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

[Livyjr]

THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DAILY POLITICS BLOG:

MR. RAVI BATRA SAYS: Nevertheless, a "So what?," assuming that was actually said, is a question that seems to say, "lets assume what you are saying is true, tell me what is the federal law violation and what is the injury from the violation?”

JOHN GALT REPLIES: Mr. Ravi Batra, you have an awesome intellectual mind .....

A razer sharp intellect, indeed ...

Your question above here cuts right to the very heart of this matter, and so ...

Let us look at the FACTS as they were determined by a federal district court judge in Albany .....

III. FACTS:

On July 7 (2001), PLAINTIFF conducted an investigation of defendants Aiken (engineer) and McGrath’s “deliberate falsification of inspection data and fraudulent submissions” resulting in the issuance of the Pelletier permit.

During PLAINTIFF'S investigation, Pelletier assaulted him.

On August 9 (2001), defendant Reiter (Rensselaer County Director of Veterans’ Services) warned PLAINTIFF to “back off” the Pelletier investigation because he (Pelletier) was a “protected person” in the county.

end quotes

There was an assault, Mr. Ravi Batra ....

The assault was captured on videotape ....

On the videotape, you plainly see this young man built like a bull as he runs up to the camera, and then you hear the assault taking place, and then the camera re-focuses and you see the face of the assailant and on the audio portion of the recording, you hear him bragging about being protected, which is why in his decision, the federal district court judge stated it as a fact that he was a "protected person" in Rensselaer County ....

It is to this that Sonia Sotomayer is saying "SO WHAT! BIG ******* DEAL! WHO THE **** CARES!"

The assault ....

Who cares?

And you are right, Mr. Ravi Batra - she did say "HOW DOES THIS HARM YOU?"

She herself saw no harm in it, of course ....

And so ....

Posted by: John Galt | July 1, 2007 2:46 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypoli...lyn.html?page=3

"New self-defense laws cause confusion"

By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press Writer

Mon Jul 9, 1:45 PM ET

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Norman Borden fought back twice — once against three assailants on the street, then again in a courtroom where he was charged with murder for killing two of them.

Borden, 44, was walking his dogs last year when three men in a Jeep tried to run him down.

He pulled a gun and shot five times through the windshield, then moved to the side of the vehicle and fired nine more rounds.

He thought the shooting was self-defense, but a prosecutor put him on trial in the deaths, despite a new Florida law that grants wide latitude to people using deadly force to protect themselves.

The case highlights the confusion surrounding so-called "stand-your-ground" laws, which have been adopted in at least 14 states.

The laws have perplexed judges and prosecutors, and, in some cases, forced attorneys to change the way they review evidence.

In Borden's case, a prosecutor filed charges against him, even though he privately thought Borden might have been correct to open fire.

In Kentucky, a man suspected of murder was offered a plea agreement because the law was too difficult to explain to jurors.

Florida was the first state to enact such a law in 2005, removing the requirement that people who think they are in immediate peril must first try to retreat from the confrontation before using deadly force.

Prior to passage of the law, only people defending themselves in their own homes, for the most part, could use deadly force without first trying to flee.

Most states let authorities determine whether deadly force was reasonable, even inside the home.

But the new laws create an automatic presumption that a person is justified in using deadly force to ward off an attacker in just about any public place.

"We believe that self-defense is an innate human right and the law should never put the innocent victim of a crime in a position of having to second-guess themselves," said Ashley Varner, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, which pushed for the laws.

For defense attorneys, the laws offer protection to clients who have struck back at assailants.

"The more defenses the better," said Jack King, spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

He added: "Most people would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six," referring to juries and pallbearers.

Gun-control groups worry that the laws will embolden shooters to pull the trigger first rather than as a last resort.

"If you are protecting yourself or your family in self defense, that's a basic legal right anyway," said Elizabeth Haile, an attorney for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

At least 14 states have revised their laws to ensure that people don't have to retreat from an attacker.

Those states are: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas, according to the NRA.

There is no way to tell exactly how many times the law has been used as a defense because the statutes are still too new to collect statistics.

In Kentucky, prosecutors offered a plea deal to a man they accused of murder because the statute was too confusing to explain to jurors.

Judge Sheila Isaac, who presided over the case, said the law apparently "went right through the Legislature without a single attorney looking at it."

She said the law was addressing a problem that didn't exist, a sentiment shared by law enforcement officials across the country.

"You just don't see cases where people are prosecuted when they are defending themselves," Isaac said.

Former Republican state Rep. Dennis Baxley, who sponsored Florida's bill, argues that the law was needed to empower citizens.

"Our judicial system tries to be so careful to protect the criminal's rights, we have neglected the right of the common citizen to protect themselves," Baxley said.

In West Palm Beach, Borden faced up to life in prison without the possibility of parole if convicted of murder and attempted murder.

One of his would-be attackers, 21-year-old Juan Mendez, admitted in testimony at Borden's trial that the three men in the Jeep planned to "rough him up."

A baseball bat was also found in the vehicle.

Prosecutor Craig Williams argued that Borden exceeded justified force when he continued firing after shooting the driver and stopping the Jeep.

But Borden's defense argued that he did not have to retreat, citing the new law.

Williams said he pursued the charges because he thought a jury needed to decide the case.

But he privately wondered how he would have behaved in the same situation.

When Borden was acquitted, the prosecutor was almost relieved.

The assailants "were bringing an arsenal," Williams conceded after the trial.

"It was pretty clear what the right thing to do was here."

___

AP researcher Rhonda Shafner contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SO!

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

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

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

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

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

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

And if so, HOW can that be countered?

And when the sum of money is so big as was the case in New York State by 1976, $44 BILLION, ABSENT A COMPLETE AND TOTAL TOP-TO-BOTTOM house-cleaning of the whole of government itself, CAN ANYTHING AT ALL BE DONE, because the truth of the matter is that corruption, or crime of this magnitude cannot happen without inside help ....

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

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

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

"Ex-mayor in N.J. charged with corruption"

By JANET FRANKSTON LORIN, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 4 minutes ago

NEWARK, N.J. - Former Newark Mayor Sharpe James was indicted Thursday on corruption charges involving land sales and allegations that he spent extravagantly on himself and several women using city-issued credit cards.

The federal grand jury's 33-count indictment charges James with fraud for allegedly facilitating and approving the cut-rate sales of city-owned land to a female companion.

It also charges James, 71, with using the city-issued credit cards on himself and eight women during trips to destinations including Rio de Janeiro, Puerto Rico and Martha's Vineyard, U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie and state Attorney General Anne Milgram announced.

"The allegations in this indictment are stark examples of the greed and arrogance of unchecked power," Christie said.

"When Sharpe James had a choice between enriching himself or helping the people of Newark, he chose self-enrichment."

James surrendered to the FBI shortly after the indictment was announced.

He later appeared in court and answered "Yes, yes," when asked whether he understood the charges he was facing; the judge set bail at $250,000.

The woman accused of buying the bargain-priced city land, Tamika Riley, also was charged with fraud and was to appear in court.

Riley, a 38-year-old publicist and former clothing store operator in Newark, allegedly made more than $500,000 from the land sales, authorities said.

Ethical questions have long surrounded James, who has a home on the Jersey shore, a yacht and a Rolls-Royce.

He has been a Democratic state senator since 1999, while also serving as Newark's mayor until last year, when he decided not to seek re-election after two decades in the job.

Tom Wilson, the state Republican Party chairman, blamed Democratic leaders for tolerating James' ethics lapses and called on James to resign from the Senate.

Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine and Senate President Richard J. Codey said the accusations were best addressed in court.

James has said little publicly since federal investigators notified him that he was the target of a corruption probe last month.

In a handwritten letter to The Associated Press, dated June 16, he said he never had the power to broker land deals or set prices by himself.

"No, no, no, the mayor is not a boss or a lord or can give away municipal land," he wrote.

The indictment charges that James improperly steered properties to Riley, and that she, with James's help, quickly resold at least seven properties at much higher prices.

Riley was able to buy the properties though she lacked real estate and construction experience and the financial ability to rehabilitate the properties, the indictments alleges.

Riley also raised and donated campaign funds for James and traveled internationally with him, enjoying vacations and meals partly paid for by the city credit cards, the indictment alleges.

In all, the credit card charges listed in the indictment total more than $58,000 between 2001 and 2006.

They include luxury hotel suites, expensive meals, airfare, car rentals including one for a Jaguar convertible, and a trip to Florida to test drive a Rolls-Royce the former mayor was considering purchasing, according to the indictment.

James' election in 1986 made him Newark's second black mayor.

He collects an annual pension of about $125,000 from Newark and earns $49,000 a year as a senator.

He announced in April that he also wouldn't seek another term in the Senate after his current term expires in January.

[Livyjr]

THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DAILY POLITICS BLOG:

And while I will not admit to being wrong, Mr. Ravi Batra, after further thought and reflection, I must and will admit that I was inexact in my language when I stated that Sonia Sotomayer covered up the commission of crimes, because in truth, there was no cover-up ...

The facts were right out there in the open for all to see, to wit:

III. FACTS:

On May 22, 2001, Jeffey Pelletier was issued a sewage system construction permit by the County of Rensselaer.

On July 7 (2001), PLAINTIFF conducted an investigation of defendants Aiken (engineer) and McGrath’s “deliberate falsification of inspection data and fraudulent submissions” resulting in the issuance of the Pelletier permit.

During PLAINTIFF'S investigation, Pelletier assaulted him.

On August 9 (2001), defendant Reiter (Rensselaer County Director of Veterans’ Services) warned PLAINTIFF to “back off” the Pelletier investigation because he (Pelletier) was a “protected person” in the county.

On August 17 (2001), defendant Jimino (Rensselaer County Executive) allegedly phoned PLAINTIFF threatening to harm him if he did not stop his investigation.

Thereafter, he claims that Jimino conspired with Cybulski (County Director of Community Services) to obtain a fraudulent involuntary commitment order and a medical certification from Samaritan Hospital.

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=4320#comments

Those facts come right out of a decision by the federal District Court for the Northern District of NY, and I don't dispute them, at all ....

So all Sonia Sotomayer had to do, Mr. Ravi Batra, was apply the law to that set of facts, and this is where you and I join issue, if you will ...

When confronted with these same facts during oral presentation in or about November of 2005, what I recall hearing Sonia Sotomayer saying to the PLAINTIFF and to all those in the open courtroom at the time, including myself was "SO WHAT?"

"BIG DEAL!"

"WHO THE **** CARES?"

So yes, Mr. Ravi Batra, by saying that Sonia Sotomayer covered-up crimes, you could say that I was inexact or incorrect, and from that, you, as a learned man and a barrister, to boot, could infer that I was wrong, and I would have to accept that, as a gentleman ...

I should have said that she condoned the commission of crimes by politically-protected people, or that by her actions, she was aiding and assisting Eliot Spitzer in the facilitation of crimes by politically-protected people in Joe Bruno's Rensselaer County in upstate NY ....

FACILITATION: In criminal law, the act of making it easier for another to commit crimes ...

- Black's Law Dictionary

And so ...

Thanks for helping me to see the light here, Mr. Ravi Batra, and for giving me this opportunity to change my prior statement that Sonia Sotomayer covered-up the commission of crimes by politically-protected persons up here in Joe Bruno's fiefdom of Rensselaer County in upstate NY ...

And so ...

Posted by: John Galt | June 30, 2007 8:44 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypoli...lyn.html?page=3

"Former NY doctor pleads guilty in steroids case"

By ERIC TUCKER, Associated Press

Last updated: 3:03 p.m., Friday, July 13, 2007

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A former doctor pleaded guilty Friday to writing illicit steroid prescriptions for people she never met or examined as part of a business that illegally distributed performance-enhancing drugs to hundreds of customers.

Ana Maria Santi became the second doctor to plead guilty in the federal investigation, which also netted the owner of a pharmaceutical company who hired the doctors.

Santi, 68, of New York, wrote an average of 100 prescriptions a month at $25 apiece even though she knew the drugs were not being used for any legitimate medical purpose.

She signed the prescription using the name of a retired doctor in California since her own medical license had been revoked several years earlier, prosecutors said.

Pharmaceutical company owner Daniel McGlone agreed this month to plead guilty in the scheme.

Prosecutors say the New Jersey businessman marketed anabolic steroids and human growth hormone to bodybuilders and other customers -- including some in Rhode Island -- seeking to lose weight, prevent hair loss, or stop the effects of aging.

Prosecutors say McGlone advised his customers which drugs they should take and then faxed their requests to Santi and a second doctor, Victor Mariani.

Mariani pleaded guilty in March.

Among the pharmacies alleged to have filled the prescriptions is Orlando, Fla.-based Signature Pharmacy, whose owners have been indicted in a steroid case brought by prosecutors in Albany, N.Y.

The company is not charged in the Rhode Island case.

The scheme spanned from April 2004 to August 2006, and Santi wrote prescriptions for 392 of the 480 customers of McGlone's business, American Pharmaceutical Group, according to court documents.

She was paid roughly $24,340 for her role.

Santi pleaded guilty Friday to 29 separate counts, including health care fraud, conspiracy and illegal drug distribution.

Sentencing was scheduled for Nov. 2.

Santi technically faces up to 155 years in prison, but prosecutors have agreed to seek a sharply reduced sentence based on her cooperation.

"She's resigned, I think, to the situation," said Santi's lawyer, assistant federal public defender Edward C. Roy, Jr.

He said his client was looking forward to moving on with her life.

Santi also is awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty in a similar steroids case earlier this year in New York.

She was scheduled to enter her plea in Rhode Island last month, but the judge pushed back the hearing after Santi challenged a prosecutor's description of the case against her and said she had the permission of the retired doctor to use his name on the prescriptions.

On Friday, though, Roy told the judge his client still intended to go forward with her plea, and Santi accepted each of the prosecutor's allegations.

[Livyjr]

"Judge drops charges vs. 13 in KPMG case"

By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press

Last updated: 12:53 p.m., Monday, July 16, 2007

NEW YORK -- A federal judge dismissed charges Monday against 13 former KPMG employees in what the government had described as the largest criminal tax case in U.S. history, saying the prosecutors prevented them from presenting their defenses.

U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan said the dismissal was necessary because the government coerced KPMG to limit and then cut off its payment of the onetime employees' legal fees.

The case resulted after the government investigated what it described as a tax shelter fraud that helped the wealthy escape $2.5 billion in U.S. taxes.

Yusill Scribner, a spokeswoman for federal prosecutors, said the government had no comment.

Kaplan said the case will proceed to trial against three former employees who had not established that KPMG would have paid their defense costs even if the government had left the company alone in regards to defense costs.

He also let the case proceed against two defendants who were not employed by KPMG and whose rights were not affected.

Kaplan said the Department of Justice "deliberately or callously" prevented many of the defendants from getting funds for their defense, blocking them from hiring the lawyers of their choice.

"This is intolerable in a society that holds itself out to the world as a paragon of justice," Kaplan said, adding that he reached his conclusion "only after pursuing every alternative short of dismissal and only with the greatest reluctance."

Kaplan said he understands prosecutors must be aggressive in pursuing serious crimes.

He called the federal prosecutor's office in Manhattan a "model for the nation," but said there are limits on the permissible actions of even the best prosecutors.

A federal appeals court in May had all but dared Kaplan to dismiss some cases, saying he had the authority to toss out conspiracy and tax evasion charges if he concludes prosecutors deprived the workers of constitutional rights by pressuring KPMG to stop paying legal fees.

KPMG LLP has signed a deal admitting its role in the tax shelter scheme.

It avoided criminal prosecution as it agreed to continue cooperating and to pay a $456 million fine, including $128 million in forfeited fees from sales of the shelters.

Kaplan found in June 2006 that the government violated the constitutional rights of the former KPMG employees charged in the case by threatening the company with indictment and destruction as it demanded the firm depart from its prior practice of paying legal fees for its workers.

He did not decide the remedy at the time.

The judge had concluded KPMG would have paid the legal expenses if the government had not acted improperly.

[Livyjr]

And so indeed, America .....

"Someone with access to a lawyer can win by making it impossible for the other partner to be in the game,"' Albany Law School professor Laurie Shanks said.

And so it was proven to be .....

In this case, anyway ....

And so ...

Once again ...

We have come around the circle in here .....

And where we keep arriving at ....

Is the truth of these words by this law professor at Albany Law School in Albany, New York ...

Where all of this drama took place in federal District Court for the Northern District of New York .....

And in the end ....

It just comes down to money .....

And the "right connections" .....

Or "HOOK UPS", as they say up here ......

Which is to say ...

"Hooking up" with the right lawyer ...

For the right judge ...

As this New York State Deputy Administrative Judge Juanita Bing Newton is making very clear in this newspaper article above here .....

So that with a lawyer as your "BAG MAN" ....

It is no longer a BRIBE ....

For the PROTECTION that you are going to get ....

But a DISBURSEMENT, instead ......

And so ......

At least up here in the federal Northern District of New York ....

That is the accepted practice .....

If you have the right "HOOK UPS" .....

As did Jeffrey Pelletier of Poestenkill, New York ....

And so ....

And so ...

We come forward in time ...

To 2002 ....

When once again ....

Jeffrey Pelletier of Poestenkill ....

The assailant in this matter who bragged on videotape before the Court in this matter of being protected .....

And ended up definitely being so in reality ....

Was able to libel PLAINTIFF in sworn court papers ....

With PLAINTIFF once again being afforded no opportunity to rebut these false and scurrilous assertions made not only by Jeffrey Pelletier ...

But by his LAWYER, as well .....

An alleged COURTHOUSE FIXER from Rensselaer County named Stephen A. Stasack .....

Who also submitted an affidavit to New York State Supreme Court in Rensselaer County ........

Where Stasack allegedly served as a CLERK to one of the judges ....

This AFFIDAVIT by Stasack was dated and sworn to on February 27, 2003 ....

And therein ....

Stasack .....

An attorney licensed to practice in the State of New York ....

And allegedly subject to the Rules of Practice in the State of New York ...

As well as the Rules of Evidence .....

Openly "SHOPPED" or PROFFERED as EVIDENCE this false instrument unlawfully issued to the New York State Police by John Christian Braaten, M.D. of Northeast Health, Inc. on August 22, 2001 ....

To the New York State Supreme Court Justice in charge of the case .....

As alleged PROOF that PLAINTIFF was supposedly mentally ill and dangerous ....

And so ....

Should not be allowed to bring on any kind of charges against Jeffrey Pelletier in Rensselaer County Supreme Court ...

Which is where any case PLAINTIFF might file against Jeffrey Pelletier for damages stemming from the August 7, 2001 assault in the State of New York would have to be filed as a matter of law in the State of New York ....

And so ....

Close the DOORS OF JUSTICE in PLAINTIFF's face based upon NOTHING MORE THAN FALSE STATEMENTS AND a false instrument unlawfully filed with the New York State Police by Dr. John Christian Braaten, M.D. on August 22, 2001 .....

And JUSTICE for Jeffrey Pelletier will be done ....

And so ....

IT WAS DONE ...

And so ...

STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - COUNTY OF RENSSELAER

PLAINTIFF v. Town of Poestenkill; Eugene Bechard, Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer; The County of Rensselaer; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; Carl Richard Aiken, NYSPE 067805; Kevin Joseph McGrath, NYSLS 049508; and Jeff Pelletier

STEPHEN A. STASACK, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I am the attorney for respondent jeffrey Pelletier and make this affidavit in support of respondent's DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL of the proceedings and in opposition to cross-motions.

The relief sought is to strike scandalous matter.

The specific matter alleged to be scandalous is contained in Paragraph 12 of respondent Pelletier's ANSWER, which alleges as follows:

"PLAINTIFF, by his own allegations contained in the ORIGINAL PETITION herein, ADMITS TO SUFFERING FROM SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS, AND THEREFORE, LACKS THE NECESSARY JUDGMENT TO COMMENCE PRO SE ACTIONS."

The allegation of illness is not scandalous .....

AND IS BASED UPON PLAINTIFF'S OWN STATEMENTS ....

THAT OTHERS HAVE ALLEGED ....

HE SUFFERS ....

FROM A BI-POLAR DISORDER .....

The entire petition contains statements made by PLAINTIFF referring to allegations of actions by PLAINTIFF that have led others to TAKE ACTION TO HAVE PLAINTIFF INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED FOR MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION.

PLAINTIFF has cross-moved to CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE PERSONS AS PARTY DEFENDANTS, CLAIMING THEY ARE NECESSARY PARTIES.

PLAINTIFF's pro se action has caused considerable expense to all parties involved.

TO DATE, I have expended approximately 37 hours at an hourly rate of $150.

This is an expense of $5,550 PLUS DISBURSEMENTS, PAYABLE BY PELLETIER - with no end in sight to the volume of papers requiring further time and expense served by PLAINTIFF.

WHEREFORE IT IS REQUESTED ....

THAT THE COURT GRANT AN INJUNCTION ....

BARRING PLAINTIFF ...

FROM COMMENCING ANY FURTHER LITIGATION ....

AGAINST JEFF PELLETIER .....

Sworn to before me this 27th day of February, 2003

And here ...

An older reader ...

With a keen and discerning mind ....

Has stopped me to say ....

That the word "DISBURSEMENT" .....

As used in this sworn affidavit .....

By this alleged Court House Fixer in Rensselaer County ...

On behalf of the assailant, Jeffrey Pelletier of Poestenkill, New York .....

Is a very revealing choice of words ...

By this lawyer .....

Who is a member of a profession .....

Which parses sentences with a scalpel .....

And I have to agree ...

"Hey, Judge, look, Jeff has money out here ..."

"He has bought something ..."

"And now ..."

"You must honor that agreement ..."

And so indeed it was done .....

DISBURSEMENTS ......

A EUPHEMISM for PROTECTION ....

And from the end result in here ...

Where Jeff Pelletier never even had to lift a finger to defend himself in court all the way up to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals ....

For Jeffrey, anyway ...

Those DISBURSEMENTS were money well spent ....

Which point ....

As this older reader reminds us ....

Was made in spades .....

At page 600 ....

Of the O'Connor BIBLE .....

Submitted to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in this matter .....

On behalf of defendant REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino and her co-defendants, in or about November of 2005 ....

Wherein Hon. Gary L. Sharpe, the federal District Court Judge in Albany, New York clearly stated for all the candid world to see and heed ....

The following fact, to wit:

On August 9, 2001, defendant Reiter (Rensselaer County Director of Veterans' Service) WARNED PLAINTIFF to "back off" the Pelletier investigation BECAUSE HE WAS A "PROTECTED PERSON" IN THE COUNTY.

end quotes ...

And as this older person with the keen and discerning mind says ...

"Nothing really could be much plainer than that!"

And so ....

The PLAINTIFF was warned .....

And so ...

He deserved everything he got ...

When he was too stupid to heed Robert Reiter's threat ....

And so .....

Monday, July 16, 2007

"Brennan Center and Friends of the Court File Briefs before U.S. Supreme Court Seeking Affirmance of Decisions Enjoining New York’s Judicial Selection"

On Friday, along with pro bono partners Arnold & Porter LLP and Jenner & Block LLP, the Brennan Center filed its brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the unanimous decision of the Second Circuit enjoining New York’s uniquely burdensome multi-state system for selecting state Supreme Court nominees.

The system purports to grant voters a role in electing trial court judges, but in reality, local party bosses control the process at the expense of their party’s rank-and-file members, who are precluded from playing any meaningful role in determining their own party’s standard bearer.

In its brief, the Brennan Center urged the Court to tear down one of the last vestiges of Tammany Hall’s boss control of New York State government arguing that “New York’s state-imposed nominating process creates a locked gate, to which those in control of the party hold the only key.”

In urging affirmance of the Second Circuit decision, the Brennan Center’s brief assails a system that “vests de facto judicial appointive power in unaccountable party bosses, thereby creating a fertile source for corruption, decreasing confidence in its courts, impeding the search for excellence, and failing to achieve a genuinely representative judiciary.”

See the Brennan Center's website for more information on Lopez Torres v. NYS Board of Elections.

The Brennan Center was supported by a broad and ideologically diverse cross-section of legal, political, academic, and reform organizations and individuals from across the country who filed amicus briefs offering unique perspectives on the operation of New York’s scheme, and supporting affirmance of the Second Circuit’s decision.

Eleven briefs were filed on behalf of the following signatories:

Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes: “I am persuaded, from my long experience as a prosecutor, voter, citizen, and lawyer that…the problems of corruption in Brooklyn involving Supreme Court judgeships are not attributable to a single corrupt party boss."

"Rather, as the public record demonstrates, corruption in judicial politics has a long history paralleling the long history of the judicial district convention system,” Hynes wrote.

In addition to noting the statewide nature of the problem, Hynes strikingly explains to the Court that the “corruption brought about by the architecture of the Supreme Court nomination system does not end once the judge is tapped by party leaders to serve on the Supreme Court, or when the judge is elected."

"It often continues, in the form of corruption in the administration of justice.”

John Dunne, former Assistant United States Attorney General for Civil Rights (1990-1993) under President George H.W. Bush and former NY State Senator: “Mr. Dunne’s own experience is illustrative."

"Despite his record of dedication to the Republican Party and his demonstrated expertise in the area of judicial elections, he has never been put forward as a delegate candidate, even though he had asked repeatedly for the opportunity."

Instead, he has been passed over by local bosses in favor of slates of delegates who can be relied upon to rubber stamp the choices of the “leadership.”

These slating decisions are unreviewable.

"If a State Senator with 24 years’ service to his party can be shut out of the nomination process entirely, there is little hope for rank-and-file party members who do not hold elected office.”

Washington Legal Foundation: “If New York were to adopt a law declaring that Supreme Court Justices are to be popularly elected, but only the leaders of the most powerful political party within each judicial district are allowed to vote in that election, the law would surely amount to an unconstitutional abridgement of voting rights....."

"Based on the detailed (and uncontested) factual findings of the district court, the New York election system has exactly the same effect on voting rights.”

City of New York, the New York State Bar Association, Association of the Bar of the City of New York, and the Fund for Modern Courts: “As a policy matter, the current system results in the worst of all worlds: New York State effectively has an appointive system in the guise of an electoral system, but an appointive system of the worst kind – a system in which judges are appointed by party leaders who are unaccountable to the public and who base their choices on political loyalty and party credentials, rather than on professional judicial qualifications.”

New York County Lawyers Association: “While NYCLA prefers a merit-based appointment system for selecting New York Supreme Court Justices, it is imperative that the current, unconstitutional convention system for selecting Supreme Court Justices not be permitted to continue."

"The convention system is neither democratic, nor transparent."

"NYCLA therefore urges this Court to affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit so that public confidence in the judiciary, which is a cornerstone of a free society, can be restored.”

Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Latino Lawyers Association of Queens County, the Center for Law and Social Justice at Medgar Evers College, the Amistad Black Bar Association of Long Island, and the Rochester Black Bar Association: “Minorities seeking to become supreme court justices in New York are not served by a closed, back-door system built on cronyism and political favors."

"No diverse, fair system can be built by such means."

As a blue-ribbon task force on diversity in the judiciary found fifteen years ago, opening the system is “essential to improving diversity on the bench.”

Hon. Ed Koch: “New York’s convention system for electing Supreme Court Justices has gone largely unchanged for the forty-plus years that I have been familiar with it."

"The undemocratic boss run system that I observed in the 1960’s appears to operate no differently today than it did back then,” Koch wrote the court.

He added, “Justices of the Supreme Court in New York are not elected, even though their names are on the ballot."

"They are selected.”

American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union: "[H]aving chosen to elect Justices of its State Supreme Court, New York is obligated by the federal Constitution to provide for a fair and accessible electoral process."

"This it has not done."

Thomas Mann, Norman Ornstein, the Reform Institute and the Campaign Legal Center: “Although New York’s judicial selection scheme genuflects at the altar of democracy, it prays to a very different god: patronage.”

“By effectively lodging the power to control the nomination of state Supreme Court Justices in local political party leaders, New York’s mandated system makes state Supreme Court Justices—and many below them on the judicial ladder—beholden to local party officials."

"The judges, their law clerks, and other judicial employees become mere patronage spoils.”

Former New York Judges and the American Judicature Society: “The current convention system undermines rather than enhances public confidence in the judiciary.”

“The current convention system thus fails—at the crucial juncture when the nomination is being bestowed—to provide constitutionally required assurances to the public of the nominees’ integrity, competence, impartiality, and quality, and of the integrity of the selection process itself.”

Prominent Constitutional and Election Law Professors: “Insofar as elections promote vibrant political parties, New York State’s regime usurps the autonomy of political parties to structure decisionmaking for themselves."

"In all, a worse system for electing judges is difficult to fathom.”

http://reformny.blogspot.com/2007/07/brenn...s-of-court.html

[Livyjr]

Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes: “I am persuaded, from my long experience as a prosecutor, voter, citizen, and lawyer that…the problems of corruption in Brooklyn involving Supreme Court judgeships are not attributable to a single corrupt party boss."

"Rather, as the public record demonstrates, corruption in judicial politics has a long history paralleling the long history of the judicial district convention system,” Hynes wrote.

In addition to noting the statewide nature of the problem, Hynes strikingly explains to the Court that the “corruption brought about by the architecture of the Supreme Court nomination system does not end once the judge is tapped by party leaders to serve on the Supreme Court, or when the judge is elected."

"It often continues, in the form of corruption in the administration of justice.”

http://reformny.blogspot.com/2007/07/brenn...s-of-court.html

THE SYRACUSE POST-STANDARD

"State wants to hear about civil rights issues"

Monday, July 16, 2007

By Michele Reaves, Staff writer

Civil rights lawyers from the state attorney general's office will speak Tuesday about local residents' rights and listen to concerns facing Syracuse and surrounding communities.

The forum is the second in a series of discussions scheduled statewide.

The public is invited to talk about issues, from housing and employment discrimination to immigration rights and discrimination due to sexual orientation.

"We want to hear . . . what types of civil rights issues are going on in the area so we can try to respond to those," said Jenny Rivera, special deputy attorney general for civil rights.

Rivera, based in New York City, as well as Ed Thompson and Joe Rossi, of the Syracuse regional office, will be members of the panel.

The forum will allow them to speak about the role of the office and the types of civil rights that people have.

The lawyers will also answer questions and listen to residents' concerns.

The concerns of residents on Syracuse's South and West sides are the driving force for Philip Prehn and other staff at Syracuse United Neighbors.

SUN staff members plan to attend and are encouraging residents to go as well, Prehn said.

Fair lending and access to programs to deal with the owners of properties used in drug crimes are two issues the group is interested in hearing about, said Prehn, a senior staff organizer.

"Mainstream banks aren't making loans in our neighborhoods almost at all," he said.

Those interested in homeownership are left with lending companies that offer high interest rates, he said.

The attorney general's office looks for cases that affect large numbers of people rather than individuals, and will not take every case, Rivera said.

But one or two complaints might show a pattern that could lead to a larger case.

Michele Reaves can be reached at mreaves@syracuse.com or 470-3198.

http://www.syracuse.com/articles/regional/....xml&coll=1

[Livyjr]

Thomas Mann, Norman Ornstein, the Reform Institute and the Campaign Legal Center:

“Although New York’s judicial selection scheme genuflects at the altar of democracy, it prays to a very different god: patronage.”

“By effectively lodging the power to control the nomination of state Supreme Court Justices in local political party leaders, New York’s mandated system makes state Supreme Court Justices—and many below them on the judicial ladder—beholden to local party officials."

"The judges, their law clerks, and other judicial employees become mere patronage spoils.”

http://reformny.blogspot.com/2007/07/brenn...s-of-court.html

"Judicial conventions face test - Rival Democratic slates of delegates pit county committee against city"

By CAROL DeMARE, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Monday, July 23, 2007

New York's age-old, politically rigged system of judicial conventions -- now headed toward U.S. Supreme Court arguments -- will go on as usual in September.

Political parties send delegates to these conventions to vote for candidates to the state Supreme Court, a formality because the bosses have usually picked the nominees beforehand.

The sessions are rarely without controversy.

This year is no different.

The latest local dustup involves the filing of two competing slates of Democratic delegates.

One group was picked by the Albany County Democratic Committee, the other by Mayor Jerry Jennings' first-ever Albany City Democratic Committee.

While it's possible the dispute could end up in a court challenge, it will likely be resolved in a Sept. 18 primary with one winning slate.

The dueling delegate slates are another chapter in the increasingly heated city-vs.-suburbs saga of the once almighty Albany Democratic machine.

Each slate has 14 names.

Three people made it to both sheets -- County Legislators Gary Domalewicz and William Clay, who both live in the city of Albany, and city ward leader and county committee member Jason Rice, one of the longest-standing party operatives.

"We felt it was important that we have people who reflect what our city Democratic Committee stands for," Jennings said in explaining why he assembled a slate to go up against the county's.

The mayor is included every year on the county delegates' slate because "he belongs on it," County Democratic Co-chairman Frank Commisso said.

But this year Jennings called Commisso and told him: "I am going to have my own slate."

Commisso said Jennings only had to pick up the phone and instead of saying, "'Frank, take my name off,' it should have been, 'Frank, we have to sit down.'"

"This stuff takes dialogue."

County Republican Chairman Peter Kermani quipped, "I'm watching the brothers and sisters in the Democratic Party do battle."

He's not ready to name any GOP judicial candidates "until I see how everything falls out," he said.

But he added, "there will be Republicans stepping up."

Supreme Court justices are elected in each of the state's 12 judicial districts.

Locally, the seven-county 3rd Judicial District comprises Albany, Rensselaer, Columbia, Greene, Ulster, Sullivan and Schoharie.

Supreme Court in New York is a trial court, an oddity that confuses outsiders.

New York's top court is the Court of Appeals, and the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court is the midlevel appeals court.

Delegates to the nominating conventions come from each of the counties in the district.

Democrats and Republicans traditionally meet for their one-day convention at the Albany County Courthouse.

Minor parties also hold judicial nominating conventions, but they don't draw the attention the major parties do.

It's too early to speculate on cross-endorsements, another thorn in the side of reformers.

Not only are the delegates expected to vote for the choices of their party leader, but often the two major parties cut a deal to endorse each other's candidates for the November ballot.

The politicians like it because it's a way to balance the partisan affiliation on the bench.

It also avoids costly campaigns.

Three state Supreme Court seats are up this year, all held by Democrats.

Justices Joseph Teresi of Albany County and George Ceresia of Rensselaer County, who is also the administrative judge of the district, are seeking re-election to 14-year terms.

The third seat of Ulster County Justice Vincent Bradley, who died in November, is being sought by Bradley's law clerk, Christopher Cahill, who was sworn in last month after Gov. Eliot Spitzer appointed him to fill the vacancy until the end of the year.

The post pays $136,700.

Meanwhile, last month Albany County Surrogate Cathryn M. Doyle, a Democrat, announced plans to run for Supreme Court.

In addition to her surrogate duties, Doyle had been assigned to temporary duty in Supreme Court, but she lost that honor in May four months after being censured by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.

The commission concluded that Doyle gave "evasive and deceptive" testimony during its investigation into a trust fund set up to help former GOP state Supreme Court Justice Thomas Spargo, a good friend of Doyle's.

Spargo was ousted from the bench last year.

Commisso, who is also the County Legislature's majority leader, and Co-chairman David Bosworth, who doubles as Guilderland's Democratic chief, have county Democrats leaning toward the incumbents.

Jennings is noncommittal.

Last August, the federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson Brooklyn that the convention system imposed by state Election Law was unconstitutional.

Gleeson called for the state Legislature to revamp the method of electing state judges.

Margarita Lopez Torres, a civil court judge in Brooklyn, had challenged the convention system in a lawsuit after a dispute with then-Brooklyn Democratic boss and former Assemblyman Clarence Norman about the hiring of a law clerk.

After that, Norman repeatedly refused to consider her for a Supreme Court seat.

Norman was subsequently convicted of selling judgeships.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School was lead counsel for Lopez Torres.

After the 2nd Circuit upheld Gleeson, lawyers for the state Board of Elections were successful in a bid to have the nation's highest court hear the case.

Judicial reformers, who have filed a friend-of-the-court brief, favor a state constitutional amendment to create a merit-based appointment system for state judges in place of elections.

Recognizing that would take years, for now, they support legislation curbing abuses in the convention format.

Arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court are scheduled for Oct. 3.

In the meantime, lawyers for both sides agreed that conventions would be held again this year.

Carol DeMare can be reached at 454-5431 or by e-mail at cdemare@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

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

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

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

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

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

As follows:

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

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

A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SHOULD NEVER COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My position in this thread ....

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

Is clear and concise on its face ....

And unambiguous .....

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

Regardless of POLITICAL PRESSURE .....

Or threats and intimidation ....

On the one hand .....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so ....

SHOULD EXPERT WITNESSES FOR THE COMMON PEOPLE IN AMERICA BE DENIED PROTECTION OF LAW WHEN THEIR EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY IN A COURT OF LAW THREATENS CORRUPTION WHICH FEEDS THE COFFERS OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES IN AMERICA?

A year before Election Day 2006, at the Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany, candidate (Eliot "STEAMROLLER") Spitzer gave a detailed presentation on his vision for government reform.

Having built a national reputation by driving structural changes in major financial-services industries, Spitzer declared:

"In Albany - as it was on Wall Street - the status quo is a system that lacks accountability."

"It is a system that is controlled by special interests."

"It is a system that is not efficient, is not open and transparent."

Promising dramatic change, he added:

"What happened on Wall Street ... can also happen on State Street here in Albany."

The address touched on many of the major issues facing the state.

For instance, Spitzer called for:

* Changes to the court system, promoting the "rule of law" with reforms such as merit appointment rather than election of judges; consolidation of the "Balkanized" system of trial courts; and creation of more integrated courts to reduce costs and improve the quality of judicial decisions.

- pp.12,13 of New York State Government, 2d Ed. by Robert B. Ward

[Livyjr]

"AG report faults Spitzer aides in Bruno scheme - Governor suspends aide, transfers another"

By JAY JOCHNOWITZ, State editor, Albany, New York Times Union

Last updated: 1:44 p.m., Monday, July 23, 2007

A top aide to Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer has been suspended and another reassigned following a report today that found they set about trying to create unfavorable media coverage of Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno.

The report by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office found the administration deviated from standard practice in having the State Police create special reports on Bruno's use of police and state aircraft.

The investigation, which looked into both Bruno's travel and the senate leader's allegation that Spitzer used State Police to spy on him, concluded that beginning in May 2007, people in the governor's office planned to generate press coverage of Senator Bruno's use of state aircraft to attend fundraisers and other political events, rather than for official state business as he had certified.

The report by the Democratic attorney general's office says Spitzer aides did not simply produce records, as the state Freedom of Information Law requires, but were instead engaged in planning and producing media coverage concerning Senator Bruno's travel on state aircraft before any FOIL request was made.

Spitzer said spokesman Darren Dopp has been suspended in the matter.

William F. Howard, assistant deputy secretary for homeland security, has been reassigned to an unspecified post.

Spitzer plans no action against Preston Felton, acting superintendent of the State Police, who was involved in the matter.

The 53-page report also found that Bruno's use of state aircraft was legal, although it noted that in some cases he did only a small amount of legislative business.

The report recommended the state's policy on aircraft use - which allows officials to conduct political business while traveling at taxpayer expense as long as they do some government work, no matter how little - is overly permissive and porous and allows for an abuse of taxpayer funds.

[Livyjr]

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

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

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

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

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

As follows:

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

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

A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SHOULD NEVER COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My position in this thread ....

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

Is clear and concise on its face ....

And unambiguous .....

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

Regardless of POLITICAL PRESSURE .....

Or threats and intimidation ....

On the one hand .....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so ....

MARCH 13, 1989

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

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

INTERLOCUTOR: I quess what I'm trying to get at is whether you inquired whether the incidents (of alleged insubordination) that Mr. Van Praag was telling you about involved engineering judgment?

PUGLIESE: No, I did not ....

INTERLOCUTOR: Since you've agreed that Mr. Van Praag is not qualified to make engineering judgments, WHY DIDN"T YOU MAKE THAT INQUIRY?

PUGLIESE: Because it didn't seem to me to be pertinent to the type of the discussion we were having ......

It wasn't a matter of whether he was qualified to do something or not .....

It was a discussion boiled down to the fact that the relationship between SUPERVISOR and EMPLOYEE had degraded to the point where they were refusing, the EMPLOYEE was refusing to communicate and to take general instructions AND ORDERS FOM THE DEPARTMENT HEAD .....

Had nothing to do with whether he was responsible for an area or not.

INTERLOCUTOR: During this consultation which you indicated took an hour, did Mr. Van Praag tell you that PLAINTIFF was having frequent discussions concerning his job responsibilities vis a vis Mr. Van Praag with (REPUBLICAN Deputy Rensselaer County Executive) James Girzone?

PUGLIESE: No .....

INTERLOCUTOR: Now, in the consultation with Mr. Van Praag, did he tell you that PLAINTIFF had written a memo to John Buono about the integrity of the Environmental Health program?

PUGLIESE: No .....

INTERLOCUTOR: Can you recall whether PLAINTIFF had already been suspended when you had this conversation with Mr. Van Praag?

PUGLIESE: I can't recall ....

I don't know for sure ....

I tend to say no but I can't be positive .....

INTERLOCUTOR: I'm showing you, Mr. Pugliese, a memo from PLAINTIFF to Mr. John Buono, County Executive, dated October 11, 1988, not signed or initialed, and what I want to ask you is do you recall whether Mr. Van Praag showed you this memo during the conversation that you had?

PUGLIESE: No ....

INTERLOCUTOR: Do you know whether you had your conversation with Mr. Van Praag before or after October 11, 1988?

PUGLIESE: I can't be positive ....

I don't know what date we spoke but I would tend to think it was some time ......

I don't know ....

I don't recall .....

INTERLOCUTOR: Okay, did Mr. Van Praag ....

During the consultation that you had with Mr. Van Praag, did he tell you that PLAINTIFF had stated to him, or indicated to him that a definition of AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY between PLAINTIFF as Director of the Division of Environmental Health and Mr. Van Praag as the Director of the Department of Health
was necessary?

PUGLIESE: Your questions are so long I lose track of what the question is ......

INTERLOCUTOR: I'll rephrase it .....

During the consultation that you had with Mr. Van Praag, did Mr. Van Praag inform you or indicate to you that PLAINTIFF had pointed out to either Mr. Van Praag or to Mr. Buono that there was a problem with the lines of AUTHORITY in the County Health Department between the Director of the Division of Environmental Health, PLAINTIFF, and Mr. Van Praag?

PUGLIESE: No ....

INTERLOCUTOR: He didn't point that out to you?

PUGLIESE: No .....

INTERLOCUTOR: Did Mr. Van Praag tell you that PLAINTIFF had indicated that he might not certify the County health program for the next year?

PUGLIESE: No .....

INTERLOCUTOR: Other than Mr. Van Praag telling you that PLAINTIFF had told his staff that media requests should be directed to PLAINTIFF ....

Other than that, what else did Mr. Van Praag tell you?

PUGLIESE: That PLAINTIFF had indicated to him THAT HE WAS INDEPENDENT and did not take direction from Mr. Van Praag and that Mr. Van Praag did not have any authority over people that were organizationally reporting to PLAINTIFF ......

IN GENERAL IT WAS ALMOST LIKE THERE WAS A RENEGADE SITUATION IN THAT PLAINTIFF WAS OPERATING UNDER HIS OWN RULES!

INTERLOCUTOR: Did Mr. Van Praag ....

Did you discuss with Mr. Van Praag what it meant for the public ....

For the Director of the Environmental Health Division to exercise independent judgment in overseeing the operation of the Division of Environmental Health?

PUGLIESE: No ...

INTERLOCUTOR: Well, as the OFFICIAL responsible for administering the County Employment Department, what does it mean in PLAINTIFF's job description when it says that he should have:.

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

PUGLIESE: I believe it means that PLAINTIFF has in his capacity the ability, or should have the ability to function as he sees fit UNTIL SOME POINT IN TIME WHEN HIS SUPERVISOR INSTRUCTS HIM TO, EITHER DO SOMETHING PARTICULAR, and in this particular case that we kept referring to, or you kept referring to in terms of the media, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AND THE SUPERVISOR SAID I WANT IT DONE THIS WAY ....

AT THAT POINT IN TIME WE DON'T ALLOW INDEPENDENT THINKING!

NEWSDAY

AP New York

"Heavy hitters want new state rules for lawyer ads thrown out"

By JOHN KEKIS, Associated Press Writer

June 18, 2007, 7:43 PM EDT

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- New state rules designed to curtail outrageous advertisements by lawyers should be thrown out because they violate the U.S. Constitution, an attorney argued Monday in federal court.

Gregory A. Beck of the Public Citizen Litigation Group contended that the new rules place onerous restrictions on both commercial and noncommercial speech and violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

"If you look at the commercials, consumers suffer no conceivable harm," Beck told Northern District Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.

"This idea that television somehow brainwashes people doesn't make any logical sense."

"They are adults, able to make their own decisions."

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

"Heavy hitters get past first base, must wait for state appeal"

By JOHN KEKIS, Associated Press

Last updated: 5:33 p.m., Tuesday, July 24, 2007

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- "The Heavy Hitters" can't start hitting home runs again just yet, but at least they've reached base.

Senior U.S. District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. has decided that key parts of state rules enacted earlier this year to regulate lawyer advertising in New York are unconstitutional as protected free speech under the First Amendment.

The ruling released Monday included a provision that had prevented the personal injury firm of Alexander & Catalano from billing itself as "The Heavy Hitters."

"Those who regulate lawyers must take the necessary steps to see that the regulation of such advertising is accomplished in a manner consistent with established First Amendment jurisprudence," Scullin wrote in his 30-page decision.

However, Michael Colodner, counsel for the Office of Court Administration, said Tuesday that he had asked the state attorney general's office to appeal the decision.

Colodner said he wanted a definitive ruling from the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City.

"We are optimistic (we will prevail)," attorney James L. Alexander said.

"What all the cases decided by the Supreme Court over many decades was that a state cannot restrict free speech."

"They have to prove there's a necessity, that the public is being harmed."

"The public didn't complain."

"There was no public outcry."

The new regulations, which apply to all forms of lawyer advertising, took effect in February and were approved after much debate within the legal community.

The rules include: a ban on testimonials by current clients or paid endorsements; a ban on nicknames, mottos or trade names that suggest an ability to obtain results; a ban on re-enactments of events that are not authentic; and a ban on depictions of the use of a courthouse or a courtroom.

Alexander & Catalano had joined Public Citizen Inc., a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit public interest organization founded by Ralph Nader, in filing a federal lawsuit challenging the new rules.

Gregory A. Beck of the Public Citizen Litigation Group argued last month in court that the new rules placed onerous restrictions on both commercial and noncommercial speech and violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Although Scullin wrote that "without question there has been a proliferation of tasteless, and at times obnoxious, methods of attorney advertising in recent years," he concluded that First Amendment protections of free speech superseded the state's interest in regulating attorney advertising."

"I think that it was a victory for all the people in the state," attorney Peter Catalano said.

"It was more a fight over the constitutional right to free speech."

The state had argued in court that advertisements had to contain relevant, factual, verifiable information because outrageous claims might mislead the public.

"Being a lawyer, I respect the system, but we agree with the judge's decision," Alexander said.

"For the state's rules to survive, there would be sterile advertising, unappealing advertising, and ineffective advertising."

"We don't want to reverse 30 years of jurisprudence."

"We don't want to stick this in anybody's face," Alexander said.

"It affects lawyers throughout the state, but more than lawyers it protects the public to get uncensored information."

"The public is used to seeing advertising that is entertaining, and they can make their own decisions."

"They're not being brainwashed."

"The public doesn't need the protection."

"They've been dealing with it for decades."

Alexander & Catalano had billed itself in most of its advertisements as "The Heavy Hitters."

The firm abandoned the motto for fear of running afoul of the new rules' prohibition against implying the ability to obtain results.

[Livyjr]

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

And that answer is yes ....

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

To fall into the trap ...

Of having made statements ...

That ultimately .....

Cannot be corroborated .....

By some independent evidence ....

And so ...

Here, I simply go back in time ...

To an AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN ...

Dated August 16, 2002 .....

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

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

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

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

In Rensselaer County .....

Early on in connection with this matter ....

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

This past fall ...

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

Ms. Ullman is quoted as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

end quotes

And so .....

On August 16, 2002 .....

Some three (3) years before Julie M. Sherman told her bald-faced lies to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City on behalf of the "STATE" of New York in this matter ...

The OFFICE of New York State Attorney General Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer .....

Was well aware of what had transpired in this matter ...

In reality ...

And so ...

If under penalty of perjury in August of 2002 ....

Lisa Ullman of Spitzer's office told the truth to Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr. ....

That on August 22, 2001 .....

PLAINTIFF HAD IN FACT BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO THE STRATTON VA HOSPITAL IN ALBANY, NEW YORK .....

Because of John Christian Braaten's FRAUDULENT 9.45 "PSYCHIATRIC ARREST ORDER" .....

What was it that Julie M. Sherman was doing ...

When she lied to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in the fall of 2005 ...

When Sherman told the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals ...

That it never really happened the way Ullman swore it did back in August of 2002?

How many different "versions" of the "truth" does Eliot Spitzer get to spread around, anyway?

And that answer is ....

As many as he needs, apparently ...

Based on the circumstances ...

And so .....

THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DAILY POLITICS BLOG:

Posted by John Galt: In August of 2001, the "state" improperly used a state employee and the NYSP BCI to "remove" a licensed professional engineer in upstate NYS who was investigating on-going government corruption in the NYS Dept. of Health and the DEC and the Office of Professional Discipline of the NYS Education Dept. involving politically-connected licensed professionals making and filing false reports to obtain what were bogus "approvals", which is a misdemeaneor carrying a sentence of a year in jail ...

The "state" removed this individual by creating for him a false criminal and psychiatric history, and then had a political doctor in Troy, NY write up a false psychiatric involuntary commitment order for this individual which destroyed him and his credibility ...

"TRICKY DICKY, THE STEAMROLLER" covered that all over, as if it had never happened, and in doing so, indemnified the perps from any criminal prosecution whatsoever, despite a written letter from Hon. Patrick McGrath of Rensselaer County Court expressing his belief that federal and state criminal statutes had been violated ....

Spitzer saw to the destruction of that individual as if he were nothing but vermin, and in the course of doing so, the SPITZER-ITES buried the sworn statements of an Albany, NY Police Officer who was an eye-witness to the alleged criminal conduct, as well as the statements of an NYSP BCI Investigator who was himself complicit in what went down ...

JOHN GALT CONTINUES: And topo, I know that in here, you are an "evidence" person ....

"DON'T MAKE STATEMENTS OR ASSERTIONS THAT YOU CANNOT BACK UP OR SUPPORT WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHEN topo IS AROUND!"

And topo, I am for that myself ....

By holding us up to high standards in here, you keep this BLOG at a high standard, as well ...

And that is a good thing thing for all of us NYS citizens, upstate or down no matter ...

And so ...

With respect to my statements right above here about the Office of NYSAG "STEAMROLLER" Spitzer burying the statements of these two police officers, I refer you directly to an AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN dated August 16, 2002, about one (1) year after the August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN went down that was submitted by Spitzer's Office to Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr., a Justice of the New York State Supreme Court in Rensselaer County in Matter of Plante, P.E. v. THE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH; JAMES M. STONE; BARBARA A. SOLDANO, KATHLEEN JIMINO, Rensselaer County Executive; NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC.; and HUMAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Rensselaer County Index No. 203712, wherein Ms. Ullman introduces herself and the issue at hand as follows:

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

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

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

I make this affirmation in opposition to petitioner's motion for leave to reargue and renew.

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

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

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

end quotes

HAD RECEIVED REDACTED VERSIONS OF DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THAT COMMITMENT, topo ...

Copies with the names of who the PERPETRATORS were being blacked out so that the engineer had no idea as to who to seek redress from or to bring a complaint against ...

And through Lisa Ullman, NYSAG Eliot Spitzer wanted the engineer to be kept in the dark ...

To be kept ignorant so that he could not seek redress of grievance ....

And so ...

I'll stop here for a moment with that, topo ....

Let it sink in for a moment, if you will ....

The INHERENT INJUSTICE in that, topo ...

And so ...

Posted by: John Galt | July 28, 2007 4:16 PM

[Livyjr]

THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DAILY POLITICS BLOG:

Originally, topo, yes, this matter started out as an investigation pursuant to the Rules of the NYS Board of Regents as they pertain to licensed professional engineers and surveyors, specifically, section 29.3(a)(1), to wit:

§ 29.3 General provisions for design professions.

Unprofessional conduct shall also include, in the professions of architecture and landscape architecture, engineering and land surveying:

1. being associated in a professional capacity with any project or practice known to the licensee to be fraudulent or dishonest in character, or not reporting knowledge of such fraudulence or dishonesty to the Education Department;

end quotes

Had that investigation been allowed to go its course, none of this discussion would be taking place in here, at all ...

But that investigation, topo, was derailed ...

Here are the facts as determined by a federal judge in Albany in 2005, and yes, Eliot Spitzer was involved in the matter at that time, so he and the State of New York are aware of these facts, and THESE FACTS WERE NEVER IN DISPUTE:

III. FACTS:

On May 22, 2001, Jeffey Pelletier was issued a sewage system construction permit by the County of Rensselaer.

On July 7 (2001), PLAINTIFF conducted an investigation of defendants Aiken (engineer) and McGrath’s “deliberate falsification of inspection data and fraudulent submissions” resulting in the issuance of the Pelletier permit.

During PLAINTIFF'S investigation, Pelletier assaulted him.

On August 9 (2001), defendant Reiter (Rensselaer County Director of Veterans’ Services) warned PLAINTIFF to “back off” the Pelletier investigation because he (Pelletier) was a “protected person” in the county.

On August 17 (2001), defendant Jimino (Rensselaer County Executive) allegedly phoned PLAINTIFF threatening to harm him if he did not stop his investigation.

Thereafter, he claims that Jimino conspired with Cybulski (County Director of Community Services) to obtain a fraudulent involuntary commitment order and a medical certification from Samaritan Hospital.

end quotes

Jeffrey Pelletier WAS A "PROTECTED PERSON" in Rensselaer County, and the engineer and surveyor were as well ...

That is an UNDISPUTED FACT ...

And as Mike implies, that is POLITICAL REALITY in upstate NY, DESPITE ANY LAWS OR REGULATIONS to the contrary ...

THE SELLING OF PROTECTION FROM THE LAW IN NYS IS JOE BRUNO'S BUSINESS ...

And however it was accomplished, Jeffrey Pelletier was able to "PROCURE" from a doctor in Troy, NY a fraudulent certification that stated, falsely, that the engineer was a dangerous mental patient with a criminal history who required "TREATMENT" in a secure mental facility at Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York ...

Without ever seeing this engineer, the doctor prescribed treatment for him, anyway ....

In this big STEROIDS BUST by the Albany County DA, that same conduct by other doctors was considered a felony ...

BUT NOT IN THIS CASE ...

And Eliot Spitzer became involved right at the outset, right after the incarceration occurred, through Lisa Ullman, when, pursuant to the NYS Mental Hygiene Law, the engineer tried to find out who the doctor was and who else was involved ....

That is when the COVER-UP began at the state level ...

So what started out as a "local dispute" quickly escalated ...

And now, we are here discussing it, because to me, anyway, this particular case gets right to the heart of what the ALBANY CULTURE OF RETALIATION AND RETRIBUTION is really all about, and this case serves to put a spotlight on Eliot Spitzer's role in MAINTAINING AND ACTUALLY STRENGTHENING THAT CULTURE ...

Which then serves to put a spotlight on his subsequent public statements that he is in Albany to "clean up" corruption ...

Which I think, based on the UNDISPUTED FACTS in this particular case is a bunch of BULL **** ...

YOU DO NOT CLEAN UP CORRUPTION IN ALBANY BY VIGOROUSLY AND ZEALOUSLY DEFENDING THAT SAME CORRUPTION ...

YOU DO NOT ATTACK THE SELLING OF PROTECTION FROM THE LAW BY ZEALOUSLY DEFENDING THOSE WHO SELL THAT PROTECTION!

Which has Mike and I now chatting back and forth about that, with you as a neutral observor ...

And everyone else in here, as well, as a "jury" so to speak, in this "COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION" that is this OPEN UNCENSORED BLOG ...

A true GOD-SEND to us common citizens in here who are without a voice in upstate NY ...

And so ...

Posted by: John Galt | July 30, 2007 8:02 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypoli...itz.html?page=2

[Livyjr]

THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DAILY POLITICS BLOG:

And out of respect for all those other readers, and to keep this "on-point" with respect to this thread, in the AP story in connection with this TROOPER-GATE FIASCO that is under discussion in here, a story entitled "AP NewsBreak: Ethics Commission probes Spitzer scandal" by MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press, last updated 6:22 p.m., Thursday, July 26, 2007, it was stated by Spitzer himself as follows:

Hours before, Spitzer was pressed in a news conference on whether refusal to testify would have been acceptable if he was still attorney general.

"As a prosecutor, I will tell you (that) you pursue facts until it's your conclusion, unquestioned, and you reach the legal determination that needs to be made," he said.

end quotes

Well, okay, Eliot ....

Yes ...

HOW ABOUT THAT, NOW WILL YOU ...

YOU PURSUE THE FACTS, topo ...

AND THEN ...

Well, hey, this is, as Mike so correctly states, "ALBANY POLITICS" ....

SOOOOO ....

THEN, topo, when you are a slick politician like Eliot Spitzer ...

"YOU REACH THE LEGAL DETERMINATION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE" ...

And in the case of the engineer, TO FURTHER PROTECT THOSE WHOM JOE BRUNO WAS PROTECTING THROUGH HIS "BRUNO RING", ELIOT SPITZER, BASED UPON THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE MATTER, REACHED THE "LEGAL DETERMINATION" THAT THE ENGINEER HAD TO BE SCREWED ...

And so he was, simple as that ...

LE VOILA, YOU'RE DESTROYED!

In this case, the "LEGAL DETERMINATION" was that the DOPPSTER and the Howard dude and Baum and yes, Eliot Spitzer all had to be protected ...

And LE VOILA, they were!

No grey here, Mike ...

It's all BLACK AND WHITE to me, anyway ...

And so ...

Posted by: John Galt | July 30, 2007 8:24 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypoli...itz.html?page=2

[Livyjr]

NEWSDAY

"Official Misconduct"

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo gets lots of kudos for the way his office put together the facts in his report last week on the Bruno-Spitzer fiasco.

But his conclusion that Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s office engaged in no “unlawful” conduct is raising a few questions.

The problem: They reached that conclusion while two top Spitzer aides — Secretary Rich Baum and now-suspended communications director Darren Dopp -- refused to be interviewed.

They reached it while accusing another key player, homeland security aide William Howard, of lying to them.

They didn’t put Spitzer himself under oath.

One prominent law professor, NYU criminal-law expert Stephen Gillers, believes Spitzer aides may in fact have violated New York’s “Official Misconduct” statute, a misdemeanor.

It prohibits a public servant from knowingly engaging in an “unauthorized exercise of his official functions” with intent to obtain a benefit, including financial or political advantage.

If Dopp and Howard lied to the state police about a freedom of information request to get them to compile data on Bruno, as Cuomo’s report found, it could apply, says Gillers:

“I think it’s a pretty close fit.”

Cuomo's office won't respond publicly, but not all legal experts are so enthused.

Former Manhattan prosecutor Daniel Horwitz says New York doesn't have a law that explicitly makes it a crime to lie to the state police superintendent, and the official misconduct law is typically directed at a more concrete personal benefit than the discrediting of Joe Bruno.

"I just don't see it," Horwitz says.

"...To try to fit a square peg in a round hole here would be inappropriate."

Another expert, Eric Lane of Hofstra law school, said that if, for example, Spitzer ordered his aides to lie to the police to get them to create documents that would hurt Bruno, it might technically make up official misconduct.

But Lane’s still not sure there’s enough of a tie between the aides and the benefit to prove the crime, and his gut tells him that Cuomo was right to leave it to politics, not prosecution.

“I just don’t think this is what the criminal statutes are for,” Lane said

Lurking in the background: Questions about the process used by Cuomo's office.

He didn't have subpoena power.

When Baum and Dopp refused to talk, he didn't ask Spitzer to make them and didn't ask the state Inspector General -- who was running a parallel investigation -- to subpoena them.

And the office has given no sign that it intends to pursue sanctions against those that, the report indicates, may have lied.

In another recent case, CIA leak prosecutor Pat Fitzgerald refused to reach a conclusion about whether any underlying crime was committed while some people were refusing to talk and others were, he believed, lying.

That, argues Gillers, is the more standard practice.

"Any law enforcement agency is not going to come to a conclusion with gathering all the facts," he says.

"The failure to do that is not good prosecutorial practice."

Posted by Admin, web@newsday.com, on July 30, 2007 9:36 AM | Permalink

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/long..._continued.html

[Livyjr]

THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DAILY POLITICS BLOG:

"It is deeply troubling to me what happened," Spitzer said.

"I want you to hear from me, had I ever known, suspected, believed, thought that the state police were asked to do something out of the ordinary, I would have said 'Stop immediately. What's going on? You can't do this.'"

end quotes

JOHN GALT REPLIES: Except that is not true, there, Governor Spitzer .....

AND YOU KNOW IT, ELIOT!

Yes, you do ...

And that brings us to the ESSENTIAL OVERLOOKED QUESTION, here ...

The QUESTION that the SPITZER-ITES are trying to rapidly steer us by ...

Which is this, to wit:

* IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT IN THE PAST, THE NEW YORK STATE POLICE HAVE BEEN USED IN A POLITICAL FASHION TO DO HARM TO A NEW YORK STATE CITIZEN?

And if the answer to that question is YES, which it is ....

Then ...

* IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT WHEN HE WAS NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAW UNDER ELIOT SPITZER WAS AWARE OF AND CONDONED THE MISUSE OF A NYSP BCI INVESTIGATOR IN THE RENSSELAER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES ON AUGUST 22, 2001?

IF the answer to that question is YES, which it is, THEN ...

Then we have the beginnings of evidence of an ON-GOING COURSE OF CONDUCT in New York State where the New York State Police are used to stifle political dissent in NYS, or at least in Rensselaer County in NYS ...

AND ...

Then we have the beginnings of a citizen's constitutional tort action against Eliot Spitzer for wilfull violation of section 1 of ARTICLE 1 of the New York State Constitution ...

And so ....

Posted by: John Galt | July 31, 2007 6:24 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypoli..._said_stop.html

[Livyjr]

THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DAILY POLITICS BLOG:

And say, Pee Wee Crayton ....

While I've got you on the line in here, so to speak, I read through your piece that you link us to above here ...

http://www.r8ny.com/blog/pee_wee/maggot_br..._its_young.html

And dude, it is superficial ....

The use, or misuse of the New York State Police to intimidate and harass political opponents or enemies of sitting politicians in Albany like Joe Bruno goes back and back and back in time ....

I myself have evidence sitting right before me now that definitively pins a date on it related to Joe Bruno of March 2, 1990 ...

The document in question is a letter on New York State Police letterhead dated March 2, 1990 to a licensed professional engineer up here from Lieutenant Colonel Edward J. Minahan, Assistant Deputy Superintendant, New York State Police to an individual in upstate New York named Paul R. Plante, who used to be the Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer up here in Rensselaer County, charged with NYS Public Health Law enforcement in Rensselaer County until he charged Joe Bruno with alleged wilfull violation of the New York State Public Health Law in 1988, a misdemeanor carrying a sentence of a year in jail ...

And then, well, you know how it goes ...

His *** was gone ...

But that was only the beginning of what we upstate folks call the "LONG, HARD RIDE" for this particular individual up this way ...

In 1989, this individual made it clear that regardless of what hell the State of New York could lay down on him, he was still going to go forth with his efforts to rid Joe Bruno's "REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED" Rensselaer County Department of Health of corruption ...

So, on December 29, 1989, a political "GOON" up here ran him down on Liberty Lane in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, State of New York, and the New York State Police covered up that hit-and-run by themselves making and filing false reports of the incident that completely changed the circumstances of what actually had transpired that morning ...

The March 2, 1990 letter to Plante from Lt. Col. Minahan concerns that cover-up, and it indicates how high up in the chain-of-command of the NYSP knowledge of this cover-up went, since in his letter, Minahan was responding to Plante on behalf of the Superintendant of NYSP ...

In your recent piece, you limit your discussion to the apparent fact that in Albany, the politicians never overtly used the State Police AGAINST EACH OTHER, which may be true ...

But from the citizen's point of view, that is immaterial ....

What concerns us is the POLITICIAN'S USE of the New York State Police AGAINST US ...

To REPRESS US ...

To CHILL participation in what is in reality OUR government ...

To STIFLE us ...

And so ...

Posted by: John Galt | August 1, 2007 8:02 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypoli...er_ny_dems.html

[Livyjr]

Monday, July 16, 2007

"Brennan Center and Friends of the Court File Briefs before U.S. Supreme Court Seeking Affirmance of Decisions Enjoining New York’s Judicial Selection"

Thomas Mann, Norman Ornstein, the Reform Institute and the Campaign Legal Center:

“Although New York’s judicial selection scheme genuflects at the altar of democracy, it prays to a very different god: patronage.”

“By effectively lodging the power to control the nomination of state Supreme Court Justices in local political party leaders, New York’s mandated system makes state Supreme Court Justices—and many below them on the judicial ladder—beholden to local party officials."

"The judges, their law clerks, and other judicial employees become mere patronage spoils.”

http://reformny.blogspot.com/2007/07/brenn...s-of-court.html

"Two town justices are censured by state - Stephentown, Stillwater jurists are found to have mishandled cases, staff"

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

First published: Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Two local town justices have been censured by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct over irregularities in handling defendants and missing court cash, commission officials said.

Wesley R. Edwards, a justice in Stephentown, Rensselaer County, and Anthony J. Cavotta, a justice in Stillwater town and village courts, Saratoga County, received the commission's least severe penalty.

A censure amounts to a public reprimand.

Each justice has served for more than 30 years on the bench.

Edwards was ordered removed by the commission 20 years ago for interfering in a case involving his son.

The state Court of Appeals later reversed the commission and reduced the penalty to censure.

The commission earlier this month found that Edwards, who is not a lawyer and has been a town justice for 43 years, mishandled several small claims cases, engaged in unauthorized out-of-court communications and conveyed the appearance of bias.

The commission told the justice last December that three small claims cases he handled were "fraught with errors" and violated statutory requirements.

In one case, he'd ordered a defendant to complete allegedly defective construction work although a justice's authority is limited in imposing a monetary judgment.

He then continued to communicate with the defendant about the status of the court-ordered labor and in two other cases dismissed claims without affording the claimants a full opportunity to be heard, the commission said.

Edwards, the commission notes, has agreed with the ruling and its recommendations.

In 1986, the state's highest court moved to censure Edwards, rejecting a recommendation by the commission he be removed.

The commission investigated allegations Edwards had sought special consideration for his son, who had received a traffic citation in another town court.

The judges agreed the action was improper but said Edwards only asked about the procedures to be followed in resolving his son's case and did not specifically ask for favorable treatment or special consideration, the Court of Appeals ruled at the time.

The judges, though, rejected Edwards' argument that his paternal instincts justified a departure from the standards expected of the judiciary, the commission said.

In the Saratoga County case, the commission found that over a six-year period Cavotta failed to adequately supervise his court staff, resulting in a shortage of court funds.

In 2004, a shortage of $315 in court funds was discovered, which Cavotta attributed to malfeasance by a former court clerk.

Cavotta and his co-justice contributed their personal funds to cover the shortage.

By law, town and village justices are personally responsible for monies received by the court, the commission ruled.

Cavotta, who is also not a lawyer, was a village justice since 1977 and a town justice since 1983.

Cavotta still serves as a town justice but earlier this year retired as village justice after elected officials abolished that court in a cost-cutting move.

Neither justice could be reached for comment.

Gardinier can be reached at 454-5696 or by e-mail at bgardinier@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

Monday, July 16, 2007

"Brennan Center and Friends of the Court File Briefs before U.S. Supreme Court Seeking Affirmance of Decisions Enjoining New York’s Judicial Selection"

Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes:

“I am persuaded, from my long experience as a prosecutor, voter, citizen, and lawyer that…the problems of corruption in Brooklyn involving Supreme Court judgeships are not attributable to a single corrupt party boss."

"Rather, as the public record demonstrates, corruption in judicial politics has a long history paralleling the long history of the judicial district convention system,” Hynes wrote.

In addition to noting the statewide nature of the problem, Hynes strikingly explains to the Court that the “corruption brought about by the architecture of the Supreme Court nomination system does not end once the judge is tapped by party leaders to serve on the Supreme Court, or when the judge is elected."

"It often continues, in the form of corruption in the administration of justice.”

Thomas Mann, Norman Ornstein, the Reform Institute and the Campaign Legal Center:

“Although New York’s judicial selection scheme genuflects at the altar of democracy, it prays to a very different god: patronage.”

“By effectively lodging the power to control the nomination of state Supreme Court Justices in local political party leaders, New York’s mandated system makes state Supreme Court Justices—and many below them on the judicial ladder—beholden to local party officials."

"The judges, their law clerks, and other judicial employees become mere patronage spoils.”

http://reformny.blogspot.com/2007/07/brenn...s-of-court.html

"Zwack, Donohue nominated to Court of Claims - The state Senate could confirm as early as today"

By: James V. Franco, The Record12/13/2006

Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue and former County Executive Henry Zwack were both nominated for the nine-year terms that pay $136,700 a year.

Zwack, who resigned as county executive in 2001 after getting indicted, last worked as executive deputy commissioner for the state Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services.

Donohue, a one-time Rensselaer County District Attorney and state Supreme Court judge was elected as Pataki's No. 2 in 1998 and again in 2002.

"I am certain when she is confirmed she will rejoin the bench with the same integrity, vigor and commitment to service that she has demonstrated throughout her public life," Pataki said in a statement.

It looks as if both nominees will sail through the Senate during a special session today.

"Mary Donohue and Henry Zwack are two highly qualified candidates who would work extremely hard on behalf of this state and its residents," said Kris Thompson, a spokesman for state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, an ally to both Donohue and Zwack.

"In addition to his vast experience as a public administrator, Henry Zwack has been a practicing attorney since 1979 and has previously represented the interest of a number of municipalities, including Stephentown, New Lebanon and Petersburgh," Thompson added.

Zwack was elected county executive in 1995 to serve the remainder of John Buono's unfinished term after Pataki appointed Bruono to head the Thruway Authority.

He was elected to a full term in 1997.

By 2001, two separate scandals, dozens of indictments and two trials forced him to resign.

In 2001, a jury acquitted him of 10 counts of perjury related to the county's infamous no-show job scandal.

It was discovered Dirk Van Ort was collecting a county pay check as a 911 coordinator while working a carnival in Florida.

But, a special prosecutor indicted Zwack for his testimony in front of a grand jury that ended up indicting Victor Cipolla and Susan Martin for allowing Van Ort to get away with it for so long.

The pair later successfully sued the county for an undisclosed amount of money.

A year later, Zwack, four of his top aides and a Democratic Party boss were indicted for selling political influence in return for civil service favors.

It was alleged that Zwack put pressure on county personnel department employees to give North Greenbush Democratic Party Chairman James Germano's grandson another chance to pass the physical fitness aspect of the civil service exam so he could be a town cop.

The long-running scandal came complete with a high powered legal defense team, secretly made tape recordings and was intertwined with enough innuendos and political intrigue to be a made for television movie.

After Zwack and his co-defendants were acquitted, the Stephentown native went to work for a lobbying firm and later to OASIS.

He could not be reached for comment, Tuesday night.

Charles "CB" Smith, a long time government watchdog and long time thorn in Zwack's side drove the no-show job scandal.

In 2000, the last time it was rumored that Zwack would get a judgeship, Smith penned a letter to Pataki asking him to reconsider.

The nomination never transpired.

"The governor should know by now he should keep the name Zwack as far away from the word judge as humanly possible," Smith said.

"Who knows?"

"He may have a no show law clerk."

http://www.troyrecord.com/site/news.cfm?ne...=7021&rfi=6

"Rensselaer Co. dispute includes judge"

By JIMMY VIELKIND, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

Last updated: 12:24 a.m., Friday, August 3, 2007

TROY - The chairman of the Rensselaer County Democratic Party says a judge should recuse himself from hearing a dispute over the adoption of revised party bylaws.

One town party chairman, Jeffrey Spain of North Greenbush, said the new bylaws will "centralize power" in the hands of County Chair Thomas W. Wade and should be thrown out because they were not properly adopted, according to court documents.

The case is before acting Supreme Court Justice Henry F. Zwack and should be decided next week.

The substance of the case, court documents show, centers around how much notice was given before the bylaw changes were voted on at the county committee's June 11 meeting and whether the court has jurisdiction to intervene in the matter.

But separate from that, Wade said it was "outrageous" that Zwack is hearing the case, because Wade once testified against the judge during a 2002 corruption trial.

Zwack, a Republican, resigned as County Executive in May 2001.

He was then cleared of charges at a pair of trials in September 2001 and April 2002 in which he was first accused of covering up a no-show job scandal and then charged with orchestrating a civil service job-for-votes trade.

Zwack was appointed a judge in December 2006.

In a response to the request for recusal dated July 27, he wrote that "I did not recall that Mr. Wade gave testimony until your correspondence."

He continued: "His testimony at the time did not give me reason to have personal bias or prejudice against Mr. Wade."

"Considered today, of what I can recall of his testimony, it still gives me no reason to any personal bias or prejudice concerning him."

The State Code of Judicial Conduct states that judges should recuse themselves if "the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned," and Wade was not satisfied with the reply.

"Any lawyer or law student or citizen can see the obvious need for a judge to step aside in a case where he can be accused of exercising a vendetta or simply following the directions of the hierarchy in his political party," he said.

[Livyjr]

THE ALBANY, NEW YORK TIMES UNION CAPITAL CONFIDENTIAL BLOG:

And what in the hell is going on with OUR court system here in NYS?

I just read a story in the TU entitled “Rensselaer Co. dispute includes judge” by JIMMY VIELKIND, Staff writer, last updated 12:24 a.m., Friday, August 3, 2007, that disgraced former REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE Henry Zwack is now sitting in Rensselaer County Supreme Court as an “acting Supreme Court Justice” ….

And what a mockery of justice that is …

Henry Zwack could never get elected to a position on the bench as a Supreme Court Justice with his record, and yet, through a BACKDOOR maneuver by someone in a position of authority in the court system, there he now sits …

WHAT A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE THAT IS!

Zwack is a Court of Claims judge who was put in there by Pataki and Joe Bruno in a special Senate Session on 12/13/2006 ….

And now, here he is back in Rensselaer County as an acting Supreme Court Justice …

WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP, HON. JUDITH KAYE!

This reminds me of the words of Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes and Thomas Mann, Norman Ornstein, the Reform Institute and the Campaign Legal Center in the story “Brennan Center and Friends of the Court File Briefs before U.S. Supreme Court Seeking Affirmance of Decisions Enjoining New York’s Judicial Selection” at:

http://reformny.blogspot.com/2007/07/brenn…s-of-court.html

Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes:

“I am persuaded, from my long experience as a prosecutor, voter, citizen, and lawyer that…the problems of corruption in Brooklyn involving Supreme Court judgeships are not attributable to a single corrupt party boss.”

“Rather, as the public record demonstrates, corruption in judicial politics has a long history paralleling the long history of the judicial district convention system,” Hynes wrote.

In addition to noting the statewide nature of the problem, Hynes strikingly explains to the Court that the “corruption brought about by the architecture of the Supreme Court nomination system does not end once the judge is tapped by party leaders to serve on the Supreme Court, or when the judge is elected.”

“It often continues, in the form of corruption in the administration of justice.”

Thomas Mann, Norman Ornstein, the Reform Institute and the Campaign Legal Center:

“Although New York’s judicial selection scheme genuflects at the altar of democracy, it prays to a very different god: patronage.”

“By effectively lodging the power to control the nomination of state Supreme Court Justices in local political party leaders, New York’s mandated system makes state Supreme Court Justices—and many below them on the judicial ladder—beholden to local party officials.”

“The judges, their law clerks, and other judicial employees become mere patronage spoils.”

end quotes

THE JUDGES, THEIR LAW CLERKS, AND OTHER JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES BECOME MERE PATRONAGE SPOILS …

CORRUPTION IN THE SELECTION OF OUR STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES OFTEN CONTINUES IN THE FORM OF CORRUPTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE …

Damn right it does …

And here appears to be another case of it happening right before our eyes with this loser Henry Zwack wearing the robes of a Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice ….

Thanks to a BACKROOM DEAL by someone in politics who wants Henry there, despite the fact that the PEOPLE would never elect him …

As OUR Constitution requires …

And so …

Comment by John Galt — August 3, 2007 @ 6:04 pm

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=5156#comments

[Livyjr]

THE ALBANY, NEW YORK TIMES UNION CAPITAL CONFIDENTIAL BLOG:

This crap of someone putting REPUBLICAN Henry Zwack on the bench in Rensselaer County Supreme Court through some kind of political BACKROOM DEAL reminds me of a passage at pp. 12,13 in the book New York State Government, 2d Edition by Robert B. Ward of the New York State Business Council wherein was stated with respect to “STEAMROLLER” Spitzer’s alleged “reform agenda” as follows:

A year before Election Day 2006, at the Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany, candidate Spitzer gave a detailed presentation on his vision for government reform.

The address touched on many of the major issues facing the state.

For instance, Spitzer called for:

* Changes to the court system , promoting the “rule of law” with reforms such as merit appointment rather than election of judges and ***** creation of more integrated courts to reduce costs AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

end quotes

That last is a very telling statement in the light of this appearance of REPUBLICAN Henry Zwack as an acting Supreme Court justice on the bench in Rensselaer County Supreme Court through a BACKROOM DEAL, because nobody would elect REPUBLICAN Henry Zwack to such an important judicial position in a million years …..

IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS ….

Hhhhmmmm …

Something to think about, alright ….

Eliot Spitzer wants to IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS in the State of New York by eliminating OUR courts, and populating what remains with political hacks, losers and lackeys like Joe Bruno’s ally Henry Zwack ….

Yes, yes, Eliot ….

I think I can see where you are going with this ….

YOU WILL BE THE SOURCE OF THOSE DECISIONS AS GOVERNOR, AND THOSE WHO WILL DO YOUR BIDDING WILL BE YOUR JUDGES …

And we will be right back where we were when we had ROYAL GOVERNORS and a KING in England appointing OUR JUDGES ….

Which means that we are going to get screwed royally in this deal …

And so …

Comment by John Galt — August 3, 2007 @ 7:00 pm

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=5156#comments