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

[Livyjr]

What we are talking about in here is real .....

In that the events in question not only happened ...

But can be independently verified ....

Since it is all a matter of record .....

Here in OUR America ....

And so ....

And what we have been talking about most recently ....

And candidly ....

HOW ABSOLUTELY WEAK ....

AND POWERLESS .....

THIS THREAD HAS REVEALED US TO BE ....

Is in my opinion, anyway .....

Simply the reality of OUR situation coming to light ....

Since lying about our "field position" in here .....

Or lack thereof ....

Buys us nothing ....

And so ....

And when I say that ...

I am referring directly to the relationship that now exists between us, as citizens of the United States of America .....

And what is purported to be our government .....

Which is something that is no longer recognizable to us as being "AMERICAN" ....

And so ....

Outside of this thread, of course .....

Out there in reality .....

As some of these recent "correspondents" have been saying ....

WE ARE THE LOSERS .....

And in America .....

Where strength is what is worshipped ....

And flocked to ....

We indeed are the "odd ones out" .....

Totally without power .....

Or a voice in our own governmental affairs up here .....

AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE FEDERAL APPEALS COURT APPROVAL ....

Of the use ....

Of this PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN .....

As a WEAPON OF RETALIATION against us .....

If we are to try and challenge corruption in OUR government up here ...

AS WE WERE DOING ....

When the PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN was used .....

AS A WEAPON AGAINST US ....

By the County of Rensselaer .....

In the State of New York ...

On August 22, 2001 ....

And so .....

Many people tell me that by running this thread for all this time ....

With no obvious relief coming our way .....

Or support ....

Which hasn't .....

That all we are doing ...

Is broadcasting just how weak we really are as American citizens up here in the State of New York ...

Where this August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN went down ....

And by doing that ...

According to these opinions ....

Which may well be valid ....

All we are doing ....

Is inviting ....

And encouraging ...

Further attacks or assaults on ourselves ....

SINCE WE ARE SO OBVIOUSLY UN-PROTECTED BY THE LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS UP HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .......

AND PERHAPS THAT IS SO ....

BUT .....

THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE WE WERE .....

ANYWAY ...

ALREADY....

The day the PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN did go down .....

Weak ...

And without support .....

And that is where we were .....

When Bush-appointee federal district court judge Gary L. Sharpe buried relevant evidence in this matter ...

And altered the facts ...

With his judicial pen ...

On March 31, 2005 .....

TO WRAP THE FULL PROTECTION ...

OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT .....

AROUND THE PERPETRATORS OF THIS AUGUST 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN ....

And that is where we were when the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals buried this matter in December of 2005 .....

PLACING THE IMPRIMATUR OF THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS .....

ON THE USE OF THE PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN .....

AS A LEGITIMATE "TOOL" OF GOVERNMENTAL REPRESSION OF DISSENT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .....

And so ......

While it is true that this "BIG WIN" in court has helped to make New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer one of the most powerful men in the United States ....

And the world ....

And while it is true ...

That Eliot Spitzer ....

Upon being elected governor of the State of New York .....

Might come back and have us crushed like bugs .....

THE DIFFERENCE .....

As I see it ....

Between having ran this thread .....

Wherein our obvious weakness was broadcast to all the candid world .....

Versus having remained silent about our obvious weakness .....

IS THAT EITHER WAY ....

WE WERE GOING TO BE CRUSHED, ANYWAY ....

So that by running this thread .....

AT LEAST THE CANDID WORLD DOES KNOW .....

THAT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .....

THE LAW IS A JOKE ...

AND AMERICAN CITIZENS .....

IN THE EYES OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIARY .....

ARE NOTHING BUT BUGS ....

TO BE CRUSHED AT WILL ....

WHENEVER .....

WITH IMPUNITY ....

And so .....

[Livyjr]

...... if it had stayed with Judge Hurd, it is my position that it would not have been dismissed, and we would not be having this conversation in here, as a result, and that is because of Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services, 234 F.Supp.2d 140, 158 (NDNY 2002), where Judge Hurd stated as follows with respect to the level of care federal courts are supposed to maintain in reviewing civil rights complaints to see whether on their face, they do make out a valid claim:

"Courts have urged care in reviewing discrimination claims, noting that 'because direct evidence of ... discriminatory intent will rarely be found, affidavits and depositions must carefully be scrutinized for circumstantial proof which, if believed, would show discrimination", citing Schwapp v. Town of Avon, 118 F.3d 106, 110 (2d Cir. 1997), quoting Gallo v. Prudential Residential Services, 22 F.3d 1219, 1224 (2d Cir. 1994).

"Livyjr, please help me out here for a moment, will you?"

"I have been reading over this section above here of one of your prior posts ..."

"And what I am trying to understand correctly is whose words these following words are, whether the words of Judge Hurd, at the federal district court level, or are they in reality the words of the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City:"

"Courts have urged care in reviewing discrimination claims, noting that 'because direct evidence of ... discriminatory intent will rarely be found, affidavits and depositions must carefully be scrutinized for circumstantial proof which, if believed, would show discrimination", citing Schwapp v. Town of Avon, 118 F.3d 106, 110 (2d Cir. 1997), quoting Gallo v. Prudential Residential Services, 22 F.3d 1219, 1224 (2d Cir. 1994).

"Because it appears that in its December 2005 SUMMARY ORDER in this matter affirming the use of the PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN by THE STATE OF NEW YORK as a WEAPON OF REPRESSION against is citizens, the federal SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS tossed this MINIMUM STANDARD OF REVIEW right out the window ...."

"AND IT THEN ESTABLISHED A MUCH LOWER STANDARD, WHICH IS ONE OF NO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AT ALL, AT LEAST IN THIS ONE CASE ...."

"And I am curious about that, Livyjr, curious, in the light of the fact that the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals was trying to cover its tracks in this instance of the OBVIOUS USE of this much lower standard in this case by the vehicle of the UNPUBLISHED SUMMARY ORDER ...."

And what I would say upon my reading of those words, then and now .....

Is that with those words ....

Judge Hurd is reciting a MINIMUM STANDARD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW .....

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

For reviewing federal civil rights cases such as PLAINTIFF's .....

THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR USE IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .....

Where the events in this matter took place ....

And that that STANDARD goes back to at least 1994 .....

And that it was reaffirmed by the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997 ....

And that STANDARD was relied upon by Judge Hurd in the federal Northern District of New York ...

As a MINIMUM STANDARD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW ....

In 2002 ....

The year after the August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN went down ....

In Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services, 234 F.Supp.2d 140, 158 (NDNY 2002) .....

AND IN THIS CASE THAT IS UNDER DISCUSSION IN HERE .....

BUSH-APPOINTEE GARY L. SHARPE ....

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

BLATANTLY AND OPENLY TOSSED THAT STANDARD RIGHT IN THE TRASH CAN ......

AND IT WAS HE WHO ESTABLISHED THE NEW STANDARD .....

ONE THAT ALLOWS HIM TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND TO ALTER THE FACTUAL RECORD SO AS TO HAVE A PRETEXT ON WHICH TO DISMISS FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS CASES IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .....

And in this matter under discussion in here ...

The federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals did approve the use of that LOWER STANDARD OF NO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY ......

And so .....

[Livyjr]

"Panel keeps judges clean - Discipline group hits record year as number of actions, complaints rise"

By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Thursday, October 12, 2006

ALBANY -- The state panel that oversees judges had a record year in 2005.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct meted out more discipline than it has in each of the past 25 years -- the most since a 1981 ticket-fixing inquiry dominated the caseload.

Panelists rendered 24 disciplinary determinations, and allowed six judges to resign if they stated publicly they would never seek judicial office again, an annual report released Wednesday said.

Four judges were removed and 15 were censured, including Schenectady Family Court Judge Joanne Assisi and Kingston City Court Judge James Gilpatric.

Assini failed to advise litigants of their right to counsel and was rude to others.

Gilpatric appeared in court once after drinking.

Five judges were admonished and another 13 jurists resigned while under investigation or formal charges, including Colonie Town Justice Richard DiStefano, who was faulted for mistakes he made in his private law practice.

Meanwhile, the panel also received 1,565 complaints last year, the highest number in its history.

Of those, 260 of the complaints, or 17 percent, were investigated and 1,335 found not to have violated the state's rules governing judicial conduct were dismissed.

Commission Chief Counsel Robert Tembeckjian said numbers are going up because more people are aware of how to lodge complaints.

He said the procedure that allows a judge to resign saves time and resources, "both for the commission and the judge."

"We have been doing all this with the bare minimum in staffing and resources," he added.

In 1978, it handled 641 complaints with a $1.6 million budget and staff of 63, he said.

Today, $2.6 million funds a staff of 28.

Some, including judges under scrutiny, have criticized the Manhattan-based agency that has an office in Albany.

More praise it.

"The commission ensures that judges are accountable for actual violations without interfering with the matters of discretion that are critically important to an independent judiciary," said James Sample, counsel for the Brennan Center for Law and Justice at New York University.

Albany Law School Professor Laurie Shanks said she often serves as a referee for commission cases.

"This is a forum to explore them and see if there is an ethical violation," or merely a misstep by a nonlawyer judge, she said.

Michele Morgan Bolton can be reached at 434-2403 or by e-mail at mbolton@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

"Livyjr, with all due respect, sometimes I think you confuse people in here with talk of the PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN ..."

"Because that is a term that people just do not relate to, in their own lives ..."

"SIMPLY STATED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ANYWAY, WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT, SO FAR AS I CAN SEE, IS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PUTTING ITS ARM AROUND A MEDICAL DOCTOR IN TROY, NEW YORK WHO IS SELLING, OR MARKETING, OR GIVING AWAY, WHATEVER, FALSE DIAGNOSES OF PEOPLE HE HAS NEVER MET TO PEOPLE WHO WANT THESE FALSE DIAGNOSES, AND HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE, TO OBTAIN ONE ..."

"JUST AS IF THIS SAME DOCTOR WERE SELLING PRESCRIPTIONS FOR NARCOTICS ON THE OPEN MARKET TO SOMEONE WITH THE WHEREWITHAL TO OBTAIN ONE ..."

"THAT IS WHAT THE BUSH-JUDGE IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HAS APPROVED, WHATEVER NAME YOU MIGHT WANT TO PUT ON IT, THIS SALE OR MARKETING OF THESE FALSE DIAGNOSES BY THIS DOCTOR IN TROY, NEW YORK ..."

"AND THAT IS WHAT THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN NEW YORK CITY HAS PUT ITS SEAL OF APPROVAL ON AS WELL, WHICH IS THE RIGHT OF A MEDICAL DOCTOR IN THE CITY OF TROY, NEW YORK TO SELL OR MARKET FALSE DIAGNOSES OF PEOPLE HE HAS NEVER MET, TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL TO OBTAIN THOSE FALSE DIAGNOSES FROM THIS DOCTOR ..."

"IT IS AN ABOMINATION, WHEN YOU THINK ON IT, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PROTECTING A MEDICAL DOCTOR IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK WHO IS SELLING OR MARKETING THESE FALSE DIAGNOSES, WHATEVER OTHER NAME YOU MIGHT WANT TO PUT ON IT, INCLUDING PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN ..."

"BUT AT ITS MOST BASIC, WHAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS APPROVING HERE, ALONG WITH THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL, ELIOT SPITZER, IS THE SALE OR MARKETING OF FALSE DIAGNOSES BY THIS DOCTOR IN TROY, NEW YORK ..."

"IN OTHER WORDS, SIMPLY STATED, WHAT MIGHT BE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE IF COMMITTED BY ANOTHER IS A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT-APPROVED PRACTICE IF PERFORMED BY THIS DR. JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN AT THE SAMARITAN HOSPITAL IN TROY, NEW YORK ..."

"AND IT IS THAT SIMPLE, LIVYJR ..."

"IT IS NO MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT ..."

"WHEN THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PUTS ITS SEAL OF APPROVAL ON MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THEN REGARDLESS OF WHAT SOME RULES SOMEPLACE MIGHT HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT, IT IS NO LONGER MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WHEN APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ..."

"AND THAT IS THAT ..."

Point made .....

Point taken ...

And thank you for your input ....

[Livyjr]

"SIMPLY STATED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ANYWAY, WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT, SO FAR AS I CAN SEE, IS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PUTTING ITS ARM AROUND A MEDICAL DOCTOR IN TROY, NEW YORK WHO IS SELLING, OR MARKETING, OR GIVING AWAY, WHATEVER, FALSE DIAGNOSES OF PEOPLE HE HAS NEVER MET TO PEOPLE WHO WANT THESE FALSE DIAGNOSES, AND HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE, TO OBTAIN ONE ..."

"JUST AS IF THIS SAME DOCTOR WERE SELLING PRESCRIPTIONS FOR NARCOTICS ON THE OPEN MARKET TO SOMEONE WITH THE WHEREWITHAL TO OBTAIN ONE ..."

"THAT IS WHAT THE BUSH-JUDGE IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HAS APPROVED, WHATEVER NAME YOU MIGHT WANT TO PUT ON IT, THIS SALE OR MARKETING OF THESE FALSE DIAGNOSES BY THIS DOCTOR IN TROY, NEW YORK  ..."

"AND THAT IS WHAT THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN NEW YORK CITY HAS PUT ITS SEAL OF APPROVAL ON AS WELL, WHICH IS THE RIGHT OF A MEDICAL DOCTOR IN THE CITY OF TROY, NEW YORK TO SELL OR MARKET FALSE DIAGNOSES OF PEOPLE HE HAS NEVER MET, TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL TO OBTAIN THOSE FALSE DIAGNOSES FROM THIS DOCTOR ..."

"IT IS AN ABOMINATION, WHEN YOU THINK ON IT, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PROTECTING A MEDICAL DOCTOR IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK WHO IS SELLING OR MARKETING THESE FALSE DIAGNOSES, WHATEVER OTHER NAME YOU MIGHT WANT TO PUT ON IT, INCLUDING PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN ..."

"BUT AT ITS MOST BASIC, WHAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS APPROVING HERE, ALONG WITH THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL, ELIOT SPITZER, IS THE SALE OR MARKETING OF FALSE DIAGNOSES BY THIS DOCTOR IN TROY, NEW YORK ..."

"IN OTHER WORDS, SIMPLY STATED, WHAT MIGHT BE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE IF COMMITTED BY ANOTHER IS A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT-APPROVED PRACTICE IF PERFORMED BY THIS DR. JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN AT THE SAMARITAN HOSPITAL IN TROY, NEW YORK ..."

"AND IT IS THAT SIMPLE, LIVYJR ..."

"IT IS NO MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT ..."

RULES OF THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF REGENTS GOVERNING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK BY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND MEDICAL DOCTORS

§ 29.1 General provisions.

a. Unprofessional conduct shall be the conduct prohibited by this section. The provisions of these rules applicable to a particular profession may define additional acts or omissions as unprofessional conduct and may establish exceptions to these general prohibitions.

b. Unprofessional conduct in the practice of any profession licensed, certified or registered pursuant to title VIII of the Education Law, except for cases involving those professions licensed, certified or registered pursuant to the provisions of Article 131 or 131-B of such law in which a statement of charges of professional misconduct was not served on or before July 26, 1991, the effective date of Chapter 606 of the Laws of 1991, shall include:

1. willful or grossly negligent failure to comply with substantial provisions of Federal, State or local laws, rules or regulations governing the practice of the profession;

5. conduct in the practice of a profession which evidences moral unfitness to practice the profession;

6. 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;

10. delegating professional responsibilities to a person when the licensee delegating such responsibilities knows or has reason to know that such person is not qualified, by training, by experience or by licensure, to perform them;

§ 29.2 General provisions for health professions.

Unprofessional conduct shall also include, in the professions of medicine, except for cases involving those professions licensed, certified or registered pursuant to the provisions of Article 131 or 131-B of the Education Law in which a statement of charges of professional misconduct was not served on or before July 26, 1991, the effective date of Chapter 606 of the Laws of 1991:

3. failing to maintain a record for each patient which accurately reflects the evaluation and treatment of the patient.

Unless otherwise provided by law, all patient records must be retained for at least six years.

Obstetrical records and records of minor patients must be retained for at least six years, and until one year after the minor patient reaches the age of 21 years;

7. ordering of excessive tests, treatment, or use of treatment facilities not warranted by the condition of the patient .....

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DATED: November 10, 2003
            Albany, New York

David E. Rook

"And to take this the necessary one step further, Livyjr ...."

"IT IS PATENTLY OBVIOUS FROM THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SUMMARY ORDER IN THIS MATTER DATED DECEMBER OF 2005 THAT IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS INDEED PERMISSABLE FOR A MEDICAL DOCTOR LICENSED BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO COMMIT ACTS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT, AND TO BE IMMUNE FROM CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR THOSE ACTS ..."

"IF ..."

"And this is the important part, Livyjr, for those of us out here in America who might ourselves be affected by this decision ..."

"IF THIS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ..."

"IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN DONE FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY AT LARGE ...."

"PRESUMABLY IN THE WHOLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ..."

"SINCE THIS IS A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULING WE ARE DISCUSSING IN HERE ....."

"AND NOT JUST ONE FROM A NEW YORK STATE COURT ..."

"AND ......"

"Of course, the BENEFIT of the victim of this professional misconduct and medical malpractice ..."

"In this case your PLAINTIFF ..."

"And then ..."

"It is no longer medical malpractice and professional misconduct ..."

"IT HAS SIMPLY BEEN RE-DEFINED BY THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO BE THAT WAY ....."

"NOT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE NOR PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE ..."

"REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE RULES OF THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF REGENTS MIGHT HAVE TO SAY ON THE SUBJECT ....."

"And so, Livyjr, and so ..."

"WHAT THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS DOING HERE, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, WITH THE USE OF THE UNPUBLISHED SUMMARY ORDER TO CLOSE OUT THIS CASE, IS THAT THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS ACTUALLY SANCTIONING THE USE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT HERE IN AMERICA ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS ..."

"BASED ON SOME SET OF STANDARDS KNOWN ONLY TO THEM ..."

"WHICH IS TANTAMOUNT TO A RIGHT TO IMPOSE MENTAL TORTURE ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, HERE IN AMERICA ..."

"WHICH IS WHAT FORCED PSYCHIATRIC CONFINEMENT WOULD BE FOR A SANE RATIONAL PERSON ..."

"ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD ..."

"AND WE WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW ANY OF THIS, OUT HERE IN AMERICA ..."

"THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE JUST ANOTHER DIRTY LITTLE SECRET ...."

"HERE IN AMERICA ..."

"BECAUSE BUT FOR THIS THREAD, THIS SUMMARY ORDER WOULD HAVE REMAINED UNPUBLISHED ..."

"WHICH MEANS THAT FOR ALL OF US OUT HERE IN AMERICA WITHOUT ACCESS TO THIS THREAD, THIS WHOLE THING NEVER HAPPENED ..."

"And so, Livyjr, and so ..."

"These are quite the times that we are living in, Livyjr ....."

"Quite the times, indeed ..."

And so they are ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

"WHAT THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS DOING HERE, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, WITH THE USE OF THE UNPUBLISHED SUMMARY ORDER TO CLOSE OUT THIS CASE, IS THAT THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS ACTUALLY SANCTIONING THE USE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT HERE IN AMERICA ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS ..."

"BASED ON SOME SET OF STANDARDS KNOWN ONLY TO THEM ..."

"WHICH IS TANTAMOUNT TO A RIGHT TO IMPOSE MENTAL TORTURE ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, HERE IN AMERICA ..."

"WHICH IS WHAT FORCED PSYCHIATRIC CONFINEMENT WOULD BE FOR A SANE RATIONAL PERSON ..."

"ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD ..."

"AND WE WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW ANY OF THIS, OUT HERE IN AMERICA ..."

"THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE JUST ANOTHER DIRTY LITTLE SECRET ...."

"HERE IN AMERICA ..."

"BECAUSE BUT FOR THIS THREAD, THIS SUMMARY ORDER WOULD HAVE REMAINED UNPUBLISHED ..."

"WHICH MEANS THAT FOR ALL OF US OUT HERE IN AMERICA WITHOUT ACCESS TO THIS THREAD, THIS WHOLE THING NEVER HAPPENED ..."

"And so, Livyjr, and so ..."

And here, a reader has stopped me to ask if I can point to anything at all that conclusively states that in the State of New York, licensed professional engineers are not supposed to be playing "politics" ....

By signing off on projects that do not meet the requirements of all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations .....

As the PLAINTIFF was being required to do in this matter by Rensselaer County as a CONDITION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT with the Rensselaer County Department of Health in 1988 ....

Or more specifically perhaps, can I point to anything that definitively states that in the State of New York, licensed professional engineers are supposed to act with integrity at all times .....

And my answer is yes, I believe that I can ....

As follows:

A local board of health may not confer immunity on a professional engineer from any of the Rules of the Board of Regents defining unprofessional conduct set forth in Part 29 of Title 8 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York (8 N.Y.C.R.R.).

Sections 6506, 6507, 6508 and 6509 of the New York State Education Law GIVE NO AUTHORITY to local boards of health in PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING OR DISCIPLINE MATTERS.

A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS SHOULD NEVER COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT.

WHERE A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IS GIVEN DIRECTIONS THAT REQUIRE HIM OR HER TO COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT, IT REMAINS THE OBLIGATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER NOT TO COMMIT SUCH MISCONDUCT.

Nothing in the definition of the practice of engineering under section 7201 of the Education Law PERMITS AN EXEMPTION FROM PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINARY VIOLATIONS ON THE GROUNDS OF HAVING FOLLOWED ORDERS FROM A LOCAL HEALTH BOARD.

A professional engineer is ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE for his or her own professional work.

WHILE A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER MAY TAKE PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS FROM AN UNLICENSED PERSON, THE ENGINEER SHOULD NEVER FOLLOW ORDERS WHICH REQUIRE HIM OR HER TO COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT.

Again, it is the professional engineer's PERSONAL OBLIGATION NOT TO COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT.

Those words are taken directly from a June 11, 1991 letter on New York State Education Department stationary to us, the concerned citizens in this matter, from a Mr. Lance R. Plunkett, Senior Attorney, Regulations Review Unit, New York State Department of Education ....

Who was responding to us on behalf of Mr. Douglas Hasbrouck, Executive Secretary for the New York State Board for Engineering and Land Surveying in the State of New York ...

Where all of what transpired in this matter took place ....

My position in this thread ....

Is that this June 11, 1991 letter from the New York State Department of Education ...

Is clear and concise on its face ....

And unambiguous .....

And that it represents THE OFFICIAL STATED POLICY of the "State of New York" with respect to how licensed professional engineers must conduct themselves at all times in the State of New York ...

Regardless of POLITICAL PRESSURE .....

Or threats and intimidation ....

On the one hand .....

And regardless of a "lax regulatory environment" on the other ....

AND THAT IS WHERE THE ON-GOING DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER STEMS FROM ....

How "ABSOLUTE" is the law, really, when it does come right on down to the NITTY-GRITTY .....

Where a licensed engineer like PLAINTIFF is told by a powerful REPUBLICAN lawyer to "*** THE LAW, JUST DO WHAT YOU ARE BEING TOLD TO DO, OR YOUR SORRY *** IS GOING RIGHT ON OUT THE DOOR, AND I'LL PERSONALLY SEE THAT YOU NEVER WORK AS AN ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, EVER AGAIN!"

How "absolute" is the law .....

When a Bush-appointee federal district court judge in the federal Northern District of New York makes it very clear to all of us "honest folks" up here who believe in the "law" as stated in that June 11, 1991 letter ....

That that law is nothing but one great big joke ...

And so ....

And for anyone just stopping by for the first time .....

Wondering what we are talking about in here .....

What I would say ....

Is that we are looking at ...

The ANATOMY of a COVER-UP .....

Of on-going corruption .....

In the County of Rensselaer ...

In the State of New York ....

Where one man ...

An engineer ....

Was crushed ....

Because he would not bow ....

To those "forces of corruption" .....

That his licensing as a professional engineer ...

In the State of New York ...

Required him ...

To not only resist ...

But further ...

To report to the Office of Professional Discipline ...

Of the New York State Department of Education ...

Pursuant to § 29.3 of the Rules of the New York State Board of Regents as those rules apply specifically to the "design professions" in the State of New York, to include engineers and land surveyors ....

Unprofessional conduct shall also include, in the professions of architecture and landscape architecture, engineering and land surveying, being associated in a professional capacity with any project or practice known to the licensee to be fraudulent or dishonest in character, or not reporting knowledge of such fraudulence or dishonesty to the Education Department ....

OFFICE OF THE PROFESSIONS - NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

http://www.op.nysed.gov

Deputy Commissioner Johanna Duncan-Poitier leads the Office.

The Office of the Professions provides a number of services to the public and the professions, including the following:

Professional Discipline

Investigates and prosecutes professional misconduct and unlicensed practice throughout New York State

Maintains a hotline for reporting professional misconduct and unlicensed practice

These are among the many services offered by the Office of the Professions to protect the public and the integrity of the professions.

For more information, contact the Office of the Professions by phone at 518-474-3817 or by e-mail to op4info@mail.nysed.gov.

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 .....

"And that conclusion about the federal SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS turning its back on medical malpratice and professional misconduct in the State of New York in this case wraps us right back around, Livyjr, to this June 11, 1991 letter on New York State Education Department stationary to you people up there, the concerned citizens in this matter, from this Mr. Lance R. Plunkett, Senior Attorney, Regulations Review Unit, New York State Department of Education, where he states:"

"WHERE A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IS GIVEN DIRECTIONS THAT REQUIRE HIM OR HER TO COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT, IT REMAINS THE OBLIGATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER NOT TO COMMIT SUCH MISCONDUCT."

"ACCORDING TO ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAVE SEEN IN HERE TODAT ..."

"TEN YEARS AFTER THIS MR. PLUNKETT MADE THIS STATEMENT, THE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE DID IN FACT TURN ITS BACK AND LOOK THE OTHER WAY ON AND AFTER AUGUST 22, 2001, WHEN THIS DR. JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN AT SAMARITAN HOSPITAL IN TROY, NEW YORK DID PRACTICE PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN THE CASE OF HIS FALSE 'DIAGNOSIS FOR HIRE' OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MATTER AS AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT, WHEN THIS BRAATEN HAD NEVER MET THE PLAINTIFF, LET ALONE EXAMINED HIM AS THE LAW REQUIRES ..."

"AND THERE IS THE MOCKERY, LIVYJR, OF THE LAW ..."

"AT LEAST FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF US COMMON CITIZENS OUT HERE IN AMERICA WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE RECIPIENTS OF THE PROTECTION AGAINST PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT THAT SUCH LAWS AND RULES ARE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE FOR ..."

"The very clear message that has come to us, through this thread, from the federal SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, in conjunction with the Office of the New York State Attorney General, the New York State Department of Education, and the New York State Department of Health is this:"

IF A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK IS GIVEN DIRECTIONS THAT REQUIRE HIM OR HER TO COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT, IT REMAINS THE OBLIGATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO COMMIT SUCH MISCONDUCT, REGARDLESS, BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ....

OR ELSE!

"That, Livyjr, is the message that I walk away with today, after having spent time with this thread and it contents over the last year or so ..."

"And it is a very simple message, indeed ...."

"DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD TO DO, OR WE WILL BREAK YOU ..."

"And so, Livyjr, and so ..."

This post has been edited by Livyjr: Oct 15 2006, 06:53 AM

[Livyjr]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

DATED: November 10, 2003
            Albany, New York

David E. Rook

"The very clear message that has come to us, through this thread, from the federal SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, in conjunction with the Office of the New York State Attorney General, the New York State Department of Education, and the New York State Department of Health is this:"

IF A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK IS GIVEN DIRECTIONS THAT REQUIRE HIM OR HER TO COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT, IT REMAINS THE OBLIGATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO COMMIT SUCH MISCONDUCT, REGARDLESS, BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ....

OR ELSE!

"That, Livyjr, is the message that I walk away with today, after having spent time with this thread and it contents over the last year or so ..."

"And it is a very simple message, indeed ...."

"DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD TO DO, OR WE WILL BREAK YOU ..."

"And so, Livyjr, and so ..."

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

"And that just about closes the loop in here, Livyjr, for me, anyway, so far as I can see it ...."

"With this very blatant statement above here which is attributable to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in its December 2005 SUMMARY ORDER in this matter ..."

IF A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK IS GIVEN DIRECTIONS THAT REQUIRE HIM OR HER TO COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT, IT REMAINS THE OBLIGATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO COMMIT SUCH MISCONDUCT, REGARDLESS, BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ....

OR ELSE!

"Because in reality, as I see it from the evidence, anyway, what this is, first of all, is a high-level federal court ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of this OCTOBER 13, 1988 POLICY STATEMENT that Kenneth Van Praag, the Rensselaer County Public Health Director, was re-iterating to Dr. Ian Loudon of the New York State Department of Health on October 13, 1988 ..."

"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."

"WHICH IS TO SAY, AS FAR AS THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN NEW YORK CITY IS CONCERNED, OF COURSE THERE ARE MORE PAINFUL AND LESS HUMANITARIAN APPROACHES AVAILABLE TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO USE AT WILL ON LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK WHO WILL NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT ON DEMAND ..."

"WITH THE FORCED INCARCERATION OF THE PLAINTIFF IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILITY BEING JUST ONE OF THEM ..."

"AND BY ITS DECEMBER 2005 SUMMARY ORDER IN THIS MATTER ..."

"WHAT THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN NEW YORK CITY IS SAYING TO ALL OF US HERE IN AMERICA, AND IN THE WORLD AS WELL, FOR THAT MATTER, IS THIS:"

"YES, WE ARE AWARE OF THIS POLICY ..."

"AND YES, WE APPROVE OF THIS POLICY ..."

"BECAUSE IT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY AT LARGE ..."

"AND BASED ON THAT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THAT POLICY OF ESCALATING PUNISHMENTS BY THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN NEW YORK CITY ..."

"IT CAN READILY BE SEEN THAT THE DECEMBER 2005 FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION IN THIS MATTER IS IN REALITY AN ENDORSEMENT BY THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE FORCED INCARCERATION OF YOUR PLAINTIFF AS AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT BASED ON A FALSE DIAGNOSIS OF THE PLAINTIFF BY DR. JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN OF SAMARITAN HOSPITAL IN TROY, NEW YORK ...."

"AS A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THAT PREVIOUSLY STATED POLICY OF ESCALATING PUNISHMENT FOR THOSE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK WHO WILL NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT ON DEMAND OF THE 'STATE' IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ..."

"WHICH ACTION BY BRAATEN AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MATTER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN NEW YORK CITY, NOW CONSTITUTES FOR ALL FUTURE TIME FEDERAL COURT-APPROVED PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT BY BRAATEN ...."

"YES ..."

"THIS IS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT ..."

"BUT IN THIS CASE, THAT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT WAS NECESSARY ..."

"FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY AT LARGE ..."

"AS WELL AS FEDERAL COURT-APPROVED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE BY BRAATEN FOR SELLING OR PURVEYING TO JEFFREY PELLETIER OF POESTENKILL, NEW YORK, A FALSE DIAGNOSIS OF PLAINTIFF AS AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT ..."

"FOR WHICH PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DR. JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN HAS BEEN GRANTED IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION ...."

"FIRST BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ITSELF ..."

"FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY AT LARGE ..."

"AND THEN, BY THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN NEW YORK CITY, IN RECOGNITION OF THAT GRANT OF IMMUNITY TO BRAATEN FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK ..."

"AND THIS AGAIN IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY AT LARGE ..."

"WHICH IS ALL OF US OUT HERE IN AMERICA WHO ARE READING THIS THREAD ..."

"TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS BENEFITS US IN ANY PARTICULAR FASHION ..."

"BECAUSE BRAATEN'S ACTIONS ON AUGUST 22, 2001 WERE, TO THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN NEW YORK CITY, A PERFECTLY LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THAT PREVIOUSLY STATED POLICY OF ESCALATING PUNISHMENT FOR THOSE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK WHO WILL NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT ON DEMAND OF THE 'STATE' IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ..."

"THAT WAS RE-ITERATED TO THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ON OCTOBER 13, 1988 BY RENSSELAER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR KENNETH VAN PRAAG ...."

"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."

"And it is that simple, Livyjr ..."

"From my perspective, anyway ..."

And so .....

Yes ....

It is ....

And so ...

[Livyjr]

"YES ..."

"THIS IS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT ..."

"BUT IN THIS CASE, THAT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT WAS NECESSARY ..."

"FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY AT LARGE ..."

THE ETHICIST

Does anyone really think lawyering involves ethical behavior?

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

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

We are all but prohibited from doing so!

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

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

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

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

Think again, Jack.

We are not the clergy.

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

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

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

- Michael P. Friedman, President, Albany County Bar Association, March 2003

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

"And checking my notes one last time, Livyjr, before I break off here, where I find myself at this point in the discussion, is right back to this post above here by the PRESIDENT of the ALBANY COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION up there in the State of New York, where he states:"

"We do not necessarily advise the guilty to accept their punishment ....."

"As I read that statement, which is a very public statement, given that it is available off of the internet, and then compare it to what actually transpired in this case, where the alleged 'guilty parties' clearly ended up with absolutely no punishment at all, I am struck by the level of INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY that is inherent in OUR legal system, and how PERNICIOUS this is to OUR society as a whole ..."

"The 'SOCIETY AT LARGE' that is laughingly benefitted, according to this GOLD JOHNSON lawyer Rook, by medical doctors in the State of New York having some alleged authority under New York State law to sell or market or purvey or distribute to members of the public, the 'most heinous members', perhaps, FALSE or FAKE DIAGNOSES of other people that these individuals wish to harm in some way, or totally remove from society, as was the case in here ..."

"And I cannot help but think of how rampant that INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY is in this case, starting with this Bush-judge, Gary L. Sharpe in the federal District Court for the Northern District of New York, and going through the administration of that court, and here, I am thinking of this federal court staff lawyer, Marguerite Conan, and from there, right on into the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals, itself ..."

"INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY ..."

"AND MORAL COWARDICE ..."

"AND ABSOLUTELY NO INTEGRITY, WHATSOEVER ..."

"That, Livyjr, is the picture of the United States Court System in the State of New York that I am walking away with from here ..."

"And as I do, I am forced to wonder how far through the entire system this ETHICAL MALADY goes ....."

"And my further conclusion is that the whole system, from top to bottom, must be rife with this corruption, if the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City can so openly demonstrate its disdain for RULE OF LAW, here in America, as it did in this case, with no fear of censure coming from any quarter, here in America ..."

"And that, Livyjr, is a statement about America itself, and its peoples ..."

"People who have themselves become corrupted by this system here in America, where in fact, according to the words of the PRESIDENT of the Albany County Bar Association in the State of New York:"

"We do not necessarily advise the guilty to accept their punishment ....."

"For a lawyer to say that implies a great deal, and that 'great deal' of necessity must involve a judge, just as it did in this case, where the GOLD JOHNSONS found a federal district court judge, with the apparent aid and assistance of the federal district court itself, who would protect their client, Dr. John Christian Braaten, from the law ..."

"And here, like many other people in America, Livyjr, I find myself groping for words with which to further express myself, in the same way a drowning man gropes for a gasp of air ..."

"Clearly, from all of the evidence in here, this in fact has happened up there in the State of New York, that being a federal district court judge putting his arm around a medical doctor in the State of New York who is apparently selling these bogus diagnoses of people that he has never seen or met, and Livyjr, it is beyond my ability with words to express what is at least outright disgust that someone in America, anyone in America for that fact, and especially a federal district court judge, would find anything at all to approve in that kind of conduct by anyone, and especially by a licensed medical doctor in the State of New York, or any state, for that matter ..."

"Beyond words ..."

"And there, Livyjr, is where I must cease for the moment, at least, as I am sitting here speechless at this, just as I was back at the beginning, when I first started following this thread along, disbelieving that something like this could be happening here in the America that I used to love ...."

"What kind of place has this become, I must wonder, when conduct such as this has become what the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA protects?"

[Livyjr]

"And checking my notes one last time, Livyjr, before I break off here, where I find myself at this point in the discussion, is right back to this post above here by the PRESIDENT of the ALBANY COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION up there in the State of New York, where he states:"

"We do not necessarily advise the guilty to accept their punishment ....."

"As I read that statement, which is a very public statement, given that it is available off of the internet, and then compare it to what actually transpired in this case, where the alleged 'guilty parties' clearly ended up with absolutely no punishment at all, I am struck by the level of INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY that is inherent in OUR legal system, and how  PERNICIOUS this is to OUR society as a whole ..."

"The 'SOCIETY AT LARGE' that is laughingly benefitted, according to this GOLD JOHNSON lawyer Rook, by medical doctors in the State of New York having some alleged authority under New York State law to sell or market or purvey or distribute to members of the public, the 'most heinous members', perhaps, FALSE or FAKE DIAGNOSES of other people that these individuals wish to harm in some way, or totally remove from society, as was the case in here ..."

"Mr. Putin and the press - The assassination of another journalist evokes the specter of the Stalinist era"

Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Monday, October 16, 2006

The slaying of Russian investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya on Oct. 7 comes as a somber reminder that democracy in Russia is on the endangered list.

While President Vladimir Putin has promised a thorough investigation into the assassination, his word is suspect when it comes to a free press, given his crackdown on media that have dared to criticize him.

Ms. Politkovskaya worked for one of the few independent newspapers remaining in Russia, and she had been relentless in her reports on Russian troop atrocities inside Chechnya.

Mr. Putin has managed to largely escape criticism for his crackdown, not only at home, but throughout much of the world, even as he takes his country backward to the era of Soviet repression.

Last July, at a meeting of G-8 countries in St. Petersburg, President Bush attempted to call his Russian counterpart to task for his authoritarian ways by citing Iraq as an example of a more open society.

It was a clumsy analogy, and Mr. Putin was quick to take advantage of it by dryly responding then that he was quite happy not to have an Iraqi-style democracy in Russia.

What he does have is frightening in its own right.

Ms. Politkovskaya, whom The New York Times reports was gunned down in her apartment building as she was about to deliver a major story to her newspaper about torture in Chechnya, is just one of a growing list of journalists who have been killed in pursuit of the truth.

Two years ago, for example, Paul Klebnikov, an American who was editor of Forbes' Russian edition, was gunned down as he left his office, in obvious reprisal for articles on Russia's money men.

In all, 14 journalists have been murdered since 2000, and in each case Mr. Putin has promised a thorough investigation.

But to date, not one of the killers has been brought to justice.

Mr. Putin's contempt for a free press is matched by his disdain for free elections.

A case in point: Regional representatives, once chosen in free elections, have been replaced with Kremlin appointees.

Ms. Politkovskaya is said to have been fond of the term "anti-cynicism" when writing about the brutal conditions in Chechnya.

But it is difficult to be anything but cynical about the press and justice in today's Russia.

end quotes

And it is equally difficult ...

To be anything but cynical ....

About "justice" .....

In today's America, as well ....

And so ...

[Livyjr]

"Trying to fly under the radar - Contributors find $99 limit to campaign contributions won't always guarantee anonymity"

By RICK KARLIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Monday, October 16, 2006

ALBANY -- The $99 contribution has long been an open secret in the world of campaign finance.

Candidates don't have to reveal the names of people who give less than $100 to their campaigns, making the $99 gift a way to give while remaining anonymous.

But several dozen supporters of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer --state workers who openly acknowledge they gave those contributions specifically to conceal their political leanings -- found it doesn't always work that way.

The story of the Capital Region's $99 contributors is as much about the state capital's political culture and its spoils system as it is about money.

It's a culture with long memories, and one in which political loyalty can trump competence in the workplace.

It also offers a window on a less-publicized side of political fundraising:

Rather than big-name, $1,000-a-plate political donors or well-paid state commissioners and deputies, these $99 contributors include some of the state's faceless bureaucrats, or "worker bees," as one donor, Linda Hunt, described them.

They wanted to show their support for Spitzer, but were well aware they are still working under a Republican governor.

Among the contributors on the list are people who lost high-profile jobs after Pataki took office in 1995.

Spitzer's July financial disclosure lists at least two dozen people, all in the Capital Region, who have made $99 contributions this year.

Most came in February, which they say was during a house party for Spitzer supporters.

While house parties don't necessarily rake in heaps of cash, they're a good way to energize grass-roots organizers who can help get out the vote on Election Day.

Among the 80 party attendees who raised about $8,000 were lawyers, administrators and career civil servants, according to the host.

A number of smaller contributions -- $25, $50 and $75 -- also are included in the disclosure form.

Many of those are from the Capital Region as well.

Spitzer, the current attorney general, has a commanding lead both in the polls and in fundraising over his Republican opponent, John Faso, a former Assembly minority leader.

Faso's July filings contained no $99 contributions.

There's a catch to the anonymity of the $99 contribution: If the same donor gives another contribution of even $1 more, it has to be disclosed.

Spitzer spokeswoman Christine Anderson said that's why the $99 donors were listed.

"Once they go over the $100 threshold, we have to report," she said.

The fact that second-time donors would give $99, rather than another amount, suggests they believed that those contributions would be secret.

Donors contacted by the Times Union expressed surprise, and concern, that their names had been made public.

"People are very sensitive about all of it," said Leslie Knauf, who in the early 1990s was director of business development for the state Thruway Authority but now works for the state's bill drafting operation.

She was among several who attended a house party hosted by Inez Haettenschwiller, a lawyer with the state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance.

Haettenschwiller said she was told that names of those who gave less than $100 would not appear on a contributors list.

"We did have a fear of retaliation, and the people we were targeting for the party were public employees," she said.

Haettenschwiller said her political sympathies were no secret in her job, and she has had no problems because of them.

The reason for the sensitivity is clear, said others.

The Capital Region is home to many people who lost their jobs or went from executive positions to civil service posts after Pataki replaced Democrat Mario Cuomo in 1995.

"They wanted my job," said Paul Rickard, another $99 donor, and former Halfmoon Democratic chairman.

He was removed as a spokesman for the Department of Taxation and Finance soon after Pataki arrived.

Rickard had civil service seniority and was able to get a job at the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance.

The turnover was particularly rapid at the start of Pataki's administration, Rickard recalled.

He says top officials swept through state agencies seeking to get rid of Democrats who didn't have civil service protection.

"They were fairly vindictive folks, especially when they first came in," said Rickard, adding that the pace slowed over the years.

Now, he said, with Spitzer running far ahead of Faso, "I've had people ask if they can register as Democrats again."

Pataki spokesman Michael Marr said it was "outrageous" to suggest state employees feel they have to worry about retribution because of politics.

"Is there an example of anybody getting in trouble for being a Democrat?" he asked, stressing that he doesn't recall any incidents in which people were targeted for their affiliations.

Still, even some Republicans say fear of political retribution -- by both parties -- runs deep for those who support an individual rather than toe the party line.

"I think that's the case everywhere," said Tom Marcelle, a lawyer who has dealt with election law and who has served as a Republican town board member in Bethlehem.

When he was running in 2001, Marcelle said he got his share of $99 contributions from people who liked him but, because they were Democrats or had ties to the area's Democratic machine, didn't want to publicize that they were supporting a Republican.

Such concerns, Marcelle believes, become magnified in the Capitol, or in statewide races where high-paying appointed jobs and lucrative contracts can be at stake.

"The reality is that the culture in Albany, the political culture, is that we have a rich tradition of retaliation for dissent," said Marcelle.

Rick Karlin can be reached at 454-5758 or by e-mail at rkarlin@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

One man's view on judges and the role that they play in OUR society here in OUR America ....

VIDEO CLIP: San Francisco Police Chief responding at a news conference regarding a SFPD Police Officer killed during the pursuit of armed robbers.

http://mfile.akamai.com/12948/wmv/vod.ibsy...591734.300k.asx

[Livyjr]

"Armor for the Whistle-Blowers"

By Stephen Barr
Washington Post
Thursday, August 10, 2006; Page D04

Three House members who favor stronger protections for whistle-blowers are urging support for a Senate amendment that would reinforce the rights of federal employees who disclose waste, fraud and abuse in government.

"First Amendment Sometimes Left at Workplace Door"

By Stephen Barr
Thursday, June 1, 2006; Page D04

The Supreme Court's ruling on freedom-of-speech rights of public employees has created a stir across the government, in part because of the way Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the 5-to-4 majority, framed the issue:

"When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."

Although the wording seemed stark, the court did not redefine federal whistle-blower protections.

The majority, in some respects, seemed interested in ensuring that governments can oversee workplaces and that disputes between employees and supervisors do not automatically fall into the realm of a constitutional right.

The case involved a local-government employee, Los Angeles County prosecutor Richard Ceballos, and for the most part addressed only one aspect of his actions --claims made in a memo written as part of his job duties.

In Tuesday's ruling, the court found that a district attorney's office did not violate Ceballos's freedom of speech by allegedly demoting him after he wrote supervisors about his concerns that a sheriff's deputy had lied to get a search warrant.

Ceballos contended that supervisors later retaliated against him with a demotion, denial of a promotion and a transfer to an office requiring longer commutes.

The district attorney's office has denied taking retribution.

The Supreme Court majority said Ceballos could not seek First Amendment protection because the memo laying out his allegations was written as part of his job duties and because supervisors have authority "to take proper corrective action" if they think such a memo is "inflammatory or misguided."

Kennedy, however, noted that public employees who make statements outside the course of performing their official duties "retain some possibility of First Amendment protection" because they are acting in the same manner as citizens who do not work for the government.

Government agencies troubled by the notion that employees might make whistle-blowing claims as citizens outside the workplace can take steps to address the issue, Kennedy suggested.

"A public employer that wishes to encourage its employees to voice concerns privately retains the option of instituting internal policies and procedures that are receptive to employee criticism," he wrote.

"Giving employees an internal forum for their speech will discourage them from concluding that the safest avenue of expression is to state their views in public."

While that may be sound advice, numerous federal whistle-blowers have complained over the years that agencies fail to handle their complaints in a confidential manner and to protect them from reprisals by their superiors.

The four justices in dissent suggested that public employees should be eligible to claim First Amendment protection in the course of their duties.

Justice David H. Souter pointed out that public workers have been given a "patchwork" of protections and noted that federal employees have no protection for disclosures made to immediate supervisors, for statements of publicly known facts or for statements made in connection with normal employment duties.

In a newsletter last year, the Merit Systems Protection Board said employees need to be careful in how they blow the whistle on violations of law and rules, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority and specific dangers to public health and safety.

An employee can blow the whistle by calling an inspector general hotline, going outside the chain of command or by talking to the news media, the newsletter suggested.

Employees faced with reprisals can appeal to the board or ask for investigations by an independent agency, the Office of Special Counsel.

The Supreme Court ruling may slow momentum in Congress for redefining whistle-blower protections.

Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), with bipartisan support, is pushing for legislation that would permit a federal whistle-blower to be protected for disclosing information learned on the job or in the course of job duties.

The Justice Department has opposed taking that step, and at least one senator has placed a hold on Akaka's bill, according to congressional aides.

Stephen Barr's e-mail address isbarrs@washpost.com.

[Livyjr]

"Judge race makes for a GOP-bites-GOP story" 

Albany, New York Times Union 
First published: Friday, November 4, 2005

And now, on with the show…

The intrigue in the race for three state Supreme Court seats in the seven-county Third Judicial District just keeps on getting deeper.

Some 2,200 Rensselaer County Republicans found in their mailboxes this week a missive from County Clerk Frank Merola urging them not to support one of the GOP's two judicial candidates, local attorney Tom Marcelle.

Merola signed the letter with his official title but -- in a very smart move -- did not use publicly funded stationary.

In the letter, Merola accused Marcelle of party disloyalty because he "worked furiously behind the scenes to remove from the slate of judicial candidates Chris Hummel, one of the most qualified of all the judges."

"Mr. Marcelle knew that his chances of winning ... would be greatly diminished with Judge Hummel on the ballot," Merola wrote.

"As a Republican, I find this absolutely contemptible."

Several sources said Merola was told to write the letter by state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick.

"Historic struggle over seat forecast - Albany Law professor foresees "food fight" as GOP lawyer predicts 'all-out war'" 
 
By BRIAN NEARING, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Saturday, July 2, 2005

ALBANY -- Some conservative Republicans have been upset with O'Connor in the past, particularly after her 1992 vote helped uphold abortion rights in a Pennsylvania case, said Tom Marcelle, a Republican lawyer who in 2001 argued a case before the Supreme Court in favor of allowing religious clubs to meet in public schools.

"Trying to fly under the radar - Contributors find $99 limit to campaign contributions won't always guarantee anonymity" 
 
By RICK KARLIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Monday, October 16, 2006

ALBANY -- "The reality is that the culture in Albany, the political culture, is that we have a rich tradition of retaliation for dissent," said Marcelle.

"Well, Livyjr, there is some powerful corroboration for what you have been saying in your thread here, coming to us as it does through the pages of the Albany, New York Times Union, the newspaper for the CAPITAL DISTRICT of the State of New York, where all of this political retaliation crap described in this thread has been going on for so long now ..."

"And coming as it does from the lips of a REPUBLICAN LAWYER who himself was just a candidate for the New York State Supreme Court as a REPUBLICAN, that being this Tom Marcelle who is making this above statement here:"

"The reality is that the culture in Albany, the political culture, is that we have a rich tradition of retaliation for dissent ...."

"A rich tradition ...."

"Of retaliation ...."

"For dissent ...."

"And as this thread demonstrates, Livyjr, with this PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN approved for use by them by the federal SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS in New York City, they clearly have ALL THE FANCY TOOLS with which to retaliate with ..."

"SINCE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT APPROVAL OF THIS PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN AS A TOOL OF REPRESSION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK NOW ALLOWS THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT TO TOSS DISSENTERS DIRECTLY INTO THE DUMPING GROUNDS OF SECURE MENTAL INSTITUTIONS, SUCH AS THE NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. GULAG IN THE CITY OF TROY, NEW YORK ..."

"WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT YOUR ALBANY, NEW YORK TIMES UNION STAYED QUITE MUM ABOUT, I NOTICE ...."

"SO THAT THE PRACTICE, OR 'RICH TRADITION' OF RETALIATION FOR DISSENT IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK CAN CONTINUE ON UNIMPEDED ..."

"AS IT HAS FOR YOUR PLAINTIFF UP THERE SINCE 1988 ..."

"And so ..."

[Livyjr]

"The reality is that the culture in Albany, the political culture, is that we have a rich tradition of retaliation for dissent ...."

"A rich tradition ...."

"Of retaliation ...."

"For dissent ...."

"And as this thread demonstrates, Livyjr, with this PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN approved for use by them by the federal SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS in New York City, they clearly have ALL THE FANCY TOOLS with which to retaliate with ..."

"SINCE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT APPROVAL OF THIS PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN AS A TOOL OF REPRESSION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK NOW ALLOWS THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT TO TOSS DISSENTERS DIRECTLY INTO THE DUMPING GROUNDS OF SECURE MENTAL INSTITUTIONS, SUCH AS THE NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. GULAG IN THE CITY OF TROY, NEW YORK ..."

"WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT YOUR ALBANY, NEW YORK TIMES UNION STAYED QUITE MUM ABOUT, I NOTICE ...."

"SO THAT THE PRACTICE, OR 'RICH TRADITION' OF RETALIATION FOR DISSENT IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK CAN CONTINUE ON UNIMPEDED ..."

"AS IT HAS FOR YOUR PLAINTIFF UP THERE SINCE 1988 ..."

"And so ..."

And speaking about "fighting city hall" ....

Here it is right now ....

Same fight ...

A different "ball field", perhaps ...

But the same old game, nonetheless ....

The "MUZZLING" of DISSENT by responsible scientists and engineers, here in OUR America ....

By a "political party" ....

For its own benefit ....

And to OUR harm .....

WHY DOESN'T THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO OUR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PROTECT RESPONSIBLE SPEECH MADE TO THE PUBLIC ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE, HERE IN OUR AMERICA?"

Why does the First Amendment only protect pornographers and purveyors of filth, here in OUR America?

Because that is a money-generating INDUSTRY which is considered to be "good" for our national economy, would be the immediate answer ....

And because the peddling of pornography and other filth here in OUR America is no threat at all to corrupt politicians ....

Whereas RESPONSIBLE SPEECH is perceived by the corrupt politicians as a direct threat to them, and so ....

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, 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 .....

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

WHAT IS DISSENT, ANYWAY?

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

Or is DISSENT something different?

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

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

"REFUSAL TO AGREE WITH AN ACT PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED!"

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

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

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

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

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

"It's not RETALIATION, Livyjr ...."

"IF IT DOES NOT HURT ..."

"And there is no sense in RETALIATING ..."

"NOT IF YOU ARE 'THE GOVERNMENT', ANYWAY ...."

"IF IT IS NOT VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE ...."

"BECAUSE IN GOVERNMENT ..."

"OR POLITICS ..."

"RETALIATION ITSELF IS A MESSAGE ..."

"OF INHERENT POWER TO PUNISH ..."

"WITH IMPUNITY ..."

"AND NO SCRUTINY ..."

"OR CENSURE ..."

"ESPECIALLY FROM THE COURTS ...."

"OR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ..."

"TO ANYONE ELSE WHO MIGHT THINK OF DOING THE SAME THING ..."

"AND RETALIATION SHOULD NOT JUST HURT THE PERSON BEING RETALIATED AGAINST, IF POSSIBLE ..."

"THEIR FAMILIES SHOULD BE HURT, AT THE MINIMUM ...."

"OR AT LEAST THAT IS THE POLICY NOW IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ..."

"Thanks to the December 2005 federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals SUMMARY ORDER in this matter of your PLAINTIFF up there near Albany, New York ..."

"Thanks for making me aware of this, Livyjr ..."

"As they say ...."

"Forewarned is forearmed ..."

"And so ..."

[Livyjr]

"It's not RETALIATION, Livyjr ...."

"IF IT DOES NOT HURT ..."

RETALIATION: TO GET REVENGE ...

- Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary

LEX TALIONIS:

The LAW OF RETALIATION ...

In modern international law, the term describes the rule by which one state may inflict upon the citizens of another state death, imprisonment, or other hardship, in retaliation for similar injuries imposed upon its own citizens .....

- Black's Law Dictionary

[Livyjr]

LEX TALIONIS:

The LAW OF RETALIATION ...

"LEX TALIONIS, indeed, Livyjr ..."

"The LAW OF RETALIATION ...."

"IN THE MICROCOSM, HERE ..."

"Rensselaer County is the microcosmic 'state', and Jeffrey Pelletier and Carl Richard Aiken are the 'PEOPLE OF THAT MICROCOSMIC STATE' ..."

"And by threatening legal action against the 'PEOPLE OF THE MICROCOSMIC STATE', i.e. Carl Richard Aiken and Jeffrey Pelletier ..."

"YOUR PLAINTIFF GAVE REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE KATHLEEN JIMINO THE LAWFUL RIGHT TO RETALIATE ..."

"WHICH SHE DID ..."

"BY ALLEGEDLY MOBILIZING THE EFFORT THAT LED TO THE AUGUST 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN ..."

"AND BECAUSE THIS WAS AN OFFICAL 'STATE ACTION' THEN, THAT RETALIATION IS SANCTIONED BY THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ...."

"AT THE BEHEST ..."

"OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ..."

"WHICH STANDS AGAINST PROTECTION OF LAW ..."

"FOR PEOPLE SUCH AS YOUR PLAINTIFF ..."

"WHO 'BLOW THE WHISTLE' ..."

"ON GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION ..."

"LEADING TO THREATS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ..."

"AND SO ..."

"This has been an enlightening experience for me in here, Livyjr, following this thread along ..."

"It opens one's eyes to what can be ..."

"In place of what should be ..."

"And so .."

[Livyjr]

"AND BECAUSE THIS WAS AN OFFICAL 'STATE ACTION' THEN, THAT RETALIATION IS SANCTIONED BY THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ...."

"AT THE BEHEST ..."

"OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ..."

"WHICH STANDS AGAINST PROTECTION OF LAW ..."

"FOR PEOPLE SUCH AS YOUR PLAINTIFF ..."

"WHO 'BLOW THE WHISTLE' ..."

"ON GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION ..."

"LEADING TO THREATS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ..."

"AND SO ..."

"10 million people at risk from pollution"

By TRACEE HERBAUGH, Associated Press
Last updated: 5:15 p.m., Wednesday, October 18, 2006

NEW YORK -- More than 10 million people are at risk for lung infection, cancer and shortened life expectancy because they live in the 10 worst-polluted cities in the world, according to a report issued Wednesday.

The report published by the Blacksmith Institute, an international environmental research group, lists 10 cities in eight countries where pollution poses health risks and fosters poverty.

"Living in a town with serious pollution is like living under a death sentence," the report said.

"If the damage does not come from immediate poisoning, then cancers, lung infections, mental retardation, are likely outcomes."

The worst-polluted places in the world, the report said, are in secluded areas far away from capitals or tourist areas.

These countries, which are mostly part of the developing world, generally have few or inadequate pollution controls, and the problem is compounded by the local governments' "lack of knowledge" and the inability of citizens to enforce justice.

Three Russian cities are among the most polluted -- Dzherzhinsk, Norilsk and Rudnaya Pristan.

The other cities are Linfen, China; Haina, Dominican Republic; Ranipet, India; Mayluu-Suu, Kyrgyzstan; La Oroya, Peru; Chernobyl, Ukraine; and Kabwe, Zambia.

According to the report the cities are reminders of an early industrial era, with most pollution stemming from relics such as unregulated lead and coal mines or unrefined nuclear weapons manufacturing plants.

In Chernobyl, the report estimates 5.5 million people are still threatened by radioactive material that continues to seep into groundwater and soil 20 years after the nuclear power plant exploded there.

Residents of Linfen, which is in the heart of China's coal-producing Shanxi province, suffer from bronchitis, pneumonia and lung cancer because of the poor air quality.

And according to the report, the 300,000 people in Dzherzhinsk, a chemical weapons manufacturing site during the Cold War era, have a life expectancy about "half that of the richest nations."

The life expectancy for men in the city is about 42 years and about 47 for women.

Richard Fuller, director and founder of the Blacksmith Institute said the report was intended to shed light on the problem as well as the solutions.

"The good news is we have known technologies and proven strategies for eliminating a lot of this pollution," he said.

The report was compiled over seven years by a team of environmental and health experts, including faculty from Johns Hopkins University, Mount Sinai Medical Center and the City University of New York.

The top 10 list was compiled from more than 300 areas nominated by non-governmental agencies, local communities and international environmental authorities.

The list of criteria included the size of the affected population, severity of the toxins involved and reliable evidence of health impacts.

Dave Hanrahan, Blacksmith Institute's chief of global operations, said some solutions to these problems could be as simple as reducing dust levels and removing contaminated soil.

"The most important thing is to achieve some practical progress in dealing with these polluted places," he said.

"There is a lot of good work being done in understanding the problems and identifying possible approaches."

----

On the Net:

http://www.mostpolluted.org

[Livyjr]

"First Amendment Sometimes Left at Workplace Door"

By Stephen Barr
Thursday, June 1, 2006; Page D04

The Supreme Court's ruling on freedom-of-speech rights of public employees has created a stir across the government, in part because of the way Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the 5-to-4 majority, framed the issue:

"When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."

Although the wording seemed stark, the court did not redefine federal whistle-blower protections.

The majority, in some respects, seemed interested in ensuring that governments can oversee workplaces and that disputes between employees and supervisors do not automatically fall into the realm of a constitutional right.

The case involved a local-government employee, Los Angeles County prosecutor Richard Ceballos, and for the most part addressed only one aspect of his actions --claims made in a memo written as part of his job duties.

In Tuesday's ruling, the court found that a district attorney's office did not violate Ceballos's freedom of speech by allegedly demoting him after he wrote supervisors about his concerns that a sheriff's deputy had lied to get a search warrant.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

GARCETTI et al. v. CEBALLOS

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 04-473. 

Argued October 12, 2005--Reargued March 21, 2006--Decided May 30, 2006

When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.

See, e.g., Waters v. Churchill, 511 U. S. 661, 671 (1994) (plurality opinion)

("[T]he government as employer indeed has far broader powers than does the government as sovereign").

Government employers, like private employers, need a significant degree of control over their employees' words and actions; without it, there would be little chance for the efficient provision of public services.

Cf. Connick, supra, at 143

("[G]overnment offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter").

Public employees, moreover, often occupy trusted positions in society.

When they speak out, they can express views that contravene governmental policies or impair the proper performance of governmental functions.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...00&invol=04-473

This post has been edited by Livyjr: Oct 19 2006, 04:37 AM

[Livyjr]

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

GARCETTI et al. v. CEBALLOS

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 04-473. 

Argued October 12, 2005--Reargued March 21, 2006--Decided May 30, 2006

When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.

See, e.g., Waters v. Churchill, 511 U. S. 661, 671 (1994) (plurality opinion)

("[T]he government as employer indeed has far broader powers than does the government as sovereign").

Government employers, like private employers, need a significant degree of control over their employees' words and actions; without it, there would be little chance for the efficient provision of public services.

Cf. Connick, supra, at 143

("[G]overnment offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter").

Public employees, moreover, often occupy trusted positions in society.

When they speak out, they can express views that contravene governmental policies or impair the proper performance of governmental functions.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...00&invol=04-473

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The GOVERNMENT EMPLOYER AS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE, Livyjr ..."

"IF IT IS THE 'POLICY' OF THE 'GOVERNMENT' TO HAVE IT BE ..."

"AS THIS SUPPRESSED F.B.I. RECORD IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS CASE INDICATES WAS THE CASE WITH RENSSELAER COUNTY BETWEEN 1978 AND 1988 ..."

"WHEN YOUR PLAINTIFF 'BLEW THE WHISTLE' ON THE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE ..."

"AND HAD HIS LIFE DESTROYED, IN RETALIATION ..."

"And as this record clearly shows ...."

"God help the hapless American citizens who go to work for that criminal enterprise ...."

"Who like your PLAINTIFF ..."

"Are forced against their wills to have to take part in it ..."

"To be silent about it ..."

"TO DO AS THEY ARE TOLD ..."

"Or the CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE will break them ..."

"STRIP THEM OF ALL CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS ..."

"AND CRUSH THEM ..."

"BECAUSE THEY ARE A 'GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE' ..."

"WHICH IS SOMETHING MUCH LESS THAN AN AMERICAN CITIZEN ..."

"ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, ANYWAY ....

"And because of that SECOND-CLASS STATUS ....."

"OR THIRD-CLASS, PERHAPS, IN THE CASE OF YOUR PLAINTIFF ..."

"The COURTS ..."

"Which are simply agents of that same government ..."

"Will protect this CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE ..."

"Against those who would rebel against it, and expose it ..."

"As your PLAINTIFF clearly did ..."

"SEVERAL TIMES ..."

"Or based upon the evidence in here, that is how I read these words above here from this May 30, 2006 United States Supreme Court decision in GARCETTI et al. v. CEBALLOS, anyway:"

When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.

("[T]he government as employer indeed has far broader powers than does the government as sovereign").

See, e.g., Waters v. Churchill, 511 U. S. 661, 671 (1994) (plurality opinion)

"THE GOVERNMENT ...."

"AS EMPLOYER ..."

"INDEED ..."

"HAS FAR BROADER POWERS ...."

"THAN DOES THE GOVERNMENT AS SOVEREIGN ..."

"AND FROM THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECEMBER 2005 SUMMARY ORDER IN THIS CASE ..."

"THE PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN AND FORCED INCARCERATION OF THESE RETALIATION TARGETS IN SECURE MENTAL FACILITIES BASED ON NOTHING MORE THAN FALSE DIAGNOSES BY WILLING AND COMPLICIT MEDICAL DOCTORS IS ONE OF THEM ..."

"And so, Livyjr, and so ...."

[Livyjr]

When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.

"The government as employer indeed has far broader powers than does the government as sovereign".

See, e.g., Waters v. Churchill, 511 U. S. 661, 671 (1994) (plurality opinion)

- GARCETTI et al. v. CEBALLOS, United States Supreme Court, May 30, 2006

"We don't know this, of course, do we, Livyjr ..."

"IN THE BEGINNING ..."

"That when we enter public service here in America ..."

"We lose some of OUR citizenship rights ..."

"AND OUR FREEDOM ..."

"ALL OF IT ..."

"IF YOU DON'T WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE ..."

"NOR TOLERATE IT ..."

"AND YET ...

"WISH TO RETAIN YOUR 'PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT' ...."

"ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE IN A POSITION OF RESPONSIBILITY ..."

"WHERE THE PUBLIC DEPENDS ON YOUR INTEGRITY ...."

"AND PROFICIENCY ..."

"TO PROTECT AND SAFEGUARD THEIR LIVES, HEALTH AND PROPERTY ..."

"Once you become BRANDED as a 'TARGET OF RETALIATION' ...."

"By the 'GOVERNMENT' ....."

"YOU ARE A TARGET FOREVER AFTER MORE ..."

"WITHOUT RIGHTS, AT ALL ...."

"A 'NON-PERSON' .."

"AS THIS THREAD CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES ...."

"WITH NO SAFE HAVEN TO TURN TO ..."

"AND ESPECIALLY NOT THE FEDERAL COURTS ..."

"NOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ..."

"WHOSE 'POLICY' THIS IS ...."

"Thanks to the United States Supreme Court ..."

"Which is who has made this decision:"

When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.

"BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WRITTEN DOWN IN OUR AMERICAN HISTORY, ANYWHERE ELSE ..."

"TO THE CONTRARY ..."

"IT IS AN 'INVENTION' OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ..."

"THAT SERVES TO MAKE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES HERE IN AMERICA INTO SECOND- OR THIRD-CLASS CITIZENS ...."

"IN COMPARISON TO THOSE WHO DO NOT ENTER PUBLIC SERVICE HERE IN AMERICA ...."

"And so ..."