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

[Livyjr]

With respect to this harm being done specifically in the State of New York, under the provisions of the New York State Constitution as opposed to the United States Constitution, in 1996, in Ricky Brown et al. v. State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, the New York State Court of Appeals discussed the issue of constitutional torts in the State of New York, and the fact that rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection and Search and Seizure Clauses of the New York State Constitution have common-law antecedents warranting a tort remedy for invasion of the rights they recognize:

"Constitutions assign rights to individuals and impose duties on the government to regulate the  government's actions to protect them."

"It is the failure to fulfill a stated constitutional duty which may support a claim for damages in a constitutional tort action."

Ricky Brown et al. v. State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, 178, 179 (Ct. of Appeals 1996) (emphasis added)

In Ricky Brown et al. v. State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, at 187, the New York State Court of Appeals then conducted a lengthy analysis of constitutional torts in the State of New York, reasoning as follows from the language of the United States Supreme Court in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388:

"The underlying rationale for the decision, in simplest terms, is that constitutional guarantees are worthy of protection on their own terms without being linked to some common-law or statutory tort, and that the courts have the obligation to enforce these rights by ensuring that each individual receives an adequate remedy for violation of a constitutional duty."

"If the remedy is not forthcoming from the political branches of government, then the courts must provide it by recognizing a damage remedy against the violators much the same as the courts earlier recognized and developed equitable remedies to enjoin unconstitutional actions."

"Implicit in this reasoning is the premise that the Constitution is a source of positive law, not merely a set of limitations on government."

Ricky Brown et al. v. State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, 187 (Ct. of Appeals 1996) (emphasis added)

And here, ultimately, I must disagree with jeffmoskin, in substance, because ULTIMATELY, I believe that JUSTICE just must come, and if one is persistent, and perseveres, one will never be far from justice, ULTIMATELY!

BUT ......

That is coming from my perspective as an American citizen!

Lawyers are indeed paid professionals, as in jeffmoskin's baseball analogy, and so, they will resort to any and all tricks, to take the game.

Like baseball teams, half the lawyers who go to court on any given day, lose, and big!

And they still get paid, so they don't really need to care!

What have they lost, that was not really somebody else's to have to give away, after all?

And as this thread continues to develop, we who are watching this matter up here in Rensselaer County begin to see a delicious irony cropping up for the various attorneys in this matter, if they try and go to the Appeals Court in New York City, ON THE COMPLETE RECORD in this matter, which information has it was electronically transferred to the Court of Appeals on Monday of this week, and that irony crops up as a direct result of the New York State Court of Appeals decision above, where New York's highest court rules on what constitutes "constitutional protection" in the State of New York!

IN the State of New York, that ruling by the New York State Court of Appeals is the "law of the land", the organic law, and so, the attorneys in this matter, all being New York State licensed attorneys, are bound by that interpretation of the New York State Constitution, for any matters in federal court ARISING in the State of New York, as this matter did.

To appreciate this irony, of course, it is necessary to realize, not just accept, but fully realize, that as Americans, each of us has protections of the United States Constitution, AND, depending upon where we are in OUR America, we may have the second tier of protection of the STATE CONSTITUTION, which up here, in the State of New York, is OUR New York State Constitution, and OUR Constitution is held to be far superior to the United States Constitution in certain particulars such as Workers' Compensation, and public health protection, and due process of law, and in federal court in New York State, THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS CANNOT BE LESSENED, NOR CAN THEY BE DENIED, as is the case here, where both Rensselaer County and the New York State Attorney General are putting in a bogus story in Federal District Court which can only hold together, and barely, at that, so bogus is it, IF THEY BURY THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD FINDINGS, which were stipulated to already by Rensselaer County in that court of law to end those proceedings.

And to do that, of course, they must get the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to go along with them, and well, being from the country as we are, this is going to be something we just can't wait to see happen, that argument, that is, by New York State Attorney General Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer himself, that in order to beat this disabled veteran in district court, it was necessary for "Big EL" to strip him of his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS in the State of New York UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION which "Big EL" himself took an oath to protect and defend!

Yes, folks, that is the irony here, the requirements to uphold not the United States Constitution, but the New York State Constitution, wherever he may be, SO LONG AS HE IS NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL!

"Big EL" would have it otherwise, of course, but so what?

It is not what "Big EL" Spitzer says, but what the Constitution and the law require of him and the State of New York that matters, and according to the New York State Court of Appeals, which is the "BIG DOG" court in that regard, the New York State Constitution EXISTS SOLELY TO "assign rights to individuals and impose duties on the government to regulate the government's actions to protect them."

How is Eliot Spitzer going to tip-toe his way around this conundrum, is what us country folks are wondering up here, and since his answer to that conundrum directly affects each and every resident of the State of New York, we, the PEOPLE, up here at least, will be closely watching this matter develop.

It is our further information that this matter was docketed at the Court of Appeals in New York City on the 9th day of this month in the year 2005, and so, another set of clocks have begun ticking in this matter, and from this point forward, things will begin to proceed quite rapidly, and we shall endeavor to keep the record as up to date as is possible in here.

And that brings me to a point raised privately by a reader about publishing all these apparently personal records in here, and that point is that these are already public records, now available to all of America, and the world, electronically, through what is known as PACER, and since that is the case, re-printing them in here does not make them any more public than they already are, and in our discussions on this matter, where these documents are those upon which this real appeal is really based, it serves no purpose to keep them concealed any longer, when they are already available to anyone with PACER, which is not most of us, in OUR America, if we are not attorneys!

Unfair?

Maybe, but that is just how it is, and so, to even out that playing field, in my mind at least, God gave us this internet forum like he gave a small pebble to David, so as to level Goliath!

SO!

To be continued .....

[Livyjr]

Another aspect I forgot to mention:

To you, Livyjr, this case is THE MOST IMPORTANT CASE OF YOUR LIFE!

Hopefully, it will be the ONLY case in your life, because, as you and I both know, these matters take away however many precious days are allotted to us on this earth.

A day spent in court is a day wasted, even if the outcome is in our favor.

People ask me about that a lot, jeffmoskin, this thing of going to court as a non-lawyer, and my answer always is that each of us is given to do what we are given to do, and so, I have mine.

And I can see what you are saying, in some ways, about going to court being a waste of a day, but to me, it is a constitutional duty that I am fulfilling, and so, in that sense, it is exactly like going in the Army to go to Viet Nam!

It is a cost to you individually, so that the greater good, FOR ALL, hopefully does not come down, but stays the same, or goes up a notch instead, and while that might not always be apparent as to how that is "operating" at any given time, over the long run, to people yet to come in OUR America, and OUR world as well, OUR efforts as citizens in going to Court do make a difference, elsewise, why bother?

I win in court because yesterday, someone else wasted a day or two of their own lives to go to court to make a point that is written down in a book that comes down through time to preserve the rights that I am then able to vindicate in a court of law, today!

If we stop the process because of a fear of judges and thug-like lawyers, then the process stops!

I never pretend to myself, or anyone else, that going to court as a non-lawyer is pretty, or easy, or fun, and it should not be!

It is damn serious business, and it should always be treated so, or else we demean OUR own heritage, as I see it anyway!

Going to court to fight perceived injustice is not a picnic, BUT IT IS NECESSARY, and so, it just must be done!

And I think this discussion on the subject is very healthy for OUR democracy, here in OUR America, and so, I am glad to hear your opinions on this subject of "law and the common citizen" being expressed in here, jeffmoskin, as it causes me to have to think on what you have said, and to then go back over my own thoughts and arguments, to test them again for flaws, and to me, that is a citizen duty that we are fulfilling right in here, as we go, just as was the case when OUR forebears in LIBERTY were comparing notes to write the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, back in 1776, one year before the New York State Constitution itself came into being as a direct result!

And as a loyal American, and a New York State resident, I personally feel a duty to see that that history is not forgotton, and especially to see that it is not simply buried so as to fuel the political aspirations of a man like New York State Attorney General Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer, who wants to be governor of this state so badly that he is ready to bury a disabled American combat veteran under a mountain of lies and fabrications to make that gubernatorial win for him a reality!

Maybe so, in the end, "Big EL", but take my advice, and bring a lunch!

We country folks think you might need one, and "Big EL", just to be sure, make it "SUPERSIZE"!

And America, please!

Stay tuned!

[jeffmoskin]

People ask me about that a lot, jeffmoskin, this thing of going to court as a non-lawyer, and my answer always is that each of us is given to do what we are given to do, and so, I have mine.

And I can see what you are saying, in some ways, about going to court being a waste of a day, but to me, it is a constitutional duty that I am fulfilling, and so, in that sense, it is exactly like going in the Army to go to Viet Nam!

It is a cost to you individually, so that the greater good, FOR ALL, hopefully does not come down, but stays the same, or goes up a notch instead, and while that might not always be apparent as to how that is "operating" at any given time, over the long run, to people yet to come in OUR America, and OUR world as well, OUR efforts as citizens in going to Court do make a difference, elsewise, why bother?

I win in court because yesterday, someone else wasted a day or two of their own lives to go to court to make a point that is written down in a book that comes down through time to preserve the rights that I am then able to vindicate in a court of law, today!

If we stop the process because of a fear of judges and thug-like lawyers, then the process stops!

I never pretend to myself, or anyone else, that going to court as a non-lawyer is pretty, or easy, or fun, and it should not be!

It is damn serious business, and it should always be treated so, or else we demean OUR own heritage, as I see it anyway!

Going to court to fight perceived injustice is not a picnic, BUT IT IS NECESSARY, and so, it just must be done!

And I think this discussion on the subject is very healthy for OUR democracy, here in OUR America, and so, I am glad to hear your opinions on this subject of "law and the common citizen" being expressed in here, jeffmoskin, as it causes me to have to think on what you have said, and to then go back over my own thoughts and arguments, to test them again for flaws, and to me, that is a citizen duty that we are fulfilling right in here, as we go, just as was the case when OUR forebears in LIBERTY were comparing notes to write the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, back in 1776, one year before the New York State Constitution itself came into being as a direct result!

And as a loyal American, and a New York State resident, I personally feel a duty to see that that history is not forgotton, and especially to see that it is not simply buried so as to fuel the political aspirations of a man like New York State Attorney General Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer, who wants to be governor of this state so badly that he is ready to bury a disabled American combat veteran under a mountain of lies and fabrications to make that gubernatorial win for him a reality!

Maybe so, in the end, "Big EL", but take my advice, and bring a lunch!

We country folks think you might need one, and "Big EL", just to be sure, make it "SUPERSIZE"!

And America, please!

Stay tuned!

Way to go, Livyjr.

You are on your game. My money (limited) is on you.

Some say we tilt at windmills.

Some ask, "what the hell are windmills?"

[Livyjr]

Some say we tilt at windmills.

Some ask, "what the hell are windmills?"

And you know, jeffmoskin, that is the way it has always been, and that is the way it will always be, I think, with respect to this thing of the "perceived duties" of a citizen here in this Republic of ours.

Some people believe that all they have to do is simply live here, and take from this place what they will, and others see life differently!

The human condition.

And why that is, who knows!

But as for me, I am an American, and that means KNOWING where this nation came from, and knowing my place as a citizen within it, and then standing up, when necessary, to defend that birthright, in as intelligent manner as is possible, given the circumstances at any given time, to do what I can do, as an individual to keep this REPUBLIC alive, so that it does not simply degenerate into a THUG-O-CRACY, instead.

At the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, or shortly thereafter, actually, in the first Federalist essay, Alexander Hamilton of New York said as follows:

"It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved TO THE PEOPLE of this country, BY THEIR CONDUCT AND EXAMPLE, to decide the important question, WHETHER SOCIETIES OF MEN ARE REALLY CAPABLE OR NOT, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, ON ACCIDENT AND FORCE!"

All these years later, despite words on a piece of paper called a constitution, that is still the case, 24/7, as I see it anyway, and so, this effort is necessary, as it does go right to the heart of why we have a constitution up here in the State of New York in the first place, and there is the "WINDMILL"!

SO?

What to do, eh, jeffmoskin?

[jeffmoskin]

At the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, or shortly thereafter, actually, in the first Federalist essay, Alexander Hamilton of New York said as follows:

"It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved TO THE PEOPLE of this country, BY THEIR CONDUCT AND EXAMPLE, to decide the important question, WHETHER SOCIETIES OF MEN ARE REALLY CAPABLE OR NOT, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, ON ACCIDENT AND FORCE!"

All these years later, despite words on a piece of paper called a constitution, that is still the case, 24/7, as I see it anyway, and so, this effort is necessary, as it does go right to the heart of why we have a constitution up here in the State of New York in the first place, and there is the "WINDMILL"!

SO?

What to do, eh, jeffmoskin?

simple. We continue to fight the good fight. We need to restore government of, by and FOR the people.

No matter what it takes.

[Abu Beacon]

simple. We continue to fight the good fight. We need to restore government of, by and FOR the people.

No matter what it takes.

That is the heart of the matter, jeffmoskin.

Continue to fight the good fight. Try our best to restore a government of, by, and FOR the people..

WHY are so many Americans so apathetic? A rhetorical question of course.

Why are so many Americans so willing to overlook, condone, and forgive corrupt leaders?

What are we afraid of?

Is it so hard to write a letter to our Congressman, our Senator, our Governor, our mayor, or even our councilman?

Or is it more comfortable to " go along " with corruption and then complain to our neighbor?

Easy to ask these questions, isn't it?

I commend Livyjr for being willing to go the extra step, even if that step turns out to be an extra mile, mostly uphill, to DO what he knows he must do if he respects himself and his country.

The account of Livyjr's problems with a corrupt government are clearly chronicled in the many postings on this thread.

And the actions he is taking to fight back are just as clearly detailed.

A model for all of us to follow.

A.B.

[Livyjr]

The account of Livyjr's problems with a corrupt government are clearly chronicled in the many postings on this thread.

And the actions he is taking to fight back are just as clearly detailed.

A model for all of us to follow.

A.B.

The power of massed minds, Mr. A.B., and the power of the internet!

Le voila!

A transformation in "citizen politics", and literally overnight!

We now exist, where before, we were merely isolated pockets, out there, scattered around out there, without means of intercommunications, or communications with the candid world, and so, we were not only ignorant of who else was out there in the world, who might have experiences or viewpoints that are worthy of consideration, and perhaps, emulation, but disconnected from those people, like yourself, Mr. A.B., over distances of time and space that made intercommunication between us practically an impossibility!

And you are right on the money, Mr. A.B., about providing a model, or a template, maybe, in my engineer's parlance, or record, certainly, about how one small group of Americans went about trying to rectify, within the full means the law in OUR America allows, what was perceived by them to be a gross injustice inflicted by "government" or "state actors" on a local disabled veteran in alleged violation of his constitutional right to substantive and procedural due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution!

Being able to go to court to petition for redress, and to have continued, unimpeded, and inviolate right to access to a jury of one's peers in the vicinage is to me a right more sacred than the vote, and it is a right that goes back and back and back in time, and so remains inviolate in OURS, unless, of course, we simply let that sacred right be taken from us, in which case, we are reduced as a people from what we once were, to something lower, and quite a bit lower, indeed!

Hence this appeal, come what may!

And this thread, to talk about it, as this is a very serious duty, and we as American citizens should have at least an inkling of what is involved, especially from the perspective of "one who is like us", who is himself right now going through the actual process in real-time, out there in the real world, as we talk about it and follow his progress, virtually in here.

To me, the greatest asset OUR America has is her people, and her system of laws, which derive directly from the United States Constitution, at all times, in order for them to be "operable", and to me, as citizens of this nation, we should be intimately knowledgable about what makes America a truly great nation, and to me, is has to be OUR system of Constitutional law!

That system of law, while perhaps not perfect in all ways, has stood us in good stead, through times of both peace and war, since 1788, when OUR United States Constitution was ratifed by nine of the original 13 colonies at the time of OUR independence from England, and now, for me, at least, is no time to abandon the Constitution, which only continues to live, IF WE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IN ITS ULTIMATE POWER TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT US AS INDIVIDUALS HERE IN OUR AMERICA from acts of tyranny and injustice directed at us, to the detriment of OUR liberty, by what purports to be the "sovereign power", acting under "color of state law", as was the case here, and then we act, to preserve that power of protection from tyranny and despotism for OUR own posterity, as the PREAMBLE of OUR United States Constitution bids us do as American citizens, 24/7.

Hence this appeal!

Simple as that!

[Livyjr]

But as for me, I am an American, and that means KNOWING where this nation came from, and knowing my place as a citizen within it, and then standing up, when necessary, to defend that birthright, in as intelligent manner as is possible, given the circumstances at any given time, to do what I can do, as an individual to keep this REPUBLIC alive, so that it does not simply degenerate into a THUG-O-CRACY, instead.

At the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, or shortly thereafter, actually, in the first Federalist essay, Alexander Hamilton of New York said as follows:

"It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved TO THE PEOPLE of this country, BY THEIR CONDUCT AND EXAMPLE, to decide the important question, WHETHER SOCIETIES OF MEN ARE REALLY CAPABLE OR NOT, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, ON ACCIDENT AND FORCE!"

SO?

What to do, eh, jeffmoskin?

The power of massed minds, Mr. A.B., and the power of the internet!

Le voila!

A transformation in "citizen politics", and literally overnight!

We now exist .......

We now exist!

And for people like me in OUR America, what a thought that is!

Parity, at least as far as the power of the truly democratic press goes, here in OUR America!

Each of us here in OUR America is now a publisher, and editor, and creative writer, and correspondent, and yes, "muck raker", even if we are in physical actuality confined to a wheelchair on a mountain top way out in the country somewhere, and so, the weakest are becoming equal to the strongest, in voice, in the PUBLIC SQUARE, where that dialogue belongs, as it was back in the good days of the Roman Republic, before it destroyed itself in an orgy of stupidity and greed!

This in here is politics, American-style, and it is as pure as it can get, because it is going from citizen to citizen without any filters at all, other than what is considered by each of us to be OUR own individual standards of conduct!

And by these "writings" in here, we, ALL OF US, are collectively doing exactly as young Alexander Hamiltion, a foreign-born man who served as Aide-de-Camp to George Washington during the American Revolution, said we must continue to do as Americans, 24/7, which is to continue to prove, as "THE PEOPLE" of this country, THAT BY OUR CONDUCT AND EXAMPLE, WE, the PEOPLE, you and I, ARE CAPABLE of deciding the important question, WHETHER SOCIETIES OF MEN AND WOMEN ARE REALLY CAPABLE OR NOT, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, and WE CHOOSE TO ANSWER THAT IN THE AFFIRMATIVE!

SO!

THEN .....

It comes down to OUR CONDUCT AND EXAMPLE, and this is mine!

My best offering, I guess you would say, back to young Alexander Hamilton, for him to judge whether WE have passed the test!

ARE WE, AMERICA, "THE PEOPLE" of this country, REALLY CAPABLE OF PROVING, to ALL the candid world watching, THAT BY OUR CONDUCT AND EXAMPLE, WE, the PEOPLE, you and I, ARE CAPABLE of deciding the important question, WHETHER SOCIETIES OF MEN AND WOMEN ARE REALLY CAPABLE OR NOT, of establishing good government from reflection and choice?

Which way will you go?

Which side are you on?

Stay tuned for further developments, as they happen!

Updated regularly by live people!

This is not a recording!

This post has been edited by Livyjr: May 14 2005, 02:23 PM

[Livyjr]

And this issue of the difference in protections to be afforded PLAINTIFF in the State of New York by the New York State Constitution versus the United States Constitution first came up in this July 15, 2004 letter from PLAINTIFF to Hon. Donald E. Walter, a Senior Federal District Judge from Louisiana, which follows!

Your Honor:

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

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

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

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

Respectfully yours,

Plaintiff pro se

CC: 

Hon. Eliot Spitzer, Esquire
Office of the Attorney General
New York State
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224[/b][/color]

And by these "writings" in here, we, ALL OF US, are collectively doing exactly as young Alexander Hamiltion, a foreign-born man who served as Aide-de-Camp to George Washington during the American Revolution, said we must continue to do as Americans, 24/7, which is to continue to prove, as "THE PEOPLE" of this country, THAT BY OUR CONDUCT AND EXAMPLE, WE, the PEOPLE, you and I, ARE CAPABLE of deciding the important question, WHETHER SOCIETIES OF MEN AND WOMEN ARE REALLY CAPABLE OR NOT, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, and WE CHOOSE TO ANSWER THAT IN THE AFFIRMATIVE!

SO!

THEN .....

It comes down to OUR CONDUCT AND EXAMPLE, and this is mine!

And here, one of my many "legal pundits" has stopped me, and has said to me, that with all due respect to this PLAINTIFF's July 15, 2004 letter to Judge Walter of Louisiana, that in and of itself does not constitute "NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD" for Eliot Spitzer, AND I AGREE WITH HIM, it most certainly does not!

And that point was made to ALL PARTIES, including PLAINTIFF and Eliot Spitzer, in a July 29, 2004 letter from Marguerite A. Conan, Esq., a Staff Attorney for the Federal District Court of the Northern District of New York, headquartered in Syracuse, New York, some two hours or so drive to the west of where the disabled PLAINTIFF in this matter is located.

That letter dwells on all of the various issues raised in PLAINTIFF's July 15, 2004 letter to Judge Walter, above, including the New York State Constitution, and the letter from Rensselaer County Criminal Court Justice Patrick McGrath and the findings of the New York State Workers' Compensation Review Board which were stipulated to by Rensselaer County, to end litigation in that forum in PLAINTIFF's behalf in or about 1993:

Dear PLAINTIFF:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very truly yours,

Marguerite A. Conan, Esq.

cc: ALL Parties

[Livyjr]

And here, one of my many "legal pundits" has stopped me, and has said to me, that with all due respect to this PLAINTIFF's July 15, 2004 letter to Judge Walter of Louisiana, that in and of itself does not constitute "NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD" for Eliot Spitzer, AND I AGREE WITH HIM, it most certainly does not!

And that point was made to ALL PARTIES, including PLAINTIFF and Eliot Spitzer, in a July 29, 2004 letter from Marguerite A. Conan, Esq., a Staff Attorney for the Federal District Court of the Northern District of New York, headquartered in Syracuse, New York, some two hours or so drive to the west of where the disabled PLAINTIFF in this matter is located.

Dear PLAINTIFF:

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

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

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

Very truly yours,

Marguerite A. Conan, Esq.

cc:  ALL Parties

And here, I have to say that what my "legal pundit" friend is really saying is that a real attorney like Eliot Spitzer is NOT going to care two shakes that this disabled veteran PLAINTIFF has written a letter to the federal judge complaining of the Attorney General of the State of New York playing fast and loose with this disabled veteran's rights pursuant to the New York State Constitution in this federal lawsuit, because the letter alone does not force Eliot Spitzer to have to do a thing to protect those rights, and so he won't.

He simply won't!

And he don't have to!

His clients also have Fourteenth Amendment rights, and so, the PLAINTIFF has to respect those rights of those defendants, by giving them formal notice and an opportunity to be heard, EVEN THOUGH THIS LITIGATION EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANTS ALLEGEDLY REFUSE TO AFFORD PLAINTIFF THE SAME!

IF OUR CAUSE IS TO BE JUSTICE, THEN WE HAVE TO BE FOR IT FOR EVERYONE, and so ......

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


signed: PLAINTIFF Pro Se

[Livyjr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Beware" said a powerful REPUBLICAN up here, "because Dred Scott was never repealed, and so remains the law of the land, at least up here in New York State!"

Which is to say that only a certain few "privileged" really have "rights" in a federal district court, up here, at least, and this PLAINTIFF just is not one of those.

And I, for one, believe him, the powerful REPUBLICAN, that is, because he was a spokesperson for the PARTY, and so, presumably would know what he was talking about, FROM THE REPUBLICAN PERSPECTIVE, which is the "operative" perspective up here, in Rensselaer County, if not the whole of New York State!

"JUSTICE is not for everybody, and don't ever make the mistake of thinking that it is, and then getting uppity about it!"

That, of course, will get you "slapped" back down in a hurry, at least up here, where a search for the "truth" will land you right into a secure CORPORATE mental health facility faster than you can shake a stick!

Hence this appeal!

[Livyjr]

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

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

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

"PLAINTIFF is concerned about the potential development of Mr. Pelletier's property, AND HE VIDEOTAPED SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES OCCURRING THERE IN MR. PELLETIER'S PRESENCE."

"Mr. Pelletier ALLEGEDLY PHYSICALLY CONFRONTED PLAINTIFF; THE EXACT SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IS THEN UNCLEAR!"

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

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

"Later, he said, 'SANCTUARY'!"

"PLAINTIFF states that he has no history of deliberately self-destructive behavior, alcohol or illicit drug abuse, or owning firearms, and that he 'ABHORS VIOLENCE'!"

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

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

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

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

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

signed,

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

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

- Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York, March 31, 2005

And so, we have come "full circle" in here, in a sense, anyway, since we have just got back to where we started, when this thread was "opened", which is "dangerous ground", indeed, for those of us up here in the Northern District of New York who are just plain sick and tired of having a corrupt government up here that puts OUR health, safety and well-being behind some alleged and supposed "right" of land developers, and those in the HOUSING INDUSTRY who are pumping a ton of money into Eliot Spitzer right now, to make him the next governor of the State of New York, to make as much "PROFIT" as they possibly can, so as to be able to pump as much money as they can back into the pockets of those, like Eliot Spitzer, who will continue to defend their supposed "rights" to "profit" over those of the common American, who the New York State Constitution, at least, was originally put into place to defend!

OR WAS IT?

If this story were merely about one more man in OUR America being kicked around some by politicians here in OUR America, I don't know that I would spend time talking about it in here, as people getting kicked around by politicians here in America really is not news, as far as I can see, that is going to get anyone excited, since it would be like pointing out the window at dirt in a sand-box - IT IS JUST THAT COMMON!

The real point of this exercise, and the reason for this thread, and this appeal, is, IN THIS PRESENT DAY AND AGE, JUST WHAT IS A CONSTITUTION really for, and for whose benefit, if anyone?

IS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION NOW AN IMPEDIMENT TO FURTHER "ECONOMIC GROWTH" IN OUR AMERICA?

MUST IT BE SCRAPPED BECAUSE IT IS?

And if so, exactly how is that to be accomplished?

One way, of course, is to simply close the courts to anyone who would argue for the Constitution, and then, to simply have some judges write the Constitution out of existence!

And that is a bit of what we see happening here, and of course, OUR vision on that subject is now shaped by some TWENTY-PLUS years of continuous struggle up here, in and out of the Courts, to see the provisions of both the United States and New York State Constitutions fully enforced in OUR own town halls, where OUR public officials who are offending against OUR rights under these Constitutions have taken an oath to protect and defend both, and then do neither!

"Political theory" up here is simply wield the club, and be not afraid to swing it, when dissent arises!

And that theory works, in large part, because of knowledge of human nature by those who hold the clubs, that "fear" is probably the greatest "motivator" that there has ever been to keep people from questioning exactly what is going on, IN THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES!

The "ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALISTS", who have existed here in OUR America since its earliest days, now reign supreme, at least up here, and if this appeal fails, which it just might, then the power of the "ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALISTS" will become even more formidable, BECAUSE OF THIS "STATUTORY POWER" to stick dissenters in secure CORPORATE mental institutions that has just been "upheld" by the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York in this March 31, 2005 decision that is under discussion in here.

After all, what good are alleged "CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS", if you can never enjoy them, BECAUSE to try and do so is the exact formula that will have you being subject to immediate arrest and incarceration in a secure mental institution?

[Livyjr]

If this story were merely about one more man in OUR America being kicked around some by politicians here in OUR America, I don't know that I would spend time talking about it in here, as people getting kicked around by politicians here in America really is not news, as far as I can see, that is going to get anyone excited, since it would be like pointing out the window at dirt in a sand-box - IT IS JUST THAT COMMON!

The real point of this exercise, and the reason for this thread, and this appeal, is, IN THIS PRESENT DAY AND AGE, JUST WHAT IS A CONSTITUTION really for, and for whose benefit, if anyone?

IS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION NOW AN IMPEDIMENT TO FURTHER "ECONOMIC GROWTH" IN OUR AMERICA?

MUST IT BE SCRAPPED BECAUSE IT IS?

And if so, exactly how is that to be accomplished?

And at this point in this narrative, what I would like to do is to step back, way back perhaps, for OUR non-lawyer readers in here, and what I want to do is talk about this concept of "due process" of law, as it is supposed to exist in one theory of "Constitutional Law", the one that I adhere to, and how that "concept", or idea", or maybe "ideal", affects each and every one of us, here in OUR America, REGARDLESS of where we are, and what we might be doing for OUR living right now, as this is a case about the "POLICE POWER" of the "state", and whether for partisan or factional political purposes, that "POLICE POWER" can be altered, diminished, re-directed or abolished, outright!

And this is not at all a speculative discussion that we are having in here, at this point, nor is this about "opinions", unless by "opinions", we mean those of the United States Supreme Court, and whether or not they are truly law of all the land, or some, or none at all!

After all, the Supreme Court Justices are just a few old men and women, and what are they going to do to someone powerful like New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer if he feels like tossing the United States Constitution right in the trash, to make him more "marketable" as the next GOVERNOR of the State of New York?

If Eliot Spitzer looks right at the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, and he tells them as New York State Attorney General that in New York State, they ain't doodly-squat, what really can they do?

Send in federal authorities to restore order in the State of New York?

And what order would that be, anyway, Livyjr, someone asks me from off-stage?

Well, my answer would be that nebulous thing called the "GREATER GOOD", which is expressed in quite clear and concrete terms and language in the New York State Constitution, and specifically in sections 4 and 5 of Article XIV, entitled "CONSERVATION", and section 3 of Article XVII, entitled "SOCIAL WELFARE".

And here come the howls of derision!

Listen to them, for a moment if you would, because they are very important to understanding where this CONSTITUTIONAL CASE in here is going, and how it affects you, even if you are living in Arkansas, or Texas, or Tenessee, and not New York.

Right now, most of the derision would be, and is, directed at Article XVII of the New York State Constitution, which is entitled "SOCIAL WELFARE".

CONSERVATIVES, of course, feel that this is a LIBERAL ENCROACHMENT on their rights, by the LIBERALS, who in CONSERVATIVE parlance, "hi-jacked" the New York State Constitution, unlawfully, which to the CONSERVATIVES, makes the provisions of section 3 especially of Article XVII, "UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE" when it is applied in such a way as to limit their profits from speculation in land in New York State!

And this is where we enter into this scenario, in Rensselaer County, circa 1983, at a meeting of the Town of Poestenkill Zoning Board, where we were being told by OUR Town Zoning Board that it was going to approve the conversion of a bunch of old chicken houses into human habitations based on nothing more than a completely bogus assertion from the Rensselaer County Department of Health to the "developer" that the toilets used for the chickens would suffice for the intended human habitation, once the chicken coops were converted over!

That LOAD OF CRAP led us into an inquiry as to what was going on in OUR town in light of the provisions of Article IX of the New York State Constitution, entitled "LOCAL GOVERNMENTS".

Now, to understand this argument, please keep in mind that New York State's CONSTITUTION is the CONSTITUTION of an independent sovereign state at the time of INDEPENDENCE from England, when there was NO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, or Constitution!

NO WASHINGTON, D.C.

NO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT!

NO FEDERAL LAW!

NONE!

"It" and "they" did not exist, and had the colonies in confederation lost, well, then that would never have been, the United States Constitution, I mean, and so, when the PEOPLE of the State of New York stated in the PREAMBLE to the New York State Constitution that "WE THE PEOPLE of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for OUR freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION", they were in fact speaking a "language" markedly different from that spoken in the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, AFTER the war with England was long over, and English tyranny was no longer the threat that it was in 1776, when New York State and the other twelve states declared themselves individually free of England!

Thirteen separate small nations confederated against a tyrant across the seas!

New England had its laws, New York had its own, as did every other sovereign state in that confederation!

SO!

By those "laws", in New York State, we ended up with a BILL OF RIGHTS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, right on down to the Town level, because of the direct experience with England, where the further removed "government" was from "THE PEOPLE", the less restrained it would, and could be, with respect to factions of minorities, like land developers, who could take over the higher levels of government so as to deprive people in the towns of their rights, especially with respect to health, safety and well-being, WITHOUT WHICH THERE CAN BE NO TRUE LIBERTY, ever!

ARTICLE IX of the New York State Constitution, entitled "Local Governments", which will be OUR ENTRY POINT, as it were into this DISCUSSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS FROM THE COMMON CITIZEN's PERSPECTIVE, provides for the "preservation and protection of the health and well-being" of the residents of a town or village in New York State as follows:

Bill of rights for local governments.

Section 1. Effective local self-government and intergovernmental cooperation are purposes of the people of the state.

In furtherance thereof, local governments shall have the following rights, powers, privileges and immunities in addition to those granted by other provisions of this constitution:

(a) Every local government, except a county wholly included within a city, shall have a legislative body elective by the people thereof.

Every local government shall have power to adopt local laws as provided by this article.

(b) All officers of every local government whose election or appointment is not provided for by this constitution shall be elected by the people of the local government, or of some division thereof, or appointed by such officers of the local government as may be provided by law.

© Local governments shall have power to agree, as authorized by act of the legislature, with the federal government, a state or one or more other governments within or without the state, to provide cooperatively, jointly or by contract any facility, service, activity or undertaking which each participating local government has the power to provide separately.

Each such local government shall have power to apportion its share of the cost thereof upon such portion of its area as may be authorized by act of the legislature.

(d) No local government or any part of the territory thereof shall be annexed to another until the people, if any, of the territory proposed to be annexed shall have consented thereto by majority vote on a referendum and until the governing board of each local government, the area of which is affected, shall have consented thereto upon the basis of a determination that the annexation is in the over-all public interest.

The consent of the governing board of a county shall be required only where a boundary of the county is affected.

On or before July first, nineteen hundred sixty-four, the legislature shall provide,
where such consent of a governing board is not granted, for adjudication and determination, on the law and the facts, in a proceeding initiated in the supreme court, of the issue of whether the annexation is in the over-all public interest.

(e) Local governments shall have power to take by eminent domain private property within their boundaries for public use together with excess land or property but no more than is sufficient to provide for appropriate disposition or use of land or property which abuts on that necessary for such public use, and to sell or lease that not devoted to such use.

The legislature may authorize and regulate the exercise of the power of eminent domain and excess condemnation by a local government outside its boundaries.

(f) No local government shall be prohibited by the legislature (1) from making a fair return on the value of the property used and useful in its operation of a gas, electric or water public utility service, over and above costs of operation and maintenance and necessary and proper reserves, in addition to an amount equivalent to taxes which such service, if privately owned, would pay to such local government, or (2) from using such profits for payment of refunds to consumers or for any other lawful purpose.

(g) A local government shall have power to apportion its cost of a governmental service or function upon any portion of its area, as authorized by act of the legislature.

(h) (1) Counties, other than those wholly included within a city, shall be empowered by general law, or by special law enacted upon county request pursuant to section two of this article, to adopt, amend or repeal alternative forms of county government provided by the legislature or to prepare, adopt, amend or repeal alternative forms of their own.

Any such form of government or any amendment thereof, by act of the legislature or by local law, may transfer one or more functions or duties of the county or of the cities, towns, villages, districts or other units of government wholly contained in such county to each other or when authorized by the legislature to the state, or may abolish one or more offices, departments, agencies or units of government provided, however, that no such form or amendment, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subdivision, shall become effective unless approved on a referendum by a majority of the votes cast thereon in the area of the county outside of cities, and in the cities of the county, if any, considered as one unit.

Where an alternative form of county government or any amendment thereof, by act of the legislature or by local law, provides for the transfer of any function or duty to or from any village or the abolition of any office, department, agency or unit of government of a village wholly contained in such county, such form or amendment shall not become effective unless it shall also be approved on the
referendum by a majority of the votes cast thereon in all the villages so affected considered as one unit.

(2) After the adoption of an alternative form of county government by a county, any amendment thereof by act of the legislature or by local law which abolishes or creates an elective county office, changes the voting or veto power of or the method of removing an elective county officer during his or her term of office, abolishes, curtails or transfers to another county officer or agency any power of an elective county officer or changes the form or composition of the county legislative body shall be subject to a permissive referendum as provided by the legislature.

Powers and duties of legislature; home rule powers of local governments; statute of local governments.

S 2. (a) The legislature shall provide for the creation and organization of local governments in such manner as shall secure to them the rights, powers, privileges and immunities granted to them by this constitution.

(b) Subject to the bill of rights of local governments and other applicable provisions of this constitution, the legislature:

(1) Shall enact, and may from time to time amend, a statute of local governments granting to local governments powers including but not limited to those of local legislation and administration in addition to the powers vested in them by this article.

A power granted in such statute may be repealed, diminished, impaired or suspended only by enactment of a statute by the legislature with the approval of the governor at its regular session in one calendar year and the re-enactment and approval of such statute in the following calendar year.

(2) Shall have the power to act in relation to the property, affairs or government of any local government only by general law, or by special law only (a) on request of two-thirds of the total membership of its legislative body or on request of its chief executive officer concurred in by a majority of such membership, or (b), except in the case of the city of New York, on certificate of necessity from the governor reciting facts which in the judgment of the governor constitute an emergency requiring enactment of such law and, in such latter case, with theconcurrence of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the
legislature.

(3) Shall have the power to confer on local governments powers not relating to their property, affairs or government including but not limited to those of local legislation and administration, in addition to those otherwise granted by or pursuant to this article, and to withdraw or restrict such additional powers.

© In addition to powers granted in the statute of local governments or any other law, (i) [u]every local government shall have power to adopt and amend local laws not inconsistent with the provisions of this constitution or any general law relating to its property, affairs or government and, (ii) every local government shall have power to adopt and amend local laws not inconsistent with the provisions of this constitution or any general law relating to the following subjects, whether or not they relate to the property, affairs or government of such local government, except to the extent that the legislature shall restrict the adoption of such a local law relating to other than the property, affairs or government of such local government:

(1) The powers, duties, qualifications, number, mode of selection and removal, terms of office, compensation, hours of work, protection, welfare and safety of its officers and employees, except that cities and towns shall not have such power with respect to members of the legislative body of the county in their capacities as county officers.

(2) In the case of a city, town or village, the membership and composition of its legislative body.

(3) The transaction of its business.

(4) The incurring of its obligations, except that local laws relating to financing by the issuance of evidences of indebtedness by such local government shall be consistent with laws enacted by the legislature.

(5) The presentation, ascertainment and discharge of claims against it.

(6) The acquisition, care, management and use of its highways, roads, streets, avenues and property.

(7) The acquisition of its transit facilities and the ownership and operation thereof.

(8) The levy, collection and administration of local taxes authorized by the legislature and of assessments for local improvements, consistent with laws enacted by the legislature.

(9) The wages or salaries, the hours of work or labor, and the protection, welfare and safety of persons employed by any contractor or sub-contractor performing work, labor or services for it.

(10) The government, protection, order, conduct, safety, health and well-being of persons or property therein.

(d) Except in the case of a transfer of functions under an alternative form of county government, a local government shall not have power to adopt local laws which impair the powers of any other local government.

(e) The rights and powers of local governments specified in this section insofar as applicable to any county within the city of New York shall be vested in such city.

Existing laws to remain applicable; construction; definitions.

S 3. (a) Except as expressly provided, nothing in this article shall restrict or impair any power of the legislature in relation to:

(1) The maintenance, support or administration of the public school system, as required or provided by article XI of this constitution, or any retirement system pertaining to such public school system,

(2) The courts as required or provided by article VI of this constitution, and

(3) Matters other than the property, affairs or government of a local
government.

(b) The provisions of this article shall not affect any existing valid provisions of acts of the legislature or of local legislation and such provisions shall continue in force until repealed, amended, modified or superseded in accordance with the provisions of this constitution.

© Rights, powers, privileges and immunities granted to local governments by this article shall be liberally construed.

(d) Whenever used in this article the following terms shall mean or include:

(1) "General law. " A law which in terms and in effect applies alike to all counties, all counties other than those wholly included within a city, all cities, all towns or all villages.

(2) "Local government. " A county, city, town or village.

(3) "People. " Persons entitled to vote as provided in section one of article two of this constitution.

(4) "Special law. " A law which in terms and in effect applies to one or more, but not all, counties, counties other than those wholly included within a city, cities, towns or villages.

[Livyjr]

If Eliot Spitzer looks right at the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, and he tells them as New York State Attorney General that in New York State, they ain't doodly-squat, what really can they do?

Send in federal authorities to restore order in the State of New York?

And what order would that be, anyway, Livyjr, someone asks me from off-stage?

Well, my answer would be that nebulous thing called the "GREATER GOOD", which is expressed in quite clear and concrete terms and language in the New York State Constitution, and specifically in sections 4 and 5 of Article XIV, entitled "CONSERVATION", and section 3 of Article XVII, entitled "SOCIAL WELFARE".

And here come the howls of derision!

Listen to them, for a moment if you would, because they are very important to understanding where this CONSTITUTIONAL CASE in here is going, and how it affects you, even if you are living in Arkansas, or Texas, or Tenessee, and not New York.

Right now, most of the derision would be, and is, directed at Article XVII of the New York State Constitution, which is entitled "SOCIAL WELFARE".

CONSERVATIVES, of course, feel that this is a LIBERAL ENCROACHMENT on their rights, by the LIBERALS, who in CONSERVATIVE parlance, "hi-jacked" the New York State Constitution, unlawfully, which to the CONSERVATIVES, makes the provisions of section 3 especially of Article XVII, "UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE" when it is applied in such a way as to limit their profits from speculation in land in New York State!

And to all of you people out there struggling to keep up with this discussion, believe me, I fully understand where you are coming from, and yet, IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS AMERICAN CITIZENS to know the law, and to obey it at all times, or so we are told anyway, when the truth of the matter is that most of us haven't the slightest idea what the "law" really is, outside of go thirty in a thirty-mile-an-hour zone, unless you want a traffic ticket, which of course, can always be "fixed", if you have but the means to do so!

And most of us do not have the time, or the inclination, to know the law, UNLESS ....

Unless it is OUR feet that are being stood on, and by then, IT SI SIMPLY TOO LATE!

Harm has then been done!

In my area, a while ago, for example, I became aware that the local Town Planning Board chairman, another land surveyor licensed by the State of New York who was purporting to be a "land subdivision specialist", was surveying the property of his clients in such a way as to make their land bigger by pushing the boundary lines over onto the property of the adjoiners, to their detriment.

I first came aware of this when I ran into an older man who owned property right next to a controversial development in the Town being done by this land surveyor sitting as Town of Poestenkill Planning Board Chairman, reviewing his own work so that he could then approve it on behalf of the town, and this man was down in Town Hall wringing his hands to the Town Supervisor who had put the surveyor on the Planning Board in the first place.

His issue, which the Town Supervisor completely disregarded, was that in laying out the subdivision which the land surveyor would then "certify" on behalf of the town, the land surveyor had included quite a few acres of his land in the subdivision, by moving the property line of the subdivision some sixty feet over onto his land!

"Prove it", said the supervisor!

"Prove it, and then take us to court, if you can!"

And of course, he couldn't, in actuality, as to do so was beyond not only his comprehension of the situation that he was really in, but his means as well, and so, the game went on, until one day, low and behold, there were survey markers over onto OUR land, put there by this same land surveyor, as he was surveying the neighbor's land for possible subdivision.

This, of course, flipped my father right out, and it had him helpless for awhile, in a state of apoplexy, that someone could just steal your land in this manner, right out in plain sight of everybody, with nobody doing a damn thing to stop this theft by this man, to OUR detriment.

As for me, I had assumed some time before that it was only a matter of time before this "development specialist" got around to stealing a chunk of OUR land, just by process of elimination as to who was left in the town after the last victim got skinned, and so, knowing the law, I began to prepare to beat this guy by first going down to the County Courthouse, and getting the deeds for every property adjoining OURS, back to 1790, and then, by meticulously reading over those deeds, to find common landmarks, and by then going out and clearing all the property lines, so that we could get another land surveyor to come in and verify that the first land surveyor had altered OUR property lines.

That cost some $2,000, back in the 1980's, BUT .....

We ended up not having to get a lawyer to fight this battle for us, which was what was crushing all these other people in our town being robbed from by this guy, BECAUSE our surveyor was able to back this guy in a corner, just with the threat of a court fight, based upon the overwhelming nature of OUR evidence to his, which was none at all!

And so, he had to eat a big dose of crow, and re-do the neighbor's maps, which upset the neighbor, BUT SO WHAT?

In the end, of course, nothing ever did happen legally to this one land surveyor, and it cost us $2,000, in essence, to "buy" back our own land by the expedient of having to prove one more time that we owned it in the first place!

But, we did retain our land, despite the cost, unlike this other man, who lost his, because he was unable himself to legally defend his own rights, and then ended up still paying taxes on the land, as the theft of the actual land did not as a result diminish his apparent "on paper" acreage for taxation purposes!

SO!

If you live somewhere, and you have no ideas at all what laws, or constitutional provisions might affect you in your own community, how can you be an effective citizen?

Or should you have to be, if someone else is already doing your "citizenship duty" for you, like this land surveyor, say?

And is there anyone out there in OUR America who would voluntarily hand off control over your property and health and well-being to another, to watch over for you, like the land surveyor who is surveying your neighbor's parcel for subdivision, or maybe the corporation down the road who cares enough about you and yours, so as to limit the chemicals it injects into your drinking water, because you are such a nice guy, or soccer mom?

[Livyjr]

And to all of you people out there struggling to keep up with this discussion, believe me, I fully understand where you are coming from, and yet, IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS AMERICAN CITIZENS to know the law, and to obey it at all times, or so we are told anyway, when the truth of the matter is that most of us haven't the slightest idea what the "law" really is, outside of go thirty in a thirty-mile-an-hour zone, unless you want a traffic ticket, which of course, can always be "fixed", if you have but the means to do so!

And most of us do not have the time, or the inclination, to know the law, UNLESS ....

Unless it is OUR feet that are being stood on, and by then, IT SI SIMPLY TOO LATE!

Harm has then been done!

SO!

If you live somewhere, and you have no ideas at all what laws, or constitutional provisions might affect you in your own community, how can you be an effective citizen?

People oftentimes express to me a sentiment they picked up from God knows where, that it is not our place as ordinary American citizens to know the law, that that is why we have "representatives", and that OUR job as citizens is to do what we are told, and to be thankful we have any liberties at all, and where on earth does any of that come from, I wonder, since everything that I know about citizenship responsibilities here in OUR America was taught to me, by my elders, in my own community, and it never included such stuff as that, which makes us into chattel, or "possessions", much more than it does anything else, and especially, that sentiment robs us of the very essence of OUR American-ness, which is LIBERTY, and the right to self-government, here in OUR America, as is expressed in Article IX of the New York State Constitution, the Bill of Rights of local government.

"You are a part of something, and your job, while young and in school, is to learn what that something is, and how it functions, so that when it is time, you can go out there and be a functioning, productive member of that something, as one of its citizens"!

And that starts and ends with the Constitution, at least as I was taught citzenship, here in OUR America!

DUTY, and RESPONSIBILITY, and no days off in the doing of them, is what I was taught, anyway, and so it still goes, with me!

BUT .....

That is just me, I guess, as citizens that I run into, by and large, have no conception at all as to what rights and responsibilities they really have as American citizens.

None at all!

And does that in turn then affect the "QUALITY" of government that we end up with, here in OUR America?

A question for OUR times, if there ever was one!

[Livyjr]

"Constitutions assign rights to individuals and impose duties on the government to regulate the  government's actions to protect them."

"It is the failure to fulfill a stated constitutional duty which may support a claim for damages in a constitutional tort action."

"The underlying rationale for the decision, in simplest terms, is that constitutional guarantees are worthy of protection on their own terms without being linked to some common-law or statutory tort, and that the courts have the obligation to enforce these rights by ensuring that each individual receives an adequate remedy for violation of a constitutional duty."

"If the remedy is not forthcoming from the political branches of government, then the courts must provide it by recognizing a damage remedy against the violators much the same as the courts earlier recognized and developed equitable remedies to enjoin unconstitutional actions."

"Implicit in this reasoning is the premise that the Constitution is a source of positive law, not merely a set of limitations on government."

"The damage remedy has been recognized historically as the appropriate remedy for the invasion of personal interests in liberty, indeed, damage remedies already exist for similar violations of the Federal Constitution."

"Those created by Congress and the Supreme Court, however, fail to reach State action though it is on the local level that most law enforcement functions are performed and the greatest danger of official misconduct exists."

"By recognizing a narrow remedy for violations of sections 11 and 12 of article I of the State Constitution, we provide appropriate protection against official misconduct at the State level."

Ricky Brown et al. v. State of New York, 89 NY2d 172 (NYS Ct. of Appeals 1996) (emphasis added)

PREAMBLE to the New York State Constitution, circa 1777:

WE THE PEOPLE of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for OUR freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.

The Constitution of the United States of America

Preamble circa 1787:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

People oftentimes express to me a sentiment they picked up from God knows where, that it is not our place as ordinary American citizens to know the law, that that is why we have "representatives", and that OUR job as citizens is to do what we are told, and to be thankful we have any liberties at all, and where on earth does any of that come from, I wonder, since everything that I know about citizenship responsibilities here in OUR America was taught to me, by my elders, in my own community, and it never included such stuff as that, which makes us into chattel, or "possessions", much more than it does anything else, and especially, that sentiment robs us of the very essence of OUR American-ness, which is LIBERTY, and the right to self-government, here in OUR America, as is expressed in Article IX of the New York State Constitution, the Bill of Rights of local government.

"You are a part of something, and your job, while young and in school, is to learn what that something is, and how it functions, so that when it is time, you can go out there and be a functioning, productive member of that something, as one of its citizens"!

And that starts and ends with the Constitution, at least as I was taught citzenship, here in OUR America!

DUTY, and RESPONSIBILITY, and no days off in the doing of them, is what I was taught, anyway, and so it still goes, with me!

BUT .....

By 1787, the war of Independence with England was long over, but peace as we know it today in OUR America was not yet established, because the Articles of Confederation between the thirteen original colonies of America which had served them in time of war, were no longer effective to deal with the peace that succeeded that war against tyranny, and so, something had to be done, and done quickly, or there was going to be war between the states, which there was to be anyway, but that was yet in the future, and we are now still in 1787, when the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, with George Washington as its presiding officer, was just starting to meet, to figure out how to regulate commerce between the thirteen sovereign states, and to see to the mutual defense!

At that time, 1787, New Jersey had trade tariffs in place to protect it from depradations by rapacious New York, and Virginia was talking of seizing the ships of the other states, and Rhode Island was being considered for dismemberment and re-apportionment among its larger neighbors, while in western Massachusetts, there had been an up-rising of farmers known as Shay's Rebellion, which had to be put down with force, by the state.

And no one really knew what to do, as there was no real sound history or theory of government to go by, at that time.

All that was known by OUR forebears in 1787 was that what binds people together in a war against a common enemy, in that case, England, ceases to be glue when peace is achieved, and so, something different was needed, but what?

At that time, REPUBLICS had a history of failure, and there was not much else to go with, since the tyranny of a monarchy far removed from the will of the People was the only other real alternative, and that had already been rejected, by the Americans, in the war for Independence with England.

All these hundreds of years later, I suppose, most of that means nothing to us now, except when it comes to OUR Constitutional rights as Americans, and then, that history is vital to an understanding of not only where we are right now in OUR America, but also, as to where we might be going, as the EXECUTIVE in OUR own America gains more and more power, and at the same time, becomes more and more removed from us, the people of this nation, who are the United States Constitution personified!

In the original Constitutions of the original states, those formed at the time of independence, the tyranny of the EXECUTIVE was effectively checked by making the LEGISLATIVE branch the branch of OUR government where the power of the people was to reside, forever!

The potential for the tyranny of the English Parliament all those miles removed from the people in the former English-style government rejected by the American people in the war for independence to be re-created here in OUR America was itself checked in the new American states, and especially here, in New York State, by vesting power to the people, right in their own communities, and the CONSTITUTION was to be a further check on both the EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE, by having in place an independent judiciary, to enforce the Constitution, which function in the State of New York today is still vested in the New York State Court of Appeals, the highest court in this land, up here.

The point of this, and I think it is important to us as citizens of OUR America, is that when the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention met in 1787, IT WAS NOT TO REPLACE the Constitutional authority of the states with a central Constitutional authority, as some CONSERVATIVES are arguing today; to the contrary, it was to simply find a way to keep the states together in a union that could withstand peace, as well as war, and here, the combined talents of Thomas Jefferson in Europe and James Madison in Philadelphia were to come into play, and what we have inherited today, in OUR America, in terms of constitutional government, is in large part due to them, and them alone, to get the process started that proceeds forward, right to OUR very time, where OUR appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals could not even be happening, but for their belief in US all those hundreds of years ago now, the "posterity" that the PREAMBLE to the United States Constitution talks of above, TO SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO!

And so, America, whether we know it or not, or whether we believe it or not, WE, the people, had a responsibility to the continuing future thrust on us back in 1787, and now, we up here, at least, are being called upon, by Divine Providence, I would say, to "tend to that garden of LIBERTY", one more time, to pull from it the weeds and thorns of tyranny that are always wont to grow up again in that garden, one more time, the very minute that we are distracted, which is often, and always!

And so ....

To be continued!

[jeffmoskin]

The point of this, and I think it is important to us as citizens of OUR America, is that when the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention met in 1787, IT WAS NOT TO REPLACE the Constitutional authority of the states with a central Constitutional authority, as some CONSERVATIVES are arguing today; to the contrary, it was to simply find a way to keep the states together in a union that could withstand peace, as well as war, and here, the combined talents of Thomas Jefferson in Europe and James Madison in Philadelphia were to come into play, and what we have inherited today, in OUR America, in terms of constitutional government, is in large part due to them, and them alone, to get the process started that proceeds forward, right to OUR very time, where OUR appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals could not even be happening, but for their belief in US all those hundreds of years ago now, the "posterity" that the PREAMBLE to the United States Constitution talks of above, TO SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO!

Isn't it interesting that the "so-called" CONSERVATIVES of today are calling for central Constitutional authority, whereas a generation ago they were calling for "States' Rights"

How times do change.

And how today's CONSERVATIVES really aren't.

[Livyjr]

Isn't it interesting that the "so-called" CONSERVATIVES of today are calling for central Constitutional authority, whereas a generation ago they were calling for "States' Rights"

How times do change.

And how today's CONSERVATIVES really aren't.

You have hit upon an important point here, jeffmoskin, with your observation above about these "generational changes" in what this alleged "conservatism" in OUR America is supposed to be all about on any given day of the week!

And what is most interesting of all to me, jeffmoskin is that through the miracle of this internet forum, here we all are, like Sam Adams, and Paul Revere, and James Madison before us, right where the rubber meets the road, constitutionally speaking!

The HERITAGE of America lives!

Through our efforts!

And by the quality of OUR own efforts to keep OUR Constitutions alive, what posterity inherits from us will be measured!

SO!

By the quality of OUR efforts, let us keep that cup as full as it was when we came into this world all those years ago, and let us grant to OUR posterity the same light of reason and law that we inherited from OUR forebears in liberty, here in OUR America.

Hence this thread!

Hence this appeal!

[Livyjr]

And good morning, America, and the candid world, as well.

What we are talking about in here is real, and it involves ordinary, garden-variety Americans like yourselves who are standing up for what THEY BELIVE, based upon a reading of OUR United States Constitution, and the laws that have derived therefrom, are the rights of such ordinary Americans, pursuant to the provisions of the United States Constitution, specifically with respect to equal protection of law for "dissenters", here in OUR America, and due process of law, when the "state" decides that it is going to "punish" people in OUR America who do stand up for their rights, as they pertain in the State of New York, anyway, to protection and promotion of the public health!

This "battle", or "struggle" pits public health protection for individuals and their families against profits for the LAND DEVELOPMENT "sector" of America, and has on the side of LAND DEVELOPERS in this "struggle" such "giants" as New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, against a small group of mostly older Americans in Rensselaer County, in the State of New York.

What we are doing is keeping a diary, or web-log, I suppose, of the day-by-day developments in this case, which right now is headed to the Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals down in New York City, likely sometime before the fall, although that date is not yet known, as the Notice of Appeal to start that process was only just filed, and right now, the initial paperwork connected with that appeal is still being prepared and submitted to the Clerk of the Court down there to keep the ball rolling, as it were.

To us, the ones directly impacted by this matter, this is very serious stuff, indeed, and we are treating this as if OUR lives depended on each and every one of OUR actions, and where protection of the public health is concerned, we do not feel that we are far from the mark!

The feedback that we are getting from this thread is very valuable to us, as when this appeal is finally heard, WE CANNOT AFFORD TO BE AT ALL IMPRECISE IN OUR WORDS, AND IN OUR INTENT, which is to restore justice in the Town of Poestenkill, the County of Rensselaer, and by extension, the State of New York!

THE ONLY ONES IN OUR AMERICA WHO CAN REALLY PROTECT AND PRESERVE OUR CONSTITUTIONS IS US, THE CITIZENS OF OUR AMERICA, and it is time that we as a nation came to grips with that, and that is an underlying purpose of this thread, to explore OUR DUTIES as American citizens, instead of always dwelling on how "free" we are, for without CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS, we are not free at all!

It is merely an illusion!

SO!

Please, stay tuned.

Your continued interest is this subject is warmly appreciated!

[Livyjr]

THE ONLY ONES IN OUR AMERICA WHO CAN REALLY PROTECT AND PRESERVE OUR CONSTITUTIONS IS US, THE CITIZENS OF OUR AMERICA, and it is time that we as a nation came to grips with that, and that is an underlying purpose of this thread, to explore OUR DUTIES as American citizens, instead of always dwelling on how "free" we are, for without CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS, we are not free at all!

It is merely an illusion!

SO!

Please, stay tuned.

U.S. Constitution: Article III JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Article. III. Section 1.

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

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

Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;

--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;

--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;

--to Controversies between two or more States;

--between a State and Citizens of another State;

--between Citizens of different States;

--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and

--between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

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

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

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

Section 3.

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

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

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