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

[Livyjr]

"NY panel says town justice should be removed from office"

By MARK JOHNSON, Associated Press

Last updated: 1:03 p.m., Wednesday, February 21, 2007

ALBANY -- A Cortland County town justice should be removed from the bench for meeting defendants outside court, failing to tell prosecutors about those meetings and then lying to investigators about them, a state panel overseeing judges said Wednesday.

The state Commission on Judicial Conduct said Cuyler Town Court Justice Jean Marshall dismissed four local code violations after having out-of-court conversations with the defendants and without telling prosecutors.

After the investigation into Marshall's action began, she tried to hide her conduct by altering her court calendar and writing over the original entries.

She also lied when testifying, the commission determined.

Marshall's conduct "violated well-established ethical standards and demonstrates convincingly that she is unfit to serve as a judge," the commission said.

Marshall could not be immediately reached for comment.

Her lawyer, Lawrence Knickerbocker, did not immediately return a call for comment.

Commission Chairman Raoul Felder said Marshall, who is not a lawyer, had a "shaky grasp of the rules" governing communications outside of court and "clearly fails to understand that before granting any application for an adjournment, she generally should hear from the other side."

Last year, Court of Appeals Chief Judge Judith Kaye proposed numerous reforms to improve local justice courts, including more training and supervision of judges.

Marshall's conduct, Felder said, "underscores the need for greater training and other reforms."

While part of the state court system, the justice courts are funded and administered by their respective towns and villages.

They collected more than $210 million last year in fines, fees and surcharges.

They handle criminal and civil cases, including felony arraignments.

Some 72 percent of 2,000 justices are not lawyers.

The state constitution does not require it.

Marshall could appeal the commission's decision to the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.

----------

On the Net:

Commission decision: http://www.scjc.state.ny.us/Determinations/M/marshall.htm

[Livyjr]

"Berlin to name a new town justice - Incumbent John T. Greaney was removed in misconduct case"

By BOB GARDINIER, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Wednesday, February 21, 2007

BERLIN -- Officials will appoint a new town justice next month after Republican Justice John T. Greaney was removed in December by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct for improprieties.

Greaney had until Jan. 26 to file an appeal to the ruling but declined to do so and was officially removed from his duties Jan. 31.

"We have requests out for resumes and we have two or three interested parties," said Town Board member George C. Shuhart.

"We will be choosing a candidate at our next meeting in March."

The candidate will be appointed to fill a year left on Greaney's term and will have to run for election this coming fall.

The commission first investigated allegations that Greaney meddled in politics during the 2004 election and also uncovered judicial improprieties, one involving the office of District Attorney Patricia DeAngelis.

The decision by the 11-member commission, made on the advice of Robert H. Tembeckjian, its administrator and counsel, said Greaney "knowingly produced and filed fraudulent candidate nominating petitions" for Independence and Conservative party members before the primary elections in 2004.

Greaney, 71, was elected in January 2004 and known as a tough law-and-order justice in this town of 1,901 in eastern Rensselaer County.

He recently took a major role in establishing a town curfew.

According to the report, around July 2004, Greaney collected signatures on designating petitions for Independence and Conservative party candidates for local office.

Committee officials often try to get the signatures to secure the third-party line for their major party or candidates that party is backing.

The investigation showed some signatures were forged and, in one case, a man named on a ballot was not even aware he was being put up for public office.

Greaney also allegedly filed the fraudulent petitions with the Rensselaer County Board of Elections.

Later that year, according to the report, Greaney tried to keep DeAngelis from filing a complaint against him by reminding her he had been Republican town chairman for 20 years and was on a board that provides grants to the district attorney's office and would "not go down lightly."

DeAngelis made a complaint to the commission anyway.

Her office has refused to comment on the report.

According to the commission's report, in November 2004, Greaney called former Assistant District Attorney Rebecca Bauscher into a private meeting with him in Town Hall and threatened the district attorney's office.

Greaney said he knew a lot of powerful people and mentioned his position on the Motor Vehicle Auto Theft and Insurance Fraud Prevention Board, which provides grants to the district attorney's office, the report said.

The report also said that Greaney "failed to effectuate the rights of various defendants, engaged in prohibited ex parte communications and made statements in various cases that compromised his impartiality."

Greaney also refused to cooperate with the commission's investigation by declining to answer questions under oath, saying that doing so might incriminate him, according to the report.

Greaney has been known more over the years for his political activity for the Republican Party in the eastern part of the county than as a justice.

He issued rulings from the bench while town Republican chairman, a position he has held for two decades, and he has long been active in county politics.

Retired during his time on the bench, he had worked at the county Department of Employment and Training.

Before that, he was a state Senate staffer.

[Livyjr]

"THE LAW IS FAR TOO PRECIOUS A THING TO BE LEFT IN THE HANDS OF LAWYERS," said PLAINTIFF, who has been called every name in the book.

"I'D RATHER HAVE A FOOL FOR A CLIENT THAN A FOOL FOR A LAWYER."

"State Supreme Court's Horowitz facing contempt charges"

By GLENN BLAIN

THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: February 22, 2007)

State Supreme Court Justice Lawrence Horowitz, who ran unsuccessfully for Westchester county executive in 2001, faces contempt of court charges for failing to comply with his divorce settlement, court documents indicate.

Horowitz, a Republican, has been ordered to appear in court next month to explain what a judge termed his "willful" refusal to perform needed repairs on the Chappaqua home he shares with his former wife and his failure to list that residence for sale.

The court order, which was dated Feb. 15, and signed by Supreme Court Justice Arthur Diamond of Long Island, warns that Horowitz could face financial penalties and even imprisonment if he does not comply with the settlement.

Reached on his cell phone yesterday, Horowitz said he was in a meeting and unavailable to discuss the matter.

He promised to return a reporter's telephone call but did not do so.

He also did not respond to messages left for him at the Orange County Courthouse where he serves.

Horowitz's former wife, Alexis Furer, declined to comment.

"I have a client who is a very patient, wonderful lady who simply wants to get on with her life," said Furer's attorney, James Nolletti.

"The court papers speak for themselves."

Nolletti added, however, that Furer needs the proceeds from the sale of the house in order to find a new place to live.

The couple still both reside at the Chappaqua home even though the marriage is legally over.

Under a settlement filed with the court in January of 2006, Horowitz, 55, was required to conduct repairs to the structure and place it on the market by April 1, 2006.

The divorce became final on June 7, 2006.

Horowitz and Furer share custody of their two children, Benjamin, 19, and Rona, 14.

Horowitz was a little-known attorney before being tapped by Westchester Republicans to run against County Executive Andrew Spano, a Democrat, in 2001.

The race, though, was a mismatch from the start, with Horowitz, an underfunded political novice, going up against the incumbent's well-financed and experienced political organization.

Spano won the race in a landslide, capturing about 70 percent of the vote.

In 2003, Horowitz was appointed by then-Gov. George Pataki to fill a vacancy on Westchester County Court.

But his time on that bench was limited as he won election that November to a seat on the state Supreme Court.

Reach Glenn Blain at gblain@lohud.com or 914-694-5066.

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...373/1026/NEWS10

[Livyjr]

"Feeding off taxpayers no crime, lawyer says - Cronyism, big spending called usual government practice at Strevell trial"

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

First published: Thursday, January 18, 2007

ALBANY -- A defense lawyer for the Rensselaer County entrepreneur whose organization got more than $1 million in member item grants directed by Sen. Joseph L. Bruno is arguing in federal court that dishonesty isn't necessarily a federal offense.

William P. Fanciullo, lawyer for J. Felix Strevell, the former director of the now-defunct Institute for Entrepreneurship, also said that Strevell's actions, including putting relatives on the state payroll, were normal practices in government.

Fanciullo asserted that the U.S. attorney's case against Strevell is full of allegations that should not be classified as federal crimes.

Strevell is charged with nine counts of mail fraud and six counts of wire fraud.

The case before U.S. District Court Justice Gary L. Sharpe centers on Strevell's lavish spending on himself and on parties that honored lawmakers who helped him get public money.

Among its funding sources, the institute received two $500,000 discretionary grants, known as member items, through Bruno in 1999 and 2001.

Strevell allegedly misused some of the $8 million in mostly taxpayer funds raised by the institute during his reign from 1998 to 2001, when he and his brother, Chauncey, the former chief operating officer, abruptly quit.

While at the institute, Strevell hired friends, relatives of powerful Republicans, his daughter and his daughter's boyfriend.

He also used institute funds to purchase clothing and trips for himself and family members.

Prosecutors say Strevell, a former state bureaucrat, manipulated the system to set up the nonprofit institute as an offshoot of state government.

He worked to improperly enrich himself and his family, the indictment says, receiving a base salary of $225,000 plus $24,000 for a housing stipend, trips for family members and merchandise for his personal use, including a $64,000 recreational vehicle.

Strevell also allegedly doctored the record of a board vote that resulted in his pay rising by $95,000.

Fanciullo said Strevell's management of the institute followed normal and accepted practices of government, including the hiring of kin, and that the salary vote was legitimate.

JUDGESHIPS FOR SALE!

JUDGESHIPS FOR SALE!

HURRY! HURRY! HURRY!

STEP RIGHT UP, FOLKS ....

GET'EM WHILE THEY'RE HOT!

THEY'RE GOING FAST ....

JUDGESHIPS FOR SALE!

"Brooklyn party leader convicted - Democrat Clarence Norman is found guilty of extortion"

By EMILY PICKRELL, Special to the Times Union

First published: Saturday, February 24, 2007

NEW YORK -- Former Assemblyman and Brooklyn Democratic Party Chairman Clarence Norman was found guilty Friday of extortion in the last of four criminal cases brought against him by the Kings County district attorney.

Norman, 56, was also found guilty of grand larceny and coercion for demanding payments from two 2002 judicial candidates in exchange for arranging Democratic Party support for them.

"The jury, in convicting Clarence Norman, showed that politics cannot be criminalized," said District Attorney Charles Hynes.

"Clarence Norman proved himself to be nothing more than a thug in a suit."

Civil Court Judge Karen Yellen and Housing Court Judge Marcia Sikowitz had been threatened by Norman that they would lose the support of the Democratic Party if they did not make payments to "preferred vendors" for campaign materials, according to testimony.

Norman had told Yellen that the payment was supposed to be compensation for William Boone, a longtime Democratic campaign operative, for getting mostly African-American voters in central Brooklyn to vote for candidates backed by the Democratic Party, Yellen testified.

Boone told the jury that he considered Yellen's money compensation.

"It could have come from the devil," Boone testified under cross-examination.

"I'd take it and ask the Lord to forgive me."

Jeff Feldman, Norman's former deputy, testified in early February that he remembered seeing Norman yell at Yellen because she refused to make a $9,000 payment to his preferred vendor for fliers.

The defense argued that the Norman trial was an attempt by a district attorney to turn routine political behavior into a crime.

The verdict marks the end of a long descent for Norman, a former Brooklyn assemblyman, who left his Assembly seat in December 2005 after being convicted of campaign corruption.

His earlier charges included violating election law and falsifying business records to hide money given him by a lobbyist for his re-election.

Sentencing is scheduled in April.

Norman could face up to seven years for Friday's conviction, in addition to two to six years he faces for his 2005 convictions.

Norman is appealing the earlier convictions.

Emily Pickrell is a student at the Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism at Columbia University.

[Livyjr]

Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20050704/202/1472

"Surrogate's Court And Why It Should Go"

by Gary Tilzer

04 Jul 2005

In 1977, Edward Koch ran for mayor, attacking the Democratic machine.

Soon after his election, though, Koch did what most reform politicians do after defeating a machine: make a deal with it.

Though Koch set up panels to screen candidates for judgeships, presumably based on merit, as time went on, the erstwhile reformers became more and more dependent on contributions and support from the machine politicians and the law firms that benefit from Surrogate patronage.

Since then, Koch himself – along with other prominent politicians, including former Governor Mario Cuomo -- has been the beneficiary of the Surrogate's Court.

Koch, for example, received $77,000 for a guardianship in 2001 and 2002, according to the New York Observer.

"I'm on the list of people who are qualified," Koch told the Observer.

"They're very careful to prevent [the court] from being used as a trough."

Today, every candidate who runs for Surrogate pledges to make "reforms" and end the court's patronage.

Once elected, they do nothing.

http://www.gothamgazette.com/print/1472

"Last word on judges - New York's judicial nominating conventions could be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court"

Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Saturday, February 24, 2007

New York's broken system of judicial nominating conventions isn't going away as soon as it should.

That's the bad news.

But the good news is that New Yorkers may not have to wait all that long for genuine reform.

Most New Yorkers usually know very little about the men and women who run for seats in state courts, even though they might one day wind up standing before one of the winners.

That's because the state's political party bosses want it that way.

Under New York's judicial convention system, it's the bosses who have the largest say in who is nominated because they have the most influence in choosing the convention delegates who place the names in nomination.

The bosses also have the power to strike cross-endorsement deals with the opposing party, thereby denying voters a choice and ensuring the election of a favored candidate.

That system has long been the target of reformers and critics, including this page.

And last year it was struck down as unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge John Gleeson.

But now there will be one last word on the matter, as the challenge to Judge Gleeson's ruling moves to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It's difficult to fathom how the high court could fault Judge Gleeson's logic, or the patent disenfranchisement of New York voters by party leaders.

Judge Gleeson had ordered the convention system scrapped, and replaced with open primaries, which would give candidates a chance to get their names on the ballot even if the party bosses did not support them.

But he stayed his order pending an appeal of his ruling by political leaders and the state Board of Elections.

Thus, until the Supreme Court resolves the issue, the current system of judicial nominating conventions will remain in effect.

That's regrettable, but if the high court supports Judge Gleeson's ruling, which was upheld last autumn by the 2nd Circuit of Appeals, then it will have been worth the wait.

Like some other reformers, we believe the best way to wring politics out of New York's judicial selection process is to choose candidates based on merit, not political connections.

That system has served well in selecting the state's chief judge.

But until such reform applies to all levels of the judiciary, the next best thing would be to have a nominating process that is competitive and responsive to the voters.

That's what the U.S. Supreme Court should say, and say it soon.

[Livyjr]

"Judge censured for 'shifting and evasive' testimony"

By MARK JOHNSON, Associated Press

Last updated: 1:43 p.m., Wednesday, February 28, 2007

ALBANY -- A Surrogate Court judge should be censured for giving "shifting and evasive" answers when questioned by investigators about a legal fund set up for a Supreme Court judge tossed from the bench last year, a state panel overseeing judges said Wednesday.

The state Commission on Judicial Conduct said Albany County Surrogate Court Judge Cathryn Doyle "violated her duty to be forthright and cooperative" in 2004 during its investigation of the fund set up for Justice Thomas Spargo.

"A judge who requires others to 'tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' must set an example by telling the truth herself in a legal proceeding," said commission Administrator Robert Tembeckjian.

"Judge Doyle deliberately misled the commission, impeded its investigation of another judge and as a result got into trouble of her own."

Tembeckjian said he recommended removing Doyle from office.

The commission, however, unanimously said she deserved only to be censured, a public criticism short of removal.

Spargo, a Republican, was removed from office last year for seeking donations to his defense fund from lawyers who were trying cases before him.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct also scolded Spargo for giving out $5 gift coupons for gas and coffee and buying drinks for potential voters in a local campaign in 1999.

While Doyle, a Democrat whose term ends in 2010, gave the commission conflicting testimony about her knowledge of the Spargo fund, she later sent a letter to the commission to correct and clarify some of her testimony.

Commissioners said that lessened the severity of her infraction.

Members of the panel also said they would have suspended Doyle without pay if that were an option under the state constitution.

The commission cleared her of a separate charge concerning her involvement with the fund.

Doyle's attorney, William Cade, did not immediately return a call for comment.

--------

On the Net:

Commission on Judicial Conduct: http://www.scjc.state.ny.us

[Livyjr]

NY TIMES

"Spitzer Cuts Budget Request by Panel That Polices Judges"

By WILLIAM GLABERSON

Published: February 28, 2007

There is growing agreement in Albany that New York State’s town and village courts are in need of help after decades of neglect, meager financing and inadequate training of the justices, many of whom do not even have a high-school diploma.

There also is widespread agreement that one bright spot has been the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Despite years of budget cuts, the commission has provided the only meaningful oversight for the state’s 2,000 town and village justices, disciplining or removing them when they ignore the law or violate people’s rights.

So some state officials were startled to discover that Gov. Eliot Spitzer, in his first budget proposal, had rejected a commission request for a substantial increase in financing.

“They need more attorneys, and they need more investigators,” said Helene E. Weinstein, the Brooklyn Democrat who is chairwoman of the Assembly’s Judiciary Committee.

Her Republican counterpart on the State Senate Judiciary Committee, John A. DeFrancisco of Syracuse, said he had proposed that the Legislature provide a big increase in the commission’s budget.

The judicial conduct commission, which investigates complaints against all state judges, handles twice as many cases as it did when it was created in 1978.

Yet its current staff of 28 is fewer than half the 63 it had at the start.

Last year, the agency’s eight lawyers handled 1,500 complaints across the state.

Rejecting the commission’s request for a $2.2 million increase in its $2.8 million annual budget, Governor Spitzer’s proposal would add just $22,000 for the next fiscal year.

The commission says that is not enough to cover rising rent and other costs.

“We’ve initiated a dialogue with them to determine their funding needs,” said Jennifer Givner, a spokeswoman for the governor, though she acknowledged that the time allotted for the governor to alter his proposal ended last week.

The Legislature could grant the judicial conduct commission’s request, though it could get lost among multibillion-dollar battles over issues like health care and education financing.

In most years, the commission has not fared well with the Legislature, in part because there is no strong lobby for increasing the policing of the state’s judges.

But even the State Magistrates Association, made up of town and village justices, has said the state may need to examine whether the commission has enough financing.

“The commission is the check and balance,” said Edward G. Van Der Water, a justice in Van Buren, N.Y., who is a vice president of the association.

Concern over town and village courts, or justice courts, has mounted in the past year as news articles and state investigations have turned up evidence of ill-trained justices and ill-equipped courts.

The state’s chief judge, Judith S. Kaye, has asked the Legislature for $50 million over the next five years to upgrade the courts, and a commission she appointed is studying the system.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct says that its backlog of disciplinary cases is growing and that it is having difficulty investigating all the complaints it receives.

The commission’s seven investigators spend much of their time proofreading legal transcripts because the money to hire stenographers disappeared long ago.

Robert H. Tembeckjian, the commission’s administrator, said cases against judges at all levels were taking longer to resolve because of staff shortages.

Most of the commission’s time, he said, is spent reviewing complaints against town and village justices.

Many of those investigations have led to serious accusations, and 130 town and village justices have been removed from office or resigned while facing disciplinary charges during the commission’s 29-year history.

“Without adequate resources to deal with all the legitimate complaints against town and villages justices,” Mr. Tembeckjian said, “there isn’t as effective oversight as there should be.”

In response to questions from a reporter, an official in the Spitzer administration suggested that the governor’s aides had not been persuaded that the commission needed more resources.

“We are awaiting justification to show that the need is there,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Mr. Tembeckjian said he was surprised by that response because he had provided extensive documentation to budget officials and had not been asked for more.

“I have been advised by the governor’s office that I should turn my attention to the Legislature,” he said.

Some of those who had urged Governor Spitzer to grant the commission’s request said growing concerns about the fairness of the justice courts made it essential to increase the agency’s resources.

Victor A. Kovner, chairman of the Committee for Modern Courts, an independent group that lobbies for improvements in New York’s judicial system, said it was important for the credibility of the entire court system that the judicial monitoring agency receive adequate money.

With increased questions about the town and village courts, he said, it is critical that New Yorkers have a strong agency to monitor those courts.

“Among the things that are important to address shortcomings in the town and village courts,” Mr. Kovner said, “is an adequate system of review of complaints.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/nyregion...amp;oref=slogin

end quotes

As this thread has shown, however ....

A KEY TO ELIOT SPITZER'S POLITICAL POWER ....

IS HAVING JUDGES AT HIS BECK AND CALL ....

WHO WILL BEND AND TWIST THE LAW ....

AND WHO DON'T HAVE ANY COMPUNCTIONS ....

ABOUT TOSSING OUR RIGHTS ....

RIGHT INTO THE TRASH CAN ....

And so ....

AFTER FOLLOWING THIS THREAD FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS ....

WHO OUT THERE ....

WOULD BE SURPRISED ....

THAT ELIOT SPITZER ....

IS STRANGLING THE REVIEW OF MISCONDUCT BY JUDGES ....

HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

WHERE THE ESSENCE OF POLITICAL POWER ...

IS BEING OWED FAVORS ....

BY THOSE WHO ARE BEHOLDEN TO YOU ....

ESPECIALLY JUDGES ....

WITH THE POWER OVER OUR LIVES ....

THAT THEY NOW HOLD ....

THANKS TO ELIOT SPITZER ....

AND THE UNLAWFUL "PSYCHIATRIC TAKEDOWN" ....

THAT ALLOWS ELIOT SPITZER ....

TO "REMOVE FROM SOCIETY" .....

ANYONE AT ALL ....

AT ANY TIME ...

WITH JUST THE FLICK OF HIS FINGERS ....

IF HE PERCEIVES THEM TO BE ...

A "THREAT" ....

TO HIS "POWER" ....

And so ...

[Livyjr]

In the world of "LAW" .....

As it is defined over here .....

In the United States of America .....

And more specifically ....

In the State of New York .....

BEFORE one can obtain a hearing .....

For REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE .....

AND THIS APPLIES IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BEFORE THE NEW YORK STATE WORKER'S COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD ....

AS WELL AS IN CIVIL COURT ....

There must in fact be a GRIEVANCE .....

And it must be discernable .....

QUANTIFIABLE ......

And so ......

We up here have been waiting ....

And watching ....

FOR WHAT THE NEXT STEP IN THIS DRAMA BEING PLAYED OUT UP HERE .....

BETWEEN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER .....

AND THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MATTER .....

WAS GOING TO BE .....

HOW WOULD THE STATE OF NEW YORK ...

AND THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER ....

USE THIS MARCH 31, 2005 FEDERAL COURT DECISION UNDER DISCUSSION IN HERE ....

AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF ....

BEYOND USING IT TO ISOLATE HIM .....

AND TO KEEP HIM QUIET .....

THROUGH THE INTIMIDATION VALUE OF THIS MARCH 31, 2005 FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DECISION .....

And more importantly .....

Would the PLAINTIFF be afforded a venue in the State of New York .....

IN WHICH TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY .......

Of this March 31, 2005 federal district court decision .....

In the State of New York ....

PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS ....

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

And that opportunity .....

Looks as if it might be arising .....

As we were informed today .....

By the PLAINTIFF ......

THAT IT WOULD APPEAR THAT RENSSELAER COUNTY .....

IS MOVING TO VIOLATE ITS OWN STIPULATION ....

BY TERMINATING PLAINTIFF'S WORKER'S COMPENSATION PAYMENTS ....

BASED UPON THE FAILURE OF THE OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DEFEND PLAINTIFF'S WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECISION BASED UPON THAT STIPULATION IN THE FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDINGS THAT LED UP TO THE MARCH 31, 2005 FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UNDER DISCUSSION IN THIS THREAD .......

This, of course, amounts to STARVATION TACTICS on the part of the COUNTY OF RENSSELAER ....

CUTTING OFF THE PLAINTIFF'S STIPULATED WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS ....

IN THE DEAD OF THE WINTER UP HERE ......

And so it goes ....

As we just got word of this today ......

It is a bit too soon to determine what direction this matter will go in now ....

But the initial indications are that PLAINTIFF is going to do his best to bring this matter to the attention of the New York State Worker's Compensation Review Board .....

As intentional harassment .....

On the part of the County of Rensselaer ....

And the Attorney General of the State of New York .....

REPUDIATING THE PLAINTIFF'S WORKER'S COMPENSATION STIPULATION .....

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

And so .....

When we up-state folks hear New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer talk about .....

"Reform of our broken and dysfunctional workers’ compensation system ...."

Here in New York State .....

Or when we hear Denis Hughes, president of the AFL-CIO .....

Talk about ....

"A system long believed to be broken beyond repair ...."

Our attention is immediately drawn ....

To a thick file in the public records up here in Joe Bruno's personal fiefdom of Rensselaer County in the State of New York ....

A thick file of public records in the Matter of PLAINTIFF, Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer v. Rensselaer County Department of Health in Worker's Compensation Court right here in the State of New York ....

A case which the Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer ....

The PLAINTIFF in this matter under discussion in here ....

WON ...

Or more properly stated ....

PREVAILED ........

By stipulation ....

For permanent partial disability .....

After the New York State Worker's Compensation Review Board in New York City ruled in his favor on August 14, 1991 ....

Based upon the BEDROCK LAW in the State of New York that:

"The combination of a GENERALLY OPPRESSIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT and a specific triggering event causing psychiatric disability HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR A FINDING OF ACCIDENT UNDER THE (NEW YORK STATE) WORKER'S COMPENSATION LAW ....."

The permanent partial disability in question stemming directly from an assault on the Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer ....

The PLAINTIFF in this matter ....

Who was falsely imprisoned at the Stratton VA Hospital on August 22, 2001 ....

Based upon a fraudulent INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT ORDER executed by Dr. John Christian Braaten of NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. in Troy, New York on August 22, 2001 ....

By a back-hoe operator in the Town of Sand Lake in Rensselaer County on 07/29/88 .....

That almost decapitated the Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer ....

The PLAINTIFF in this matter under discussion in here ....

And resulted in a rapid decline in his health that has caused him to never work again in the capacity of an associate public health engineer in the State of New York ....

For which permanently-disabling injuries suffered at the hands of the County of Rensselaer, which is Joe Bruno's COUNTY, the Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer was finally awarded Worker's Compensation benefits in or about 1991, after being out of work without an income due to this rapid decline in health after October 12, 1988 .....

A period of some three years ....

Without any income ....

Because of an assault .....

On his person, as the local health officer in Rensselaer County, enforcing the provisions of the New York State Public Health Law ....

And as there is one document in that file in particular which speaks directly to what New York State Gover Eliot Spitzer HAS TO BE referring to when he calls the New York State Worker's Compensation Court system "broken and dysfunctional" ...

I find it instructive at this point in this discussion to quote directly from that letter .....

ESPECIALLY AS ANY RESEARCH ....

That New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer, or Joe Bruno, or James Tedisco or Sheldon Silver or Ken Adams of the New York State Business Council or Denis Hughes, president of the AFL-CIO .....

Might have done ...

Into the question of HOW the New York State Worker's Compensation court system is DYSFUNCTIONAL ....

Would have had to consider the points raised in this very document ....

WHICH IS AN OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

And so ....

Since this letter is indeed relevent to all that has been discussed in here to this point ....

Without further ado ....

I will post it ....

And so ....

Worker's Compensation Board
180 Livingston Street
Brooklyn, New York 11248

ATTN: REVIEW BOARD

RE: Rebuttal of Carrier's Correspondence; April 2, 1991
Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer V. Rensselaer County Health Department

Gentlemen:

I am the CLAIMANT in the above-captioned Worker's Compensation case.

Please accept this letter as the CLAIMANT'S response to the carrier's (Lawyers for the insurance carrier for the Rensselaer County Department of Health) letter of April 2, 1991 CONCLUDING THE THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED WORKER'S COMPENSATION CASE SHOULD REMAIN CLOSED.

THE CARRIER'S CONCLUSION THAT THE CASE SHOULD REMAIN CLOSED IS MADE IN ERROR, AND IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS IN THE RECORD IN THE INSTANT MATTER, THE CONCLUSION IS UNFOUNDED.

As the carrier notes, there were in fact several hearings scheduled in the matter.

However, while the hearing dates were set, a REVIEW OF THE RECORD will reveal that on three separate occasions, there was no actual opportunity for a hearing afforded to myself.

Further, the carrier is in error in stating that THREE SEPARATE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES were of the opinion that no evidence had been proffered to allow the case to go forward.

At the initial hearing on or about April 4, 1990, I appeared pro se before Administrative Law Judge Mary Elizabeth Dunne.

At that time, Judge Dunne advised me that the initial paperwork filed in support of my claim would need to be buttressed with additional medical evidence to establish a prima facie case PURSUANT TO WORKER'S COMPENSATION LAW.

At the second hearing on or about May 20, 1990 I was still acting pro se.

At that time, I presented Judge Dunne with a letter from Dr. Lawrence Kolb.

CONTRARY TO THE CARRIER'S ASSERTIONS, AND DESPITE THEIR QUITE VOCIFEROUS AND VOCAL OBJECTIONS, JUDGE DUNNE RULED THAT THE LETTER FROM DR. KOLB, WHEN TAKEN TOGETHER WITH THE OCTOBER 12, 1988 MEMORANDUM FROM RENSSELAER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR KENNETH VAN PRAAG TO RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOHN L. BUONO REFERENCING MR. VAN PRAAG'S CONCERNS FOR MY HEALTH, AND THE OCTOBER 13, 1988 LETTER FROM MR. VAN PRAAG TO NEW YORK STATE REGIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR DR. IAN LOUDON REFERENCING THE FACT THAT MR. VAN PRAAG HAD AFFORDED ME A LEAVE FOR HEALTH REASONS DID IN FACT CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION LAW; AND JUDGE DUNNE RULED FURTHER THAT IT WAS A CASE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HARASSMENT.

AFTER JUDGE DUNNE MADE THOSE DECISIONS, SHE WAS REMOVED FROM MY CASE FOR REASONS THAT WERE NEVER MADE CLEAR TO ME.

THE CASE WAS THEN ALLEGEDLY TRANSFERRED TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE KIRIN MOLLOY.

On or about July 9, 1990, I was scheduled to appear before Judge Molloy to begin giving my testimony.

WHAT TOOK PLACE INSTEAD WAS A NEGOTIATING SESSION BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND THE JUDGE WHEREIN IT WAS AGREED THAT MY CASE WOULD BE DISMISSED.

At that point, I interjected and requested an opportunity to speak to the issue.

I pointed out to Judge Molloy that pursuant to Public Health Law section 10, the October 13, 1988 letter from Rensselaer County Director of Public Health Kenneth Van Praag to New York State Regional Public Health Director Dr. Ian Loudon was PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE of what was contained therein in ALL courts and places.

I pointed out further to Judge Molloy that the October 12, 1988 communication from Mr. Van Praag to Rensselaer County Executive John L. Buono WAS AN OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD, and would also be PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE given the provisions of CPLR 4520.

I REQUESTED OF JUDGE MOLLOY AN EXPLANATION AS TO HOW HE COULD SIMPLY DISMISS OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS WHEN THOSE RECORDS BECAME INCONVENIENT, SUCH AS IN CASES LIKE MINE.

AT THAT POINT, JUDGE MOLLOY LITERALLY THREW HIS HANDS IN THE AIR, AND DISMISSED HIMSELF ON THE SPOT, STATING THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN POLITICS IN RENSSELAER COUNTY AND DID NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED.

THE CARRIER'S CONTENTION THAT JUDGE MOLLOY RULED AGAINST MY CLAIM IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

Subsequent to the recusal of Judge Molloy, the matter was transferred to Judge Meader.

A hearing was scheduled for August 13, 1990.

The hearing notice furnished to myself clearly noted the purpose of the hearing as "FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECORD."

On August 12, 1990 I received a telephone call from the Worker's Compensation Bureau in Menands requesting me to come into a conference with Judge Meader on that day, as opposed to August 13, 1990.

I arranged transportation down to Menands and was informed upon arriving by Judge Meader himself that due to some unfortunate error, I wasn't able to be afforded an opportunity to testify as originally scheduled, and I would have to wait for another opportunity.

The next scheduled date for me to testify wasn't until October 5, 1990.

I arrived early for my 10:30 A.M. appointment AND I SAT IN THE FOYER UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 12:20 P.M., at which time Judge Meader apologized profusely to me about scheduling errors, and such things, and again I was informed that I would have to wait for another appointment.

The next appointment was scheduled for December 13, 1990.

The purpose of the hearing as listed on the EC-16 form that I received in the mail is clearly indicated as "TESTIMONY OF CLAIMANT".

WHEN I ARRIVED AT THE SCHEDULED TIME, IMMEDIATELY JUDGE MEADER ATTEMPTED TO CANCEL THE HEARING, AND HAVE IT RESCHEDULED FOR ANOTHER LATER DATE.

At that time, my attorney, Mr. Brendan Quinn, strenuously objected on the record, stating that the hearing was scheduled, and I was, and had been for some time, fully prepared to testify as to the facts in the case.

THE CARRIER THEN LOUDLY BEGAN TO PROTEST ABOUT THE INJUSTICES THAT WOULD COME ABOUT AS A RESULT OF MY TESTIMONY, AND REMAINED INSISTENT THAT JUDGE MEADER MUST AT ALL COSTS NOT ALLOW ME TO TESTIFY.

AT THAT POINT IN THE PROCEEDING, JUDGE MEADER THREW HIS HANDS IN THE AIR, CRYING "YOU LEAVE ME NO CHOICE", AND WITH THAT, HE DISMISSED MY CASE.

FOR THESE REASONS, THIS CASE SHOULD BE RE-OPENED.

CONCLUSION

THIS CASE SHOULD BE RE-OPENED ON A FINDING OF PRIMA FACIE MEDICAL EVIDENCE.

Respectfully submitted,

PLAINTIFF

[Livyjr]

NY TIMES EMPIRE ZONE

March 2nd, 2007 5:11 pm

If one were to come up to the hinterlands of civilization outside of New York City in “IRON DUKE” Joe Bruno’s personal fiefdom of Rensselaer County …

And one were to conduct a sort of “WORD ASSOCIATION” poll by presenting a native up here with three words, in this order, to wit:

“Eliot Spitzer ….”

“STEAMROLLER …”

“Civil Confinement …”

The native would most likely respond by saying “YOU’RE DAMN RIGHT HE WOULD …”

And away they would go …

And the poll would be over ….

Just like that ….

End of conversation ….

And if you were to then describe that scenario to another local, a waitress in a coffee shop, say …

And ask why that was ….

What the waitress would tell you is that the term “CIVIL CONFINEMENT” is a very sensitive subject up this way ….

FORCED INVOLUNTARY PSYCHIATRIC CONFINEMENT ….

Which was used as a “state-sponsored” TOOL OF REPRESSION ….

On August 22, 2001 ….

Right here in “BIG JOE” Bruno’s personal fiefdom of Rensselaer County in the State of New York …

Against a New York State licensed professional engineer …..

Who was getting his nose into the wrong place ….

By conducting an investigation into how a politically-connected engineer from East Greenbush, New York with the local judge as his private attorney was obtaining Rensselaer County Health Department approvals for land in Rensselaer County that did not meet the applicable codes ….

On August 13, 2001, this engineer showed a videotape of the alleged wrongdoing to the Rensselaer County Public Health Director …..

And on August 22, 2001, Rensselaer County officials retaliated by securing a PSYCHIATRIC COMMITMENT ORDER for the engineer from a medical doctor at a local hospital in Troy, New York, SIGHT UNSEEN …..

Which resulted in the engineer being taken into custody as a DANGEROUS MENTALLY-ILL person at the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York ….

Where he was incarcerated in the secure mental facility based upon what was a fraudulent psychiatric commitment order ….

And that was that ….

No more investigation ….

And when this engineer tried to protest this false imprisonment in violation of his civil rights in federal district court for the Northern District of New York ….

“STEAMROLLER” Spitzer was right there in opposition ….

Protecting the doctor who issued the bogus PSYCHIATRIC INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT ORDER ….

By having this engineer’s suit simply tossed out of court as being groundless ….

AFTER one of Spitzer’s assistant attorney general’s buried some evidence and testimony entered by another of Spitzer’s assistant’s in Rensselaer County Supreme Court in connection with this same matter ….

So when the common folks hear of “STEAMROLLER” Eliot Spitzer “doing deals” up here with people like “IRON DUKE” Joe Bruno, in whose personal fiefdom this PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN went down ….

They begin to quake and shudder within their boots ….

And with good reason ….

Considering what happened to that engineer ….

And so ….

— Posted by Livyjr

http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/0...nction-no-more/

[Livyjr]

To people up here in the State of New York ......

This alleged telephone call ....

From New York State Senator Joseph "BIG JOE" Bruno .....

To this Glenn Suddaby .....

The TOP FEDERAL PROSECUTOR in the federal NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

Concerning this alleged GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION .....

Of "BIG JOE" Bruno's business dealings here in the State of New York .....

HAS BEEN EXPECTED .....

As it is believed up here that this Glenn Suddaby actually serves at the pleasure of "BIG JOE" Bruno .....

And news of this alleged telephone call ....

From "BIG JOE" Bruno .....

To this TOP FEDERAL PROSECUTOR GLEN SUDDABY .....

In the pages of the Albany, New York TIMES UNION ......

Coming on the heels as it does .....

Of "BIG JOE" Bruno's own claim in the pages of the Albany, New York TIMES UNION ....

That this federal investigation is really nothing more than a MEDIA EVENT ...

Brings us all right back to the spring of 1989 .....

When it is alleged that "BIG JOE" Bruno did the same exact thing .....

Call the Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern district of New York .....

To have them get the FBI back out of Rensselaer County in the State of New York ......

AND WHETHER OR NOT "BIG JOE" BRUNO ACTUALLY DID MAKE THAT CALL BACK IN 1989 .....

THE FACT IS, AND REMAINS .....

That the FBI did get out of Rensselaer County ......

LIKE A WHIPPED DOG ....

WITH ITS TAIL BETWEEN ITS LEGS .....

YIPPING AND KI-YIYING ......

ALL THE WAY BACK TO ALBANY .....

AND THAT WAS VERY OBVIOUS ......

TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE UP HERE BACK THEN .....

TO SOME ....

The supporters and partisans of "BIG JOE" Bruno ...

WITH GLEE ....

At this demonstration ....

Of "BIG JOE" Bruno's very considerable POWER .....

And with TREPIDATION .....

By the rest of us .....

Those of us who were for the law as it was written in the State of New York .....

BUT NOT ENFORCED .....

And so .....

With this news of this alleged telephone call .....

From "BIG JOE" Bruno .....

To this U.S. Attorney Glenn Suddaby ......

Simply "hanging" out there .....

In the pages of the Albany, New York TIMES UNION .....

People are once again understandably concerned .....

THAT "BIG JOE" BRUNO .....

IS GOING TO SQUASH ANOTHER FEDERAL INVESTIGATION .....

PUBLICLY .....

RIGHT IN OUR FACES ....

TO ONCE AGAIN DEMONSTRATE TO ALL OF US UP HERE ...

JUST HOW MUCH POWER IT IS ...

THAT HE WIELDS OVER US ....

WITH THE PERMISSION ....

OF THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

AND THE AQUIESCENCE ....

Of the federal District Court for the Northern District of New York .....

And the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City .....

BOTH OF WHICH HAVE GIVEN THEIR TACIT APPROVAL .....

TO THE "MARKETING" OF PROTECTION ....

BY ELECTED OFFICIALS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ...

TO THOSE WITH THE CONNECTIONS AND CLOUT TO ENABLE THEM TO "SECURE" THIS "PROTECTION" .....

And so ....

That is where we are in this thread right now ......

For any one just stopping by .....

And wondering ....

And so .....

"Prosecutor roulette - As more U.S. attorneys are fired, the specter of a political spoils system is unmistakable"

Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Sunday, February 11, 2007

By tradition, U.S. attorneys are confirmed by the Senate and serve throughout the term of the sitting president.

But under a change in the law, they can now be appointed by the attorney general -- indefinitely -- without Senate approval, and without showing serious cause for removing the incumbent.

This shocking change in the appointment process has come to light thanks to hearings called by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who suspects the Bush administration has been firing U.S. attorneys either for patronage reasons or because they have pursued politically sensitive investigations.

So far, seven federal prosecutors have been removed or told to step aside.

In the most recent firing, U.S. Attorney Ed Cummins of Little Rock, Ark., says he was asked to step aside to make room for an appointee who had once worked for presidential adviser Karl Rove.

In another case, U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was removed from her post in San Diego in what some critics believe was White House retaliation for her aggressive pursuit, and conviction, of former Republican Rep. Randy Cunningham of California.

NY TIMES

March 3, 2007

Editorial

"No More Denials, Please"

It is time for the Justice Department to stop issuing rote denials that are becoming increasingly hard to believe about the suspicious firing of eight United States attorneys.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should appoint an impartial investigator to get to the bottom of this unfolding scandal.

Just this week, David Iglesias, one of the eight fired United States attorneys, charged that he was dismissed for resisting pressure to begin a politically charged prosecution before the 2006 election.

His allegation came shortly after performance evaluations came to light that throw considerable doubt on the Justice Department’s claim that the United States attorneys were fired for poor performance.

United States attorneys, the highest federal prosecutors at the state level, must be insulated from politics.

Their decisions about whether to indict can ruin lives, and change the outcome of elections.

To ensure their independence, United States attorneys are almost never removed during the term of the president who appointed them.

The Bush administration ignored this tradition, and trampled on prosecutorial independence, by firing eight United States attorneys in rapid succession, including one, Carol Lam of San Diego, who had put a powerful Republican congressman in jail.

Mr. Iglesias, who was the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, says two members of Congress called him last October and urged him to pursue corruption charges against a prominent Democrat before the November election.

He did not.

He was dismissed.

Most of the fired United States attorneys’ performance evaluations praise them for the quality of their work, and for following the priorities set in Washington.

These do not appear to be the evaluations of people who were fired for poor performance.

A House subcommittee has subpoenaed several of the fired United States attorneys to testify next week.

The Senate is doing its own investigation.

They should question the fired prosecutors, as well as top members of the Justice Department, to find out how these dismissals came about.

They should also investigate Mr. Iglesias’s allegations about the two members of Congress, who may have violated Congressional rules, and even criminal law.

Mr. Gonzales should also begin his own inquiry.

Mr. Iglesias has raised a serious question about politicization of the Justice Department.

That, and not public relations, should be the attorney general’s primary concern.

[Livyjr]

"Domenici says he called fired prosecutor"

By JENNIFER TALHELM, Associated Press

Last updated: 3:43 p.m., Sunday, March 4, 2007

WASHINGTON -- New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici acknowledged Sunday that he called a federal prosecutor to ask about a criminal investigation, but insisted he never pressured nor threatened his state's U.S. attorney.

The prosecutor, David Iglesias, was fired by the Justice Department in December.

Iglesias says he believes he was dismissed for resisting pressure from two members of Congress before last year's election to rush indictments in a Democratic kickback investigation.

Ethics experts said Domenici's conduct may have violated Senate rules, which generally bar communications between members of Congress and federal prosecutors about ongoing criminal investigations.

Iglesias, a Republican, has said he would not name the lawmakers unless asked under oath.

A House Judiciary subcommittee subpoenaed the prosecutor last week to appear Tuesday and testify under oath.

He also was scheduled to appear before a Senate committee the same day.

Domenici refused last week to say if he had contacted Iglesias, insisting in a brief interview with the Associated Press, "I have no idea what he's talking about."

But in his statement Sunday, the Republican senator said he called Iglesias last year and asked "if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation and give me an idea of what time frame we were looking at."

"It was a very brief conversation, which concluded when I was told that the courthouse investigation would be continuing for a lengthy period," Domenici said in the statement.

"In retrospect, I regret making that call and I apologize," Domenici said.

"However, at no time in that conversation or any other conversation with Mr. Iglesias did I ever tell him what course of action I thought he should take on any legal matter."

"I have never pressured him nor threatened him in any way."

Kenneth Gross, a Washington lawyer who specializes in congressional ethics rules, said Domenici's phone call to Iglesias could have violated Senate ethics rules if there was an element of pressure or coercion to his inquiry.

"It doesn't sound very good to me," Gross said.

"But requests for the status of cases are generally considered permissible."

Punishment for such violations range from a warning and reprimand to expulsion from office.

Abbe D. Lowell, a criminal defense lawyer who served as special assistant to the attorney general during the Carter Administration, said it was hard to determine if there was a violation without knowing what Domenici knew about the investigation when he made the call and what exactly he said.

But Lowell added, "The safest course of a member of Congress is not to make inquiries of prosecutors about pending matters so their motives and actions cannot be misunderstood."

Iglesias said last week that he was shocked to receive two separate phone calls in mid-October from lawmakers who asked about details of the investigation and seemed eager to see an indictment before the 2006 election.

"I frankly felt violated," Iglesias said.

"They were very troubling phone calls."

When Iglesias testifies Tuesday before the House panel, he is expected to say that Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., contacted him to discuss moving forward on indictments in a high-profile corruption case involving a Democrat before the November congressional elections, according to a Democratic aide who is familiar with Iglesias' planned testimony.

The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly before the hearings.

Corruption in the New Mexico Democratic Party was a major issue in Wilson's re-election campaign and further indictments might have helped her.

Wilson last week refused to say if she had contacted Iglesias, referring questions about "that personnel matter" to the Justice Department.

Iglesias is one of eight U.S. attorneys who were fired in December, some without cause, according to the department.

Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired for any reason, or none at all.

Congressional Democrats say the firings indicate the Bush administration is using a new part of the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act to reward political allies with coveted jobs as U.S. attorneys without having to submit them to Senate confirmation.

This provision, enacted a year ago with the law's reauthorization, removes a time limit by which the Senate must confirm appointees to such jobs.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, however, has said he intends to submit the name of every nominee to vacant U.S. attorney job to the Senate for confirmation.

The House Judiciary subcommittee that subpoenaed Iglesias also issued subpoenas for three other dismissed U.S. attorneys -- Carol Lam of California, H.E. "Bud" Cummins of Arkansas and John McKay of Seattle.

The Senate also has asked those four and two others, Daniel Bogden of Nevada and Paul Charlton of Arizona to appear voluntarily at a hearing Tuesday.

------

Associated Press writer Hope Yen contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

"Judging judges"

Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Monday, March 5, 2007

The timing is ironic.

At the very moment Gov. Eliot Spitzer is shortchanging the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, the importance of the commission's role is nowhere more apparent than in the Capital Region.

If Mr. Spitzer won't recognize that, then the Legislature should.

The commission was established three decades ago to monitor the conduct of judges throughout the state, from small town courtrooms to the state Supreme Court.

By all accounts it has done a commendable job by wisely using the powers at its disposal -- writing a letter of admonition to a judge, for example, or recommending public censure or removal from the bench.

But past governors have been starving the commission of funds, and this year, as Mr. Spitzer negotiates his first budget with legislative leaders, he, too, has proven miserly.

Yet the commission soldiers on.

It has just recommended that Albany County Surrogate Cathryn Doyle be censured for what it has characterized as purposefully misleading testimony in 2004 and 2005 as she was questioned under oath during an investigation into former state Supreme Court Justice Thomas Spargo.

Justice Spargo was removed from the bench last year after the commission concluded that he had pressured attorneys who appeared before him to donate $10,000 each to help him pay legal costs incurred in fighting the commission charges.

Judge Doyle could be a candidate for state Supreme Court in November, so the commission's findings will serve to help voters cast an informed ballot.

As regular readers of this page are aware, we have been closely tracking the commission's activities ever since a series of editorials appeared here in 2002.

What we found then, and what we find now, is that this panel has been struggling with a steady increase in cases, even as its funding and staff have been eroded.

Given the service the commission performs -- holding errant judges accountable -- that's indefensible.

In 1978, the commission had 21 lawyers to examine charges of misconduct; today, with a caseload of more than 260 inquiries, the most since 1978, it has just 10.

Yet Governor Spitzer, who has made governmental integrity a keystone of his administration, has rejected the commission's request for a $5 million budget --the same level of funding it received in 1978, when adjusted for inflation.

That leaves today's commission to get by on $2.8 million.

The Legislature, however, can have the final say.

It could give the commission the funds it needs to do its job.

And in doing so, it could send a message that state lawmakers are committed to governmental integrity in their own right.

Let the Legislature seize the day.

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story...wsdate=3/5/2007

[Livyjr]

AP New York

"Foundation's panel discounts one of Spitzer's big cases"

By MICHAEL GORMLEY
Associated Press Writer

March 5, 2007, 4:10 PM EST

ALBANY, N.Y. -- One of Eliot Spitzer's more contentious cases from his years as attorney general was criticized Monday by a panel of retired judges who discounted his claims that insurance executive Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg cost his mentor's charity $6 billion.

In 2005, Spitzer accused Greenberg of participating in a series of financial transactions 35 years earlier.

Spitzer said Greenberg's conflicts of interests hurt the foundation that provides money to colleges while benefiting Greenberg and his company, American International Group Inc.

Spitzer criticized Greenberg's role as executor of the estate of his mentor, Cornelius Vander Starr, who created a worldwide network of insurance companies including AIG in the early 1900s.

Starr died in 1968.

Spitzer's 2005 report stated the foundation could take civil action to recover $6 billion owed it from decisions made by Greenberg.

"Executors (of the Estate of C.V. Starr) acted in good faith and prudently performed their duties, and ... there is no basis for the A.G. report's contention to the contrary," according to the report released Monday by the panel.

"The independent committee has concluded that it would not be appropriate, nor would it be in the best interests of The Starr Foundation, to pursue any litigation or other course of action against the executors, whether in their capacity as executors or as directors of The Starr Foundation," according to the statement.

The foundation's board of directors created the panel of retired Appellate Division Justice William Thompson, former Nassau County surrogate Judge Raymond Radigan, and Florence Davis, president of the foundation and a member of its board.

Spitzer and Greenberg didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

The committee said Spitzer's office was less than cooperative, but eventually produced some documents to back up its report, at one point refusing to provide a witness' transcript despite agreeing to conditions for it's use, according to the panel's report.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/new...egion-apnewyork

[Livyjr]

AN OPEN LETTER ......

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

DATED: JUNE 30, 2006

SIR:

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

In that same article, which is public domain, it is reported, and admitted by FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE that in her present public employment as REPUBLICAN Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE has little real responsibility, and that she personally has embraced the public role of being a CHEERLEADER for REPUBLICAN George Pataki without complaint.

QUESTION 1: HOW DOES SUCH WILLING SUBSERVIENCE TO REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI SPEAK TO HER ABILITY TO BE INDEPENDENT AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

That March 3, 2006 Times Union article further reports that as a "CHEERLEADER" for REPUBLICAN George Pataki, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE "attends ribbon cuttings, lectures at schools, heads task forces and never forgets to credit Pataki for everything."

QUESTION 2: HOW DOES THIS EXPERIENCE SERVE TO HELP PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

It is then reported in that March 3, 2006 Times Union article that during her present term of public service in the State of New York, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE "has generally managed to keep a low profile during her time in office, with more attention paid to her ever-changing hairstyle than her public pronouncements.

QUESTION 3: HOW DO YOU SEE THIS TYPE OF PUBLIC SERVICE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS A CHEERLEADER FOR REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI AS SERVING TO PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE FOR THE SOLEMN TASK OF INTERPRETING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

That March 3, 2006 Times Union article then reports that the reason for the NOMINATION of FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR by President George W. Bush was as a favor to REPUBLICAN New York State Governor George Pataki, to wit:

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

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

Sincerely ......

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

Or the world for that matter ....

Are concerned ....

As are we up here ...

In Rensselaer County ...

In the State of New York ....

With the INDEPENDENCE ....

And INTEGRITY ....

OF OUR FEDERAL JUDICIARY ...

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

And you wish to make comments ....

To Senator Schumer ....

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

And all of the news media ....

Here in OUR America as well ....

ON THIS JUDICIAL NOMINATION .....

Click on this URL to take action now

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

Then look to your left ....

And click on CONGRESS ....

Then type in the name of Charles Schumer ....

Or whomever ....

And look by his name on his individual page for how to contact him ....

Which is a neat service ...

Where you scroll down to the bottom of the choices ...

And click on "compose your own letter" .....

Where you can simply "paste in" these questions above here ....

If you have no questions ...

Or comments ...

Of your own ....

And if .....

IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE ....

You wish to bring this thread ....

To the attention ...

Of Senator Schumer ....

Or anyone else ....

That URL is ....

http://commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/...php/t24721.html

And so ....

CAN COMMON CITIZENS HERE IN OUR AMERICA ...

WITHOUT RESOURCES ....

BUT WITH ACCESS ...

TO THIS INTERNET FORUM ....

NO MATTER HOW REMOTE OUR LOCATION MAY BE ...

OUT THERE IN THE REAL WORLD ...

MAKE A DIFFERENCE ....

HERE IN OUR AMERICA ....

BY MAKING OUR VOICES KNOWN ....

TO OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ....

ON MATTERS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE TO US ....

SUCH AS THE "QUALITY" ...

OF THOSE WHO SIT ON THE FEDERAL BENCH .....

IN JUDGMENT OF US?

AND WHOEVER DOES REALLY KNOW THAT ANSWER ....

BUT PERHAPS ....

JUST PERHAPS ....

IF ONE IS PERSISTENT ENOUGH ....

AND IS IN POSSESSION OF THE FACTS ....

"PATAKI'S NO. 2 HARSHLY JUDGED"

By FREDRIC U. DICKER

NY POST

March 8, 2007

ALBANY - Gov. Mary Donohue's nomination by President Bush to a federal judgeship is dead, a source close to Sen. Charles Schumer told The Post yesterday.

Donohue, a former state Supreme Court justice, was made a state Court of Claims judge by former Gov. George Pataki during his final weeks in office.

She was nominated last year by Bush at Pataki's request for a federal judicial post.

But a screening committee of prominent New York attorneys used by Schumer - a Senate Judiciary Committee member - to review judicial nominations concluded "Donohue just didn't pass muster," the source said.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03082007/news/...c_u__dicker.htm

[Livyjr]

And from the internet:

With respect to the rejection by Sen. Chuck Schumer of the judicial nomination of former Lt.Gov. Mary O’Connor Donohue for a federal judgeship here in the federal Northern District of New York ….

I came across the following OPEN LETTER TO SEN. SCHUMER concerning this very nomination on an internet forum dealing with New York State issues of importance to some of us, anyway ….

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...mp;#entry695553

And being very concerned with the “quality” of those who are placed in LIFETIME POSITIONS on the federal bench up here to uphold OUR federal civil rights ….

I must confess that I signed on to this OPEN LETTER, myself ….

And so ….

When I read this New York POST article by Fred Dicker that is linked to in here ….

Where Sen. Schumer’s Office stated that Mary Donohue “just didn’t pass muster” for a federal judgeship …

I felt that perhaps through the miracle of this modern internet ….

Which Ben Franklin might see as a high-speed version of his printing press …

Common ordinary citizens out here in the country, removed from the CENTERS OF POWER, here in America ….

Can have their voices be heard in those CENTERS OF POWER ….

Without having to leave home to do it …..

And so ….

As one of America’s many disabled combat veterans who took and never forsook an oath to the Constitution …

I have to say that I am very much for the citizen-to-citizen direct dialogue ….

That a forum such as this one affords us common folks out here …

That allows us to have our voices heard …

No matter how remote our physical location might actually be ….

Nor how meager our means …

And without further ado ….

AN OPEN LETTER ……

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

DATED: JUNE 30, 2006

SIR:

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

In that same article, which is public domain, it is reported, and admitted by FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O’CONNOR DONOHUE that in her present public employment as REPUBLICAN Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O’CONNOR DONOHUE has little real responsibility, and that she personally has embraced the public role of being a CHEERLEADER for REPUBLICAN George Pataki without complaint.

QUESTION 1: HOW DOES SUCH WILLING SUBSERVIENCE TO REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI SPEAK TO HER ABILITY TO BE INDEPENDENT AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

That March 3, 2006 Times Union article further reports that as a “CHEERLEADER” for REPUBLICAN George Pataki, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O’CONNOR DONOHUE “attends ribbon cuttings, lectures at schools, heads task forces and never forgets to credit Pataki for everything.”

QUESTION 2: HOW DOES THIS EXPERIENCE SERVE TO HELP PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O’CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

It is then reported in that March 3, 2006 Times Union article that during her present term of public service in the State of New York, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O’CONNOR DONOHUE “has generally managed to keep a low profile during her time in office, with more attention paid to her ever-changing hairstyle than her public pronouncements."

QUESTION 3: HOW DO YOU SEE THIS TYPE OF PUBLIC SERVICE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS A CHEERLEADER FOR REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI AS SERVING TO PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O’CONNOR DONOHUE FOR THE SOLEMN TASK OF INTERPRETING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

That March 3, 2006 Times Union article then reports that the reason for the NOMINATION of FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O’CONNOR by President George W. Bush was as a favor to REPUBLICAN New York State Governor George Pataki, to wit:

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

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

Sincerely ……

Comment by John Galt — March 8, 2007 @ 5:59 pm

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=3988#comments

[Livyjr]

"Pact puts Capitol on notice - DA Soares, Cuomo vow to share resources to clean up corruption in state government"

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

First published: Friday, January 12, 2007

ALBANY -- In what they touted as a historic pact, Albany County District Attorney David Soares and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo launched a joint effort Thursday to root out corruption in state government.

"This is not the changing of the guard," Cuomo said.

"It's the changing of an era."

As the state's top legal official, the attorney general has jurisdiction in civil matters, but only partial jurisdiction in criminal cases.

Most cases the office prosecutes involve violations of Executive Law rather than Penal Law.

But the Criminal Prosecutions Bureau also handles criminal cases when the governor appoints the attorney general to supersede a district attorney.

The alliance with Soares extends the attorney general's reach, impact and power into the criminal realm.

Under the agreement announced Thursday, lawyers in Cuomo's office will now have access to the grand jury.

From the web-edition of the Albany, New York Times Union ....

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=4009#comments

Comment by John Galt — March 9, 2007 @ 9:22 am

And while we are on the subject of some necessary clarifications in here this morning ….

With respect to young Andrew Cuomo and his alleged “corruption-fighting initiatives” here in Albany, New York ….

In an article entitled “Pact puts Capitol on notice - DA Soares, Cuomo vow to share resources to clean up corruption in state government” by MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON published Friday, January 12, 2007, it is stated:

“In what they touted as a historic pact, Albany County District Attorney David Soares and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo launched a joint effort Thursday to root out corruption in state government.”

“This is not the changing of the guard,” Cuomo said.

“It’s the changing of an era.”

“As the state’s top legal official, the attorney general has jurisdiction in civil matters, but only partial jurisdiction in criminal cases.”

“Under the agreement announced Thursday, lawyers in Cuomo’s office WILL NOW HAVE ACCESS to the grand jury.”

What I would like to do ….

As an older New Yorker who still recalls OUR having had a state Constitution, once, anyway, when I was young …

Is to point to the BILL OF RIGHTS of OUR New York State Constitution ….

Specifically to section 6 of ARTICLE I ….

Wherein is stated …

In language that is both clear and easily comprehensible to the common citizen with a minimal education …

Language that does not require interpretation by a lawyer, SINCE IT IS OUR CITIZEN’S BILL OF RIGHTS, and not theirs …

As follows:

“No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor shall he or she be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself, providing, that any public officer who, upon being called before a grand jury to testify concerning the conduct of his or her present office or of any public office held by him or her within five years prior to such grand jury call to testify, or the performance of his or her official duties in any such present or prior offices, refuses to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent criminal prosecution, or to answer any relevant question concerning such matters before such grand jury, shall by virtue of such refusal, be disqualified from holding any other public office or public employment for a period of five years from the date of such refusal to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent prosecution, or to answer any relevant question concerning such matters before such grand jury, and shall be removed from his or her present office by the appropriate authority or shall forfeit his or her present office at the suit of the attorney-general.”

“THE POWER of grand juries to inquire into the wilful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments or to direct the filing of informations in connection with such inquiries, SHALL NEVER BE SUSPENDED OR IMPAIRED BY LAW.”

Now, that language cannot be misunderstood, except by a politician or lawyer, perhaps ….

And being in OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, as it is, what that language does is to INSTRUCT OUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AND OUR GOVERNMENT ….

And this would seem to include young Andrew Cuomo ….

As to what OUR intentions as citizens were, back when we still had a Constitution with a BILL OF RIGHTS, before “STEAMROLLER” Spitzer’s crowd abandoned it, anyway ….

And clearly, IT WAS OUR INTENTION back when we still had a Constitution with a CITIZEN’S BILL OF RIGHTS that OUR grand juries had the RESPONSIBILITY, on OUR behalf, to dig, and dig hard, into public corruption, here in New York State, despite the attempts of crooked politicians and lawyers-on-the-make to have it be otherwise ….

And the vehicle for starting that process, was the ARTICLE 78 ….

Wherein the common citizen, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A LAWYER, was able to obtain an initial ruling from a state Supreme Court Justice that a public official had acted in violation of the law ….

Without going into detail in here, which would be extensive, suffice to say, that that provision of OUR New York State BILL OF RIGHTS has indeed been STRIPPED from us, by the politicians and the BAR ASSOCIATION ….

To OUR detriment …

So that what we have now is BIDNESS AS USUAL down there in CORRUPT Albany …

With a flurry of press releases telling us that young Andrew Cuomo is trying to get the train back on the track ….

Well, out here in the country ….

It is OUR collective opinion that IF young Andrew Cuomo really is sincere in fighting corruption here in New York State ….

He will get right up there on the PRESS BANDWAGON …

And he will acknowledge section 6 of ARTICLE I of OUR state Constitution ….

And then he will do more than simply issue press releases paying lip service to OUR Constitution ….

He will actually get out there instead ….

And he will start using section 6 of ARTICLE I of the New York State Constitution as it was intended to be used ….

ON OUR BEHALF AS CITIZENS OF THIS STATE ….

And the best place for him to start, in our collective opinion …

Would be down there in the federal district court for the Northern District of New York …

Where in an article entitled “Feeding off taxpayers no crime, lawyer says - Cronyism, big spending called usual government practice at Strevell trial” by JAMES M. ODATO published Thursday, January 18, 2007 ….

It was reported that:

“A defense lawyer for the Rensselaer County entrepreneur whose organization got more than $1 million in member item grants directed by Sen. Joseph L. Bruno is arguing in federal court that dishonesty isn’t necessarily a federal offense.”

“William P. Fanciullo, lawyer for J. Felix Strevell, the former director of the now-defunct Institute for Entrepreneurship, also said that Strevell’s actions, including putting relatives on the state payroll, were normal practices in government.”

“The case before U.S. District Court Justice Gary L. Sharpe centers on Strevell’s lavish spending on himself and on parties that honored lawmakers who helped him get public money.”

It is our belief as CITIZENS FOR THE CONSTITUTION here in New York State that the provisions of the New York State Executive Law governing the conduct of the New York State Attorney General, and this would include young Andrew Cuomo, provide that the New York State Attorney General could and should intervene in this matter on behalf of the CITIZENS of this state to say “IT IS NOT SO, ACCORDING TO NEW YORK STATE LAW” …..

Elsewise, it seems that we are going to have this BUSH APPOINTEE, Judge Sharpe, ruling on behalf of the United States government that CORRUPTION is indeed the normal practice here in New York State ….

Which, of course, would reflect REALITY AS IT IS, but not how it should be …

And so …

[Livyjr]

From the web-edition of the Albany, New York Times Union ....

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=4009#comments

Comment by John Galt — March 9, 2007 @ 9:22 am

“No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor shall he or she be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself, providing, that any public officer who, upon being called before a grand jury to testify concerning the conduct of his or her present office or of any public office held by him or her within five years prior to such grand jury call to testify, or the performance of his or her official duties in any such present or prior offices, refuses to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent criminal prosecution, or to answer any relevant question concerning such matters before such grand jury, shall by virtue of such refusal, be disqualified from holding any other public office or public employment for a period of five years from the date of such refusal to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent prosecution, or to answer any relevant question concerning such matters before such grand jury, and shall be removed from his or her present office by the appropriate authority or shall forfeit his or her present office at the suit of the attorney-general.”

“THE POWER of grand juries to inquire into the wilful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments or to direct the filing of informations in connection with such inquiries, SHALL NEVER BE SUSPENDED OR IMPAIRED BY LAW.”

Now, that language cannot be misunderstood, except by a politician or lawyer, perhaps ….

And being in OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, as it is, what that language does is to INSTRUCT OUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AND OUR GOVERNMENT ….

And this would seem to include young Andrew Cuomo ….

As to what OUR intentions as citizens were, back when we still had a Constitution with a BILL OF RIGHTS, before “STEAMROLLER” Spitzer’s crowd abandoned it, anyway ….

And clearly, IT WAS OUR INTENTION back when we still had a Constitution with a CITIZEN’S BILL OF RIGHTS that OUR grand juries had the RESPONSIBILITY, on OUR behalf, to dig, and dig hard, into public corruption, here in New York State, despite the attempts of crooked politicians and lawyers-on-the-make to have it be otherwise ….

And the vehicle for starting that process, was the ARTICLE 78 ….

Wherein the common citizen, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A LAWYER, was able to obtain an initial ruling from a state Supreme Court Justice that a public official had acted in violation of the law ….

And continuing with that exchange ...

From the web-edition of the Albany, New York Times Union ....

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=4009#comments

Comment by Smith — March 9, 2007 @ 1:07 pm

Dear John Galt,

Ever filed an Article 78 proceeding?

First, it’s not cheap enough to be within the means of an ordinary citizen trying to get some simple government service.

Second, no - you do not need a lawyer, but if your opponent (some government) uses a lawyer (a certainty), then you are at a severe procedural disadvantage if you don’t use one.

If the AG wants to be an advocate for the public interest, let him have at it.

Same with the Governor.

Comment by John Galt — March 9, 2007 @ 6:47 pm

Indeed, indeed ….

John Galt has filed and won several Article 78’s ….

In Albany County Supreme Court ….

Against some of the best attorneys in this area ….

Including one of the members of the vaunted and widely famed “CAPITAL DISTRICT AREA DREAM TEAM” featuring E. Stewart Jones and Company ….

And John Galt prevailed in an appeal in the Appellate Division, Third Department against the New York State Attorney General in a matter involving section 1 of ARTICLE IX of the New York State Constitution, the BILL OF RIGHTS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK in relation to the New York State Mined Land Reclamation Law …..

Winning in court against lawyers in an Article 78 is easy ….

I have generally found them to be full of crap ….

And little more …

While it would be my habit to be armed with the law and the facts …..

Elsewise there was little sense in going to court, you see?

And the ones from the Attorney General’s Office are condescending and ill-tempered to an extreme ….

Very snippy and quite dismissive ….

And not at all squeamish about losing some evidence and testimony to keep a federal civil rights lawsuit involving a disabled veteran out of the federal District Court for the Northern District of New York ….

Including a sworn statement of an eye-witness account by an Albany Police Officer of an unlawful imprisonment at the Stratton VA Hospital on August 22, 2001 ….

The New York State Attorney General always taking the lead, you see ….

Throwing its considerable weight around ….

In defense of “clients” who my paperwork demonstrated had violated the laws of the State of New York …..

PROTECTION!

The New York State Attorney General peddles influence and PROTECTION …

And when challenged …..

As it was ….

When LORD CORNBURY REBORN “STEAMROLLER” Spitzer was Attorney General ….

It can become quite dangerous ….

And did ….

Which is an on-going story ….

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...mp;#entry695616

Over in another parcel of the BLOG-O-SPHERE …

Out there in the far reaches of CYBERSPACE …

And so …

[Livyjr]

"Attorney firing probe touches Bush counselors - Possible White House role in dismissal of U.S. prosecutors examined"

By McClatchy

First published: Saturday, March 10, 2007

WASHINGTON -- A congressional investigation into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys reached into the White House on Friday, with Democrats saying that they'll call in President Bush's former counsel Harriet Miers and other unidentified White House officials for interviews with the House Judiciary Committee.

Lawmakers have been asking whether the federal prosecutors' offices have become tainted by partisan politics.

Until Friday, the official inquiry had ended with the Justice Department.

The decision to extend the inquiry to Bush's inner circle suggests that lawmakers believe there may have been some level of coordination of the firings from inside the White House last December.

Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., chairwoman of the subcommittee directing the inquiry, sent a letter Friday to Miers, a longtime Bush loyalist who left her post in January, requesting that she submit to an interview.

They also sent a letter to Miers' replacement, Fred Fielding.

That letter asks that other White House officials also agree to interviews.

The committee also seeks all e-mails and paperwork between the White House and the Justice Department or members of Congress linked to the investigation.

"Until we get a clear and credible answer from the Bush administration on who made the decision to fire these U.S. attorneys ... we will continue our investigation," Conyers said in a statement.

Said Sanchez:

"The threshold for cooperation in Washington used to be 'Trust, but verify.'"

"We are sending these letters today because, at this point, we'd be happy just to verify."

A spokeswoman said the White House was reviewing the requests and would have no immediate comment.

Miers couldn't be reached for comment.

Six of the ousted U.S. attorneys testified this week before House and Senate committees about political interference in investigations, cronyism and the lack of explanation for their sudden firings after the November elections.

The ex-prosecutors were all Bush appointees and received high performance reviews, but several had investigated Republicans for corruption or chose not to charge Democrats who were accused of corruption.

Past administrations have replaced U.S. attorneys when they took power.

Top prosecutors are rarely fired midterm except for malfeasance.

[Livyjr]

"White House mulled firing all prosecutors"

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

3 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The chief White House lawyer floated the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys at the start of President Bush's second term, but the Justice Department objected and eventually recommended the eight dismissals that have generated a political firestorm two years later.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday that then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers raised with an aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales the prospect of asking all chief federal district prosecutors to resign in 2004 as a logical way to start a new term with a new slate of U.S. attorneys.

Perino also acknowledged Monday that complaints about the job performance of prosecutors occasionally came to the White House and were passed on to the Justice Department, perhaps including some informally from President Bush to Gonzales.

The U.S. attorneys, the chief federal law enforcement officials in their various districts, typically are appointed to four-year terms by the president on the recommendation of state political leaders, but serve the pleasure of the president and can be dismissed at any time — like the attorney general and other Cabinet officers.

Democrats in Congress have charged that the eight dismissals announced last December were politically motivated and some of those fired have said they felt pressured by powerful Republicans in their home states to rush investigations of potential voter fraud involving Democrats.

Perino said Kyle Samson, the aid Miers contacted, objected that a wholesale change of prosecutors would be disruptive.

She also said deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser, vaguely recalls telling Miers that he also thought firing all 93 was ill-advised.

The Justice Department, however, was working internally on a shorter list of firings, and submitted that list to the White House in late 2006, she said.

"At no time were names added or subtracted by the White House," Perino said.

"We continue to believe that the decision to remove and replace U.S. attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president was perfectly appropriate and within administration's discretion."

"We stand by the Department of Justice's assertion that they were removed for performance and managerial reasons."

Dating back to mid-2004, the White House's legislative affairs, political affairs and chief of staff's office had received complaints from a variety of sources about the lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases in various locations, including Philadelphia, Milwaukee and New Mexico, she said

Those complaints were passed on to the Justice Department or Mier's office.

"The president recalls hearing complaints about election fraud not being vigorously prosecuted and believes he may have informally mentioned it to the attorney general during a brief discussion on other Department of Justice matters," Perino said, adding that the conversation would have taken place in October 2006.

"At no time did any White Hose officials, including the president, direct the Department of Justice to take specific action against any individual U.S. attorney," Perino said.

The Washington Post reported initially on the idea of dismissing all the prosecutors, saying it reviewed a number of internal White House e-mails preceding the final dismissals.

Sampson resigned Monday after acknowledging that he did not tell other Justice officials who testified to Congress about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information in their testimony, according to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity because Sampson has not announced his departure.

The new revelations Monday evening came after congressional Democrats earlier in the day singled out Rove for questioning about the firings of the eight prosecutors and whether the dismissals were politically motivated.

Those demands to question Rove signaled anew Democrats' shifting focus beyond the Justice Department and toward the White House in the inquiry.

Last week, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said he would seek to interview Miers and deputy counsel William Kelly for insight on their roles, if any, in the firings.

Rove emerged as the Democrats' newest target after weekend news reports said the New Mexico Republican Party's chairman urged Rove to fire David Iglesias, then the state's U.S. attorney.

In a statement Monday, Conyers said stories about Rove's alleged link to Iglesias' dismissal "raise even more alarm bells for us."

"As a result, we would want to ensure that Karl Rove was one of the White House staff that we interview in connection with our investigation," said Conyers.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading his chamber's probe into the firings, said he also wants to question Rove.

In an interview this weekend with The Associated Press, New Mexico GOP chairman Allen Weh said Iglesias' "termination had already occurred" by the time he spoke with Rove at a holiday party last December.

But Weh made no secret of his dissatisfaction with Iglesias, in part from the prosecutor's failure to indict Democrats in a voter fraud investigation.

The White House has said previously that Rove wasn't involved in the firings, but did alert Miers to complaints about Iglesias.

It was not immediately clear whether Rove also told Gonzales about the complaints.

Last week, Rove called the two-month controversy "a very big attempt by some in the Congress to make a political stink about it."

Schumer called it "almost unheard of" for a federal prosecutor with favorable reviews to be fired after a top presidential adviser like Rove received complaints about his performance.

"The more we learn, the more it seems that people at high levels in the White House have been involved in the U.S. attorney purge," Schumer said Monday.

___

Associated Press Writer Deb Riechmann contributed to this report from Merida, Mexico.

[Livyjr]

"Gonzales: Prosecutors firings mishandled"

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

Tue Mar 13, 2:52 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acknowledged that mistakes were made and accepted responsibility Tuesday for the way eight federal prosecutors were fired.

At a Justice Department news conference, Gonzales said he would find out why Congress was not told sooner that the White House was involved in discussions of who would be fired and when.

He did not back away, however, from his stance that the dismissals that did take place were appropriate.

"I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision," Gonzales said.

Democrats in Congress have charged that the eight dismissals announced last December were politically motivated and that some of those ousted have said they felt pressured by powerful Republicans in their home states to rush investigations of potential voter fraud involving Democrats.

Justice Department officials, led by Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, told lawmakers under oath that the decision to fire eight U.S. attorneys in December was made solely by the Justice Department and said the decision was based on performance, not politics.

E-mails released Tuesday, however, revealed that the firings were considered and discussed for two years by Justice Department and White House officials.

"Obviously I am concerned about the fact that information — incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress," Gonzales said.

"I believe very strongly in our obligation to ensure that when we provide information to the Congress, it is accurate and it is complete."

"And I very dismayed that that may not have occurred here."

Gonzales earlier accepted the resignation of his top aide, Kyle Sampson.

Authorities said that Sampson failed to brief other senior Justice Department officials of his discussions about the firings with then-White House counsel Harriet Miers.

E-mail correspondence between Sampson and Miers indicate they began two years ago to consider individual U.S. attorneys for possible dismissal.

As the list took shape, their correspondence indicated possible political backlash from the attorneys and their congressional allies.