental patient is the head of custodial and janitorial services for the Rensselaer County Office Building in Troy, New York.

There is not one scrap or shred of evidence in the voluminous Appendix Rensselaer County State Actors have placed before this Court in support of their issues in this appeal, which is the "objective reasonableness" of PLAINTIFF's "seizure" at the Albany VA Hospital on August 22, 2001, that Timothy Holt is anything other than the head of custodial services for the Rensselaer County Office Building, and despite that lack of any credentials whatsoever, other than "cleaning rest rooms", and "taking out trash" which apparently converted Holt into a "health officer" in the eyes of Braaten, on August 22, 2001, Braaten executed a NYSMHL 9.45 order for PLAINTIFF based on nothing more than Holt's say so that he, Holt, wanted it to be done that way!

That, say appellees, is what "objective reasonableness" looks like in Rensselaer County, in the State of New York, so, please, Justices of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, put your judicial imprimatur on this conduct so stated, by denying this appeal, and thereby immunizing appellees in the eyes of the law, forever!

It is a simple question, actually, a yes, or a no: 

"Should the head of Janitorial Services for the Rensselaer County Office Building have the unimpeded "constitutional" authority, 24/7, to hinder a New York State licensed professional engineer in the performance of his duties, who at the time in question was investigating alleged professional misconduct in the County of Rensselaer by Rensselaer County State Actor Appellees Carl Richard Aiken, P.E., and Kevin Joseph McGrath, L.S. in connection with a Rensselaer County Department of Health sewage system construction permit issued to appellee Jeffrey Pelletier, by having the unrestrained right to have PLAINTIFF incarcerated at will in the secure mental hospital of Holt's choice, by the simple expedient of Holt calling Fiorino at Samaritan Hospital, and putting in a request for a 9.45 order to be faxed over to Holt at the Rensselaer County Office Building, so Holt can then have the New York State Police seize PLAINTIFF for transport to wherever Holt directs them to go?"

With respect to the question of "objective reasonableness" in this appeal, as it pertains to PLAINTIFF's "seizure" at the VA Hospital on August 22, 2001, in a comprehensive and scholarly opinion at 169-171 in Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services, 234 F.Supp.2d 140 (NDNY 2002), a case in which counsel for Braaten in this matter was also counsel of record for defendants in that matter, District Court (Hurd, J.) stated clearly at 169 that "The issue of probable cause may be decided as a matter of law if there is no dispute as to the relevant events and beliefs of those involved", and in this case, the unrebutted sworn statements of Albany, New York police officer (******) in the Rensselaer County State Actors' Appendix make it incandescently clear to all parties that there was no probable cause here, and of all people, appellee John Christian Braaten should have been the very first to become suspicious, when Fiorino told him to sign the 9.45 order she had in her hand, so she could get it back to the head of custodians in the Rensselaer County Office Building, to have PLAINTIFF, a New York State licensed professional engineer, incarcerated as a dangerous mental patient in Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility, where Braaten had already certified an emergency admission pursuant to New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.39, despite never having seen PLAINTIFF in his life!

It is clear from Ruhlmann, supra, that had this happened in Ulster County in the State of New York, instead of Rensselaer County, PLAINTIFF would by this time in the proceedings have already been afforded discovery, and this matter would now be headed to a jury for speedy trial, in the interests of justice for PLAINTIFF, a permanently disabled Viet Nam combat veteran, with a damaged spine from the August 7, 2001 Jeffrey Pelletier assault documented in the video that Timothy Holt provided to Carol Fiorino as alleged proof that PLAINTIFF was "mentally ill", where appellee Jeffrey Pelletier can be seen and heard in the videotape calling PLAINTIFF a "F***ING RETARD", after having "cracked" PLAINTIFF's spine in a kind of wrestling throw where Pelletier grabbed PLAINTIFF's head and cracked PLAINTIFF's spine against Pelletier's hip, in a move intended to cripple PLAINTIFF, in wilful violation of 18 USC 1512(b) & 1513(b) of the laws of the United States. 

As it is in Rensselaer County, however, instead of Ulster County, where the facts in this matter arise, counsel for Rensselaer County State Actors to include Jimino, Holt, Ayes, Champagne, Reiter, McGrath and Aiken, has combined with counsel for Northeast Health State Actors to include Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, N.Y., Adrian Anthony Morris, John Christian Braaten, Carol Fiorino, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, and counsel for Andrea Gallerie to argue in this Court for a lower standard of "reasonableness" in the County of Rensselaer in the State of New York which makes it "constitutional" as a matter of law in the Northern District of New York, for the head of custodial services for the Rensselaer County Office Building to be placed, 24/7, in a position of such authority over the life and liberty of a New York State licensed professional engineer investigating alleged corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health and Town of Poestenkill Planning and Zoning Boards, that this head of custodial services can, at the literal drop of a hat, have this licensed professional engineer picked up by the New York State Police for transport to a secure mental hospital of Timothy Holt's choosing!

It is uncontrovertible in this case, based upon the Appendix Rensselaer County State Actors have placed in evidence in support of their issues that on August 22, 2001, Holt ordered PLAINTIFF's "arrest" on alleged psychiatric grounds immediately after PLAINTIFF had informed appellee Jimino in writing of PLAINTIFF's intent to commence legal action against the Rensselaer County Department of Health to seek redress of grievance in the matter of the Pelletier sewage permit which was the subject of the letters Holt gave to Fiorino as alleged proof that PLAINTIFF was allegedly mentally ill.

Presumably, at the time Braaten executed the 9.45 order on August 22, 2001, he had read these letters, as they were a vital part of the "evidence" against PLAINTIFF that allegedly "supported" the "objective reasonableness" of Braaten's actions on August 22, 2001 and he had witnessed the assault of PLAINTIFF by Pelletier in the videotape, and so, it was with intent to cause harm to PLAINTIFF that Braaten executed the 9.45 order, where he had no objective evidence before him other than that PLAINTIFF was exactly what he said he was, an honest competent licensed engineer in the State of New York performing his duty with respect to a Board of Regents requirement for ALL licensed engineers in the State of New York, pursuant to section 29.3 of the Rules of the Board of Regents governing professional practice of engineers in the State of New York, to police the profession, 24/7. 

In this case, the only conclusion that the established facts allow for, is that on August 22, 2001, Fiorino and Braaten combined with Holt for the express purpose of preventing PLAINTIFF from going forward with his lawsuit against Rensselaer County in a timely manner, which is exactly what ended up happening, to PLAINTIFF's detriment.

That is a tactic that the County of Rensselaer employed to deny PLAINTIFF equal protection and due process of law pursuant to the Constitution of the State of New York, and in their briefs, appellees are praying this Court to place its imprimatur on this tactic by immunizing Timothy Holt, Carol Fiorino, John Christian Braaten, and Andrea Gallerie, finding that under the circumstances as they are presented by the facts in this specific matter, the actions of Holt, Fiorino, Braaten and Gallerie were objectively reasonable as a matter of law, pursuant to this Court in Glass v. Mayas, 984 F.2d. 55,58 (2nd. Cir. 1993).
                     
DATED:  July 21, 2005

Respectfully submitted,                                                                 
Appellant Pro Se

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.

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.

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.

DATED: September 20, 2004
            Albany, New York

FROM THE FILES OF THE RENSSELAER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH THROUGH FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION:

February 21, 2002

To Whom It May Concern:

As Director of Environmental Health for the Rensselaer County Health Department, I met with PLAINTIFF on several occasions to fulfill a "freedom of information request" concerning a project under construction near his home on Liberty Lane in the Town of Poestenkill.

Our most recent meeting took place on Tuesday, August 21, 2001, for the purpose of providing PLAINTIFF with a document I mistakenly omitted previously.

PLAINTIFF called me at approximately 1:30 pm and we arranged to meet in my office at approximately 2:00 pm.

Upon meeting, we took the aforementioned document to an office supply store (Hill's) in Troy, to be copied.

We returned to the office and discussed issues relative to the FOIL request.

Our meeting was professional in nature and ended at approximately 3:30 pm.

signed,

Roy J. Champagne
Director of Environmental Health

HAVING BEEN DIRECTLY HARMED IN HIS PERSON AND IN HIS PROPERTY BY THE ACTIONS OF DEFENDANTS ON AUGUST 22, 2001, PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING HEREIN TO SEEK REDRESS IN FEDERAL COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

As an initial point, plaintiff herein claims standing in the within action pursuant to the three-prong test outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 558 (1992), which test was enumerated by the Supreme Court approximately eleven (11) years before the Complaint in this instant matter was filed with the Clerk of the Northern District of New York on June 18, 2003:

"Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements."

"First, the plaintiff must have suffered an 'injury in fact' - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756, Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975), Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740-741, n.16 (1972), and (b) 'actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical'', Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983))."

"Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of - the injury has to be 'fairly .... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.'  Simon v. Eastern K. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976)."

"Third, it must be 'likely', as opposed to merely 'speculative', that the injury will be 'redressed by a favorable decision.' Id., at 38, 43." (emphasis added)
               
Necessary Injury in Fact

"Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential."

"Only when the whole proceedings leading to the pinning of an unsavory label on a person are aired can oppressive results be prevented."

Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 435 (1971)

In the instant matter, based upon sworn admissions in a November 10, 2003 affirmation to this Court from David E. Rook, Bar Roll No. 507846, of the law firm, Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP, 20 Corporate Woods, 6th Floor, Albany, New York 12211, attorneys for 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, it is both clear and uncontrovertible that on August 22, 2001, the defendants herein, acting in concert in a malicious fashion with intent to cause harm to plaintiff and his property, did first unlawfully and unconstitutionally brand plaintiff herein as a dangerous mental patient under color of New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.01, 9.39 & 9.45, and did then, cloaked in their "statutory authority", in clear violation of Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 435 (1971), post the false and malicious branding of plaintiff as alleged fact with the New York State Police, the Federal Veterans' Administration Police, the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York and the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as with the general population of the Town of Poestenkill, the County of Rensselaer and the State of New York to plaintiff's continued harm and detriment herein.

In Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980), at 486, the United States Supreme Court speaks directly to the "direct harm" caused to plaintiff herein by defendants and the events of August 22, 2001 complained of in the Amended Complaint in this above matter, the "stigmatization process" at issue herein, caused by defendants, through the "pinning" on plaintiff herein by defendants of the unsavory label in a small community of that of a dangerous, mentally ill person, all of this without a stitch of evidence in support thereof, or even a pretense of due process having been afforded to plaintiff in clear violation of Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 435 (1971):

"We have recognized that for the ordinary citizen, commitment to a mental hospital produces 'a massive curtailment of liberty,' Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U.S. 504, 509 (1972), and in consequence 'requires due process protection.' Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 (1979); O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 580 (1975) (BURGER, C.J., concurring)."

"The loss of liberty produced by an involuntary commitment is more than a loss of freedom from confinement."

"It is indisputable that commitment to a mental hospital 'can engender adverse social consequences to the individual' and that '[w]hether we label this phenomena 'stigma' or choose to call it something else .... we recognize that it can occur and that it can have a very significant impact on the individual.' Addington v. Texas, supra, at 424-426.  See also Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 600 (1979)."

"Also, '[a]mong the historic liberties' protected by the Due Process Clause is the "right to be free from, and to obtain judicial relief for, unjustified intrusions on personal security." Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 673 (1977)."

Vitek v. Jones, supra (emphasis added)

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.

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.

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

EXCERPTS FROM RECORDS OF DR. WILLIAM COX OF ALBANY, NEW YORK VA HOSPITAL ON AUGUST 22, 2001 CONCERNING THIS MATTER:

"I reviewed .... faxed information from Bob Reiter and Bill Shea of the Rensselaer County Department of Veterans Affairs, both of whom I also spoke with."

"This encounter was initiated by Mr. Reiter and Mr. Shea, who reported that they had telephone contact with PLAINTIFF yesterday (August 21, 2001)."

"They notified someone at Good Samaritan Hospital in Troy about the situation, and a police retention order pursuant to sec. 9.41 of the Mental Hygiene Law was issued by John Braaten, based on Mr. Reiter and Mr. Shea's verbal report."

"Neither Mr. Reiter nor Mr. Shea are credentialed mental health providers, and PLAINTIFF was never examined at Good Samaritan Hospital or any other facility prior to coming here."

Our records indicate that PLAINTIFF IS NOT CONNECTED WITH MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT.

THE AUTHOR WOULD HAVE RETAINED PLAINTIFF INVOLUNTARILY BUT FOR AN ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER, who reported he 'went out to dinner last Sunday (8/19/01)" with him and found him to be in his usual state of mind.

The Albany, New York Police Officer listened patiently while PLAINTIFF reviewed his version of events, and agreed with him.

I ASKED THE ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER IF HE HAD ANY REQUESTS OR CONCERNS ABOUT PLAINTIFF'S MENTAL HEALTH, AND HE REPLIED NEGATIVELY.

IN FACT, THE ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER WAS MORE CONCERNED, AS WAS PLAINTIFF, ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE 9.41 PETITION.

AT THAT POINT, IT WAS MY OPINION THAT PLAINTIFF FELL SHORT OF THE CRITERIA FOR INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT.

signed,

William F. Cox, MD
08/22/01
1602 HOURS

AUGUST 8, 1996

FROM: United States Department of Veterans' Affairs
          New York Regional Office
          245 West Houston St.
          New York, N.Y. 10014

TO: PLAINTIFF

COPY: New York State Division of Veteran's Affairs

We made a decision on your claim for increased compensation.

WHAT WE DECIDED

We found that your disability has increased in severity.

HOW WE MADE OUR DECISION

We carefully all the EVIDENCE we received.

We have attached a copy of the RATING DECISION.

IT SHOWS THE EVIDENCE WE USED AND THE REASONS FOR OUR DECISION.

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

Statement from Dr. Lawrence C. Kolb diagnosed the veteran as suffering from the ADVERSE EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM STRESS on his general well-being that manifested as nausea, insomnia, severe depression, and anxiety.

In addition, the veteran was suffering from severe headaches, neck pain and numbness in his right arm and hand, CAUSED IN PART BY THE AGGRAVATION OF COMBAT-INDUCED PTSD BY THE INTENSE EMOTIONAL TURMOIL ASSOCIATED WITH THE VETERAN'S RECENT WORK-RELATED EXPERIENCES.

DR. KOLB ADVISED THAT THE VETERAN'S MEDICAL CONDITION PRECLUDED HIM FROM CARRYING ON WITH HIS DUTIES AS DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FOR THE RENSSELAER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR AN INDETERMINATE PERIOD OF TIME.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

OCTOBER 20, 1992 - DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. LAWRENCE C. KOLB, M.D. IN THE PRESENCE OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT A. "Big BOB" SMITH, continued .....

Q: And Doctor, did there come a time in your professional career when you began the study of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder?

KOLB: Actually, during World War II, with a colleague, I saw many of these cases and wrote many papers, but it was the appointment in the Veterans' Administration that I became acquainted with a chronic form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and set up a labratory at the local VA Hospital where we saw many many patients - over 300 - and developed a new psychophysiological test with this condition, which is now being confirmed with the work of other people and accepted by the Veterans' Administration as a biological indicator of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Q: And Doctor, what is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder?

KOLB: It's a condition which is produced by exposure to extreme psychological stress beyond the usual limit experience, generally with a threat to one's life.

It is defined by the American Psychiatric Association in a series of criteria which are now well accepted and well established.

[Livyjr]

This discussion in here is about a Bush-appointed Federal District Court Judge in the Federal Northern District of New York has approved a scheme in Rensselaer County in the State of New York .....

That allows someone with the right connections .....

Which is to say ...

The right lawyer .....

To make a DISBURSEMENT .....

And for that DISBURSEMENT .....

Procure a FALSE CERTIFICATION of alleged mental illness ......

From a CORPORATE MEDICAL DOCTOR in Troy, New York ...

Who will, sight unseen ...

Certify the person of your choice .....

In this case ...

A New York State licensed professional engineer investigating alleged misconduct by other New York State licensed individuals in Rensselaer County ...

In the State of New York ...

As being mentally ill and dangerous ...

So that you can then have a New York State Police SWAT Team ...

"TAKE THIS PERSON DOWN" ....

To hook them up in four-point restraints ...

For transport down to the GULAG at Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York ...

Where they are then ...

Gone ...

Which false certification will then be defended in federal District Court for the Northern District of New York ...

By no less a personage than New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer ....

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUNE 30, 1989

On October 6, 1988, "an Ad Hoc Engineering Committee" held a closed door meeting in the Rensselaer County Office Building which started at approximately 4:00 p.m. and which was the result, according to PLAINTIFF, of a "deal" between [DELETED BY F.B.I. CENSORS] and the Rensselaer County Developer's Organization.

In PLAINTIFF's view, the purpose of this "Ad Hoc Engineering Committee meeting" was to tell PLAINTIFF how to do business in the Health Department, or else he "would not do business".

According to PLAINTIFF, he was instructed as to how business was done in Rensselaer County in 1983 and was further instructed to abide by agreements made in 1983 wherein, PLAINTIFF understood, Health Department officials certified projects in return for contributions to various politicians.

******

Shortly thereafter, PLAINTIFF was placed on thirty days sick leave and the Rensselaer County Executive went on local television announcing that PLAINTIFF was suffering from stress related to his service in Viet Nam.

PLAINTIFF stated that he was told by Rensselaer County Public Health Director Kenneth Van Praag on October 12, 1988 that he, (PLAINTIFF) had "upset some of the most powerful men in Rensselaer County" and that Van Praag could no longer "protect" PLAINTIFF.

PLAINTIFF noted that he advised the Ad Hoc Engineering Committee on the evening of October 6, 1988, he intended to go to the New York State health Department concerning this meeting which he considered to be an outrageous violation of ethical and professional standards.

Subsequently, the county held formal hearings, the purpose of which was to remove PLAINTIFF from office for insubordination and other charges.

A Special Agent of the FBI at Albany attended some of these hearings.

Initially, the county sought to have these hearings private despite the fact that PLAINTIFF waived his right to a private hearing and desired that the proceedings be public.

This issue was brought before a State Judge, however, the county agreed to have open hearings before the judge had an opportunity to rule on the merits of this case.

The judge, however, did comment, that Rensselaer County had made a "wise decision" in deciding to have open hearings.

- EXCERPT from pages 202,203 of the O'Connor BIBLE submitted to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in this matter on behalf of defendant REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino and her co-defendants, in or about November of 2005

DATE: October 11, 1988

TO: John Buono, Rensselaer County Executive

FROM: Associate Public Health Engineer, Rensselaer County Health District

SUBJECT: Integrity of Environmental Health Programs

As the Director of the Environmental Health Division, it is my responsibility to certify on behalf of Rensselaer County the integrity of the Code Enforcement Programs to the State of New York for the purpose of payment of our State operating funds.

I have reached a juncture where such certification by myself is no longer feasible.

My certification of our operations is as a licensed professional.

My conduct is governed in large part by Part 29 of the Codes of the Education Department which sets forth the actions deemed to constitute unprofessional conduct on the part of licensed individuals.

Section 29.1(b)(6) defines unprofessional conduct as "willfully making or filing a false report, or failing to file a report required by law or by the Education Department, or willfully impeding or obstructing such filing, or inducing another person to do so."

I can no longer vouch for the integrity of our programs and will not place my professional standing in jeopardy.

It is my professional opinion stated in writing to yourself that the programs I am responsible for have been very seriously undermined and compromised.

As my internal investigation proceeds, the probability of actions for damages against the Department increases, due to errors of omission and commission of former engineers and the Public Health Director.

As the Public Health Law requires me to conduct investigations into incidents involving public health nuisance or hazard, I find myself in the course of such investigation returning to our own files with consistent violation of code on the part of County staff.

MARCH 13, 1988

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 .....

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUNE 30, 1989

During the time that these hearings were proceeding, the New York State Department of Health produced a report which was predicated on a request by [DELETED BY FBI CENSORS] to investigate allegations of "misfeasance and malfeasance made by PLAINTIFF against the Rensselaer County Department of Health."

This REPORT, dated March 15, 1989, advised that, "the investigation found significant deficiencies in the Rensselaer County residential subdivision program and individual sewage program."

The investigators concluded that the great number of sewage system failures in the county was a result of a county program which was inadequate to assure protection of public health and the environment."

The report further stated, "that investigators found poor documentation of field inspections, a lack of written procedures, questionable plan review practices and failure to follow the county sanitary code and guidance adopted by the Board of Health."

"We conclude that there has been inadequate oversight by the county Board of Health, inadequate supervision by the county Director of Public Health, insufficient support by the County Executive Office (the position of Environmental Health Director was vacant for four years) and FAILURES OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIRECTORS TO ENFORCE AND FOLLOW THE COUNTY SANITARY CODE DURING THE TIME PERIOD STUDIED."

******

Under the "FINDINGS" section of this report, the report stated "whenever documentation could be found, PLAINTIFF was found to be accurate in his statements of inappropriate code reviews."

- EXCERPT from page 203 of the O'Connor BIBLE submitted to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in this matter on behalf of defendant REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino and her co-defendants, in or about November of 2005

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FD-302

Date of transcription 3/27/89

In addition to these violations, [DELETED BY FBI CENSORS] advised that Kenneth Van Praag, who is not an engineer, approved plans, which is in violation of state and county regulations.

Specifically, Van Praag approved 14 lots in the White Silo development.

The plans for this development were dated January 5, 1979, and were signed by [DELETED BY FBI CENSORS] on April 7, 1981.

On April 7, 1986, Van Praag signed another set of plans for the same development, although he is not qualified to do so.

According to [DELETED BY FBI CENSORS], these are violations of laws promulgated by the New York State Education Department, which licenses engineers and surveyors.

- From page 192 of the O'Connor BIBLE submitted to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in this matter on behalf of defendant REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino and her co-defendants, in or about November of 2005

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

THE MUZZLING OF THE RENSSELAER COUNTY ASSOCIATE PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEER PROCEEDS APACE .......

REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Personnel Director Felix "Iron Felix" Pugliese is on the witness stand in what has since become known in Rensselaer County in the State of New York as the "TRIAL OF THE CENTURY", expounding to all assembled, to include TV Channel 13 broadcasting out of Menands, New York, and the Albany, New York Times Union, along with the United States Department of Justice's Federal Bureau of Investigation, and WE, THE PEOPLE, on why it was necessary for REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive John L. Buono to fire the Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer ...... .....

INTERLOCUTOR: Other than Mr. Van Praag telling you that PLAINTIFF had told his staff .....

That media requests ....

Should be directed to PLAINTIFF ....

Other than that ....

What else did Mr. Van Praag tell you?

PUGLIESE: That PLAINTIFF had indicated to him ....

THAT HE WAS INDEPENDENT .....

And did not take direction ...

From Mr. Van Praag ....

And that Mr. Van Praag ...

Did not have any authority .... 

Over people ....

That were organizationally ....

Reporting to PLAINTIFF ......

IN GENERAL ....

IT WAS ALMOST ....

LIKE THERE WAS A RENEGADE SITUATION .....

IN THAT PLAINTIFF .....

WAS OPERATING ....

UNDER HIS OWN RULES!

INTERLOCUTOR: Did Mr. Van Praag ....

Did you discuss with Mr. Van Praag .....

What it meant ...

For the public ....

For the Director of the Environmental Health Division ...

To exercise independent judgment ...

In overseeing the operation ....

Of the Division of Environmental Health?

PUGLIESE: No ...

INTERLOCUTOR: Well ...

As the OFFICIAL responsible for administering the County Employment Department .....

What does it mean .....

In PLAINTIFF's job description ....

When it says that he should have .....

"A considerable leeway allowed for the exercise of independent judgment in overseeing the operations of the Division of Environmental Health"?

PUGLIESE: I believe it means .....

That PLAINTIFF has in his capacity ....

The ability ....

Or should have the ability .....

To function as he sees fit .....

UNTIL SOME POINT IN TIME ....

WHEN HIS SUPERVISOR ....

INSTRUCTS HIM TO, EITHER DO SOMETHING PARTICULAR ....

And in this particular case that we kept referring to ....

Or you kept referring to in terms of the media ........

THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ....

AND THE SUPERVISOR SAID ...

I WANT IT DONE THIS WAY ....

AT THAT POINT IN TIME ....

WE DON'T ALLOW .....

INDEPENDENT THINKING!

MARCH 15, 1989

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR KENNETH VAN PRAAG BY REPUBLICAN DEPUTY RENSSELAER COUNTY ATTORNEY GORDON MAYO, ESQUIRE, BEFORE THE "EYES AND EARS" OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOHN L. BUONO AS TO WHY THE RENSSELAER COUNTY ASSOCIATE PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEER HAD BEEN LOCKED OUT OF THE RENSSELAER COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING ON OCTOBER 12, 1988 .....

MAYO: WHAT FINALLY CAUSED YOU TO INSTIGATE THIS DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AGAINST PLAINTIFF?

VAN PRAAG: Well .....

I had been supportive of PLAINTIFF .....

Before many people ...

Many times ....

And it was the October 6 meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee of Engineers ....

That triggered my going to the County Executive .....

And saying that I could not ....

Support him any more ....

In his position .....

MAYO: DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO WORK WITH PLAINTIFF, IF IN FACT, HE CAME BACK TO WORK FOR THE RENSSELAER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT?

VAN PRAAG: I DO NOT ...

AUGUST 8, 1996

FROM: United States Department of Veterans' Affairs
          New York Regional Office
          245 West Houston St.
          New York, N.Y. 10014

TO: PLAINTIFF

COPY: New York State Division of Veteran's Affairs

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

Statement from Dr. Lawrence C. Kolb diagnosed the veteran as suffering from the ADVERSE EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM STRESS on his general well-being that manifested as nausea, insomnia, severe depression, and anxiety.

In addition, the veteran was suffering from severe headaches, neck pain and numbness in his right arm and hand, CAUSED IN PART BY THE AGGRAVATION OF COMBAT-INDUCED PTSD BY THE INTENSE EMOTIONAL TURMOIL ASSOCIATED WITH THE VETERAN'S RECENT WORK-RELATED EXPERIENCES.

DR. KOLB ADVISED THAT THE VETERAN'S MEDICAL CONDITION PRECLUDED HIM FROM CARRYING ON WITH HIS DUTIES AS DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FOR THE RENSSELAER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR AN INDETERMINATE PERIOD OF TIME.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

OCTOBER 20, 1992 - DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. LAWRENCE C. KOLB, M.D. IN THE PRESENCE OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT A. "Big BOB" SMITH, continued .....

Q: And in your experience with PTSD, did you form any conclusions about the kind of traumatic events that patients who had PTSD shared in common?

KOLB: Well, the common events were the combat experience of being shot at or wounded or seriously threatened time after time.

If this was repeated frequently enough and was intense enough, they tended to develop the chronic forms of this condition..

We are talking now of the combat veteran particularly.

Other people get this from other kinds of psychological trauma ......

Q: What kinds of experiences in civilian life are comparable to the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder events such as combat?

KOLB: REPEATED ASSAULTS, RAPE, INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS, FIRES, ROAD ACCIDENTS, AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS, OR EXPOSURE TO NATURAL EVENTS SUCH AS TORNADOES, HURRICANES, et cetera .....

This post has been edited by Livyjr: Aug 9 2006, 06:15 AM

[Livyjr]

FRAME-UP:

Conspiracy or plot, especially for evil purpose, as to incriminate a person on false evidence ....

FRAMED:

Incrimination of person on false or fabricated evidence ....

When used to describe evidence, word is generally accepted  as implying that willful perjurers, suborned by and conspiring with parties in interest to litigation, are swearing or have sworn to matters without any basis in fact ....

Black's Law Dictionary

Troy, New York RECORD

Wednesday, February 22, 1989

"Court delays PLAINTIFF'S disciplinary hearing"

"Environmental Health Director PLAINTIFF'S disciplinary hearing has been delayed until the legal issue of opening the proceedings to the public is resolved."

"State Supreme Court Justice Edward S. Conway signed a Show Cause Order Tuesday filed by attorney Barbara G. Billet, a media attorney with the Albany law firm of O'Connell and Aronowitz of Albany, representing THE RECORD newspapers and Capital Newspapers."

"Both newspapers are fighting Rensselaer County's move to close the hearing."

"Arguments for and against the proposed closing are scheduled to be presented to State Supreme Court Justice Lawrence Kahn Friday!"

"PLAINTIFF has filed a formal waiver of his right to a closed hearing."

"He has repeatedly said he wants the public to know why he took the actions he did."

"We believe there is just cause for closure," REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Deputy Attorney Gordon Mayo told Judge Conway Tuesday.

"Not only could PLAINTIFF say things during the hearing that could affect pending litigation, but PLAINTIFF'S behavior is questionable."

"Mayo said PLAINTIFF suffers from a post-combat stress condition that could result in irrational behavior."

"PLAINTIFF is a Vietnam veteran."

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.

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.

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.

DATED: September 20, 2004
            Albany, New York

EXCERPTS FROM RECORDS OF DR. WILLIAM COX OF ALBANY, NEW YORK VA HOSPITAL ON AUGUST 22, 2001 CONCERNING THIS MATTER:

I reviewed .... faxed information from Bob Reiter and Bill Shea of the Rensselaer County Department of Veterans Affairs, both of whom I also spoke with.

This encounter was initiated by Mr. Reiter and Mr. Shea, who reported that they had telephone contact with PLAINTIFF yesterday (August 21, 2001).

They notified someone at Good Samaritan Hospital in Troy about the situation, and a police retention order pursuant to sec. 9.41 of the Mental Hygiene Law was issued by John Braaten, based on Mr. Reiter and Mr. Shea's verbal report.

Neither Mr. Reiter nor Mr. Shea are credentialed mental health providers, and PLAINTIFF was never examined at Good Samaritan Hospital or any other facility prior to coming here.

Our records indicate that PLAINTIFF IS NOT CONNECTED WITH MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT.

THE AUTHOR WOULD HAVE RETAINED PLAINTIFF INVOLUNTARILY BUT FOR AN ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER, who reported he 'went out to dinner last Sunday (8/19/01)" with him and found him to be in his usual state of mind.

signed,

William F. Cox, MD
08/22/01
1602 HOURS

AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN ...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

DATED: September 20, 2004
            Albany, New York

FINALLY, ON AUGUST 22, 2001, PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THAT HE WAS SEIZED AND INVOLUNTARILY DETAINED AT THE MENTAL HEALTH WARD OF THE ALBANY VA HOSPITAL.

HERE, PLAINTIFF FAILS TO ESTABLISH ANY VIOLATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BY THE DEFENDANTS.

IN THIS REGARD, PLAINTIFF SIMPLY CLAIMS CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS WITH NO SUPPORTING FACTS IN HIS COMPLAINT.

EVEN ACCEPTING HIS ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE, THE COURT FNDS THAT THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT CONSISTS OF NOTHING MORE THAN CONCLUSORY STATEMENTS.

IN ADDITION, THE ALLEGATIONS IN HIS COMPLAINT COMPLETELY CONTRADICT THE VERY DOCUMENTS THAT HE ATTACHES TO HIS OWN PLEADING.

THE ONLY VIABLE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM, OF IT CAN BE CALLED THAT, IS BASED ON HIS ALLEGED INVOLUNTARY DETENTION AT THE MENTAL FACILITY OF THE VA HOSPITAL.

HOWEVER, THE VIABILITY OF THIS CLAIM IS BELIED BY THE VA REPORTS ATTACHED TO HIS COMPLAINT.

QUITE SIMPLY, THESE REPORTS SHOW THAT PLAINTIFF VOLUNTARILY ADMITTED HIMSELF TO THE MENTAL FACILITY OF THE VA HOSPITAL.

MOREOVER, THEY SHOW THAT VA TREATING PHYSICIAN, DR. COX, EXAMINED PLAINTIFF AND SUBSEQUENTLY RELEASED HIM FROM THE FACILITY.

THUS, PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM THAT HE WAS INVOLUNTARILY DETAINED AT THE VA HOSPITAL IS UNTRUE.

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ADMITTED PURSUANT TO THE "FRAUDULENTLY" OBTAINED PICK-UP ORDER AS HE ALLEGES IN HIS COMPLAINT BUT WENT TO THE VA HOSPITAL OUT OF HIS OWN VOLITION.

ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION TO SUPPORT A SECTION 1983 CLAIM SINCE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DETAINED.

ACCORDINGLY, DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS ARE GRANTED.

IN ADDITION, THE COURT SUA SPONTE DISMISSES THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE AS TO THE NONMOVING DEFENDANTS.

- FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GARY L. SHARPE, DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, MARCH 31, 2005

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.

7. 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.

DATED: September 20, 2004
            Albany, New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

OCTOBER 20, 1992 - DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. LAWRENCE C. KOLB, M.D. IN THE PRESENCE OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT A. "Big BOB" SMITH, continued .....

Q: Doctor, based on your knowledge and experience, when you saw PLAINTIFF on October 18 and October 20, 1988, was he emotionally disabled?

KOLB: I thought so ....

Q: And did you form any opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to what illness or condition he was suffering from at that time?

KOLB: I thought he was having an exasperation of PTSD ....

Q: And did you form any opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty about what event or events had caused the exasperation of his PTSD?

KOLB: From what I heard, my interpretation was the pressure under which he was being placed in the office and in the township had led to the emotional disturbance, rearousing many of the symptoms he had of the condition and aggravating them .....

Q: By his office, do you mean his emplotment?

KOLB: Yes .....

Q: AND DURING THIS TIME PERIOD WHEN YOU SAW PLAINTIFF IN OCTOBER 18 or 20, 1988, WAS HE SUFFERING FROM ANY THINKING OR INTELLECTUAL DISORDER?

KOLB: NO .....