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

[Livyjr]

And here I have to agree with you as well, jeffmoskin!

I think in that quote above that George W. Bush is saying exactly what he means, that in his interpretation of "government" here in OUR America, that the EXECUTIVE is in fact the JUDICIARY, all combined in one office, so that any person that he puts into place as a federal judge is nothing more than his designee, to do as he bids!

In that scheme, federal judges end up being like college quarterbacks on the college football team; they do not call the plays themselves, rather, they have the signals sent into them, play by play by play, and they just run the plays, as they are told to do!

That however, turns rule of law into rule by whim, and for us, here in OUR America, that is one giant step backwards for all of us, except the corrupt among us, and they will thrive in that environment, since it will be they and only they, who will be able to "afford" the price-tag set by the EXECUTIVE to obtain "justice" FROM the EXECUTIVE!

That is what makes this such a serious issue, at least to me, and it is serious because WE, the PEOPLE, are completely shut out of this process, and most of us do not even know it is happening, the process of actually putting federal judges on the bench, let alone what might be happening as that is done, which is to say how these individuals are even selected, beyond through partisan politics.

Secrecy in a democracy is incompatible with the very concept of democratic government, and so, whither justice in OUR America, when we, the people of OUR America, are absent from the process?

And this brings us to what is known in the State of New York as the "ESCAPA Covenant", whereby in 1991, through the chicanery of burying amendments to the New York State Mined Land Reclamation Law in a "budget bill", the Empire State Concrete and Aggregate Producers' Association, Inc. ("ESCAPA") was able to negotiate themselves a "deal" with the Governor of the State of New York at the time, that being Hon. Mario M. Cuomo, that essentially made them and their members "exempt" from the provisions of Section 4 of Article XIV of the New York State Constitution above, and thus, set off a series of lawsuits in the Town of Poestenkill in Rensselaer County that caused the Town, and the state of New York to ultimately remove the source of these lawsuits by this unconstitutional and illegal device of the "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN" that we are discussing in here, where to remove a witness against itself, the modern "state" can simply have one of its "doctors" declare the witness a "dangerous mental patient" and then order the New York State Police to transport the individual to a secure mental health facility or GULAG run by a CORPORATION willing to provide this "service" to the "state", in the interests of maintaining corporate cash flow, at the expense of the people of the state!

SO!

Please stay tuned for further developments!

[Livyjr]

And this brings us to what is known in the State of New York as the "ESCAPA Covenant", whereby in 1991, through the chicanery of burying amendments to the New York State Mined Land Reclamation Law in a "budget bill", the Empire State Concrete and Aggregate Producers' Association, Inc. ("ESCAPA") was able to negotiate themselves a "deal" with the Governor of the State of New York at the time, that being Hon. Mario M. Cuomo, that essentially made them and their members "exempt" from the provisions of Section 4 of Article XIV of the New York State Constitution above, and thus, set off a series of lawsuits in the Town of Poestenkill in Rensselaer County that caused the Town, and the state of New York to ultimately remove the source of these lawsuits by this unconstitutional and illegal device of the "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN" that we are discussing in here, where to remove a witness against itself, the modern "state" can simply have one of its "doctors" declare the witness a "dangerous mental patient" and then order the New York State Police to transport the individual to a secure mental health facility or GULAG run by a CORPORATION willing to provide this "service" to the "state", in the interests of maintaining corporate cash flow, at the expense of the people of the state!

SO!

Please stay tuned for further developments!

Good morning, America!

I hope everyone out there is having a safe and sane Memorial Day weekend, and I hope that people with family scattered about are getting an opportunity this week-end to spend some time together, which is a nice thing to be able to do, periodically, anyway.

As for us in here, what we are doing right now is some "back-filling", I suppose it could be called, where I am "deriving" a set of circumstances in the State of New York that has led a small group of persons in a small town in the State of New York to take on the "government" itself, IN COURT, for its abject failure to do its job, according to OUR state Constitution and laws, to protect OUR health, safety, and well-being, in OUR homes, on OUR land, which we are paying taxes on, for this alleged and supposed "protection" that we are then told that we are not "entitled" too, because someone else has "bid higher" to have us excluded!

As I run this thread, and for a long time actually, I have been aware of just how little we common citizens really do know about what is going on behind closed doors in OUR own town halls, let alone at the county, or state or national governmental levels, and some people like it that way, I suppose, since ignorance can be equated with temporary bliss, until the chickens come home to roost, anyway, and then the bill is presented, and even though we did not get to partake of the feast, well, we get to pay for it anyway, and this is where Constitutions really come into play, here in OUR America, except, by and large, we are completely ignorant about how that all goes together to do anything at all for us, and so, it don't!

The Constitution can be looked at in many senses as a closed gate on a path through an open field, where you are on your honor to stay on the path, and hence, if you don't have the key, you canot pass.

However, since the gate is surrounded by nothing but the field, well, you can just walk right on around the gate, and who is going to stop you, if you have no honor?

And this takes me back to my statement above about how Constitutions "force" us into a certain mode of conduct, which jeffmoskin challenged, and rightfully so, in my opinion anyway, since the manner in which I phrased the statement was meant to be thought-provoking, and so it did!

WHY DO ANY OF US BOTHER WITH SUCH THINGS AS CONSTITUTIONS, since nobody really knows what they are, anyway, and besides, who gives a Tinker's damn about the Constitution?

I know why I do, bother with it, that is, and that is that!

And that is just me, because ......

Because of my own experiences in life, especially in Viet Nam, where there was no law and no Constitution, which experience causes me to cleave even closer to OURS, over here, lest we too as a nation descend down to those depths where I have previously been, in a land with NO LAW AND NO CONSTITUTION!

JUST LIKE THE DAYS OF THE OLD WEST, except with automatic weapons, instead of six-guns!

Anybody out there for some of that IN YOUR BACKYARD?

I know other people in OUR America profess to be as concerned as I am as a common citizen with what is going on in OUR America over these last twenty years or so in terms of a gradual erosion in OUR Constitutional safeguards and protections, but only they, in their hearts, can know why that is, for themselves, and there is where we all are as citizens, as I see it, joined in a kind of "common cause" that really can never be "common", since no one thing, unless at the national level, ever affects all of us equally, and that is just how it is!

Which is to say that since we are a diverse people, spread over such a large landmass, in large part we don't even know each other exists, and even if we do, what affects any one of us at any given time, in terms of "constitutional protections and safeguards", WHERE WE ARE, is itself likely to be unknown to even the people down the street, let alone in the next county, or state, or region, what have you, and so ......

And so, as common American citizens, we are like a lot of small islands out here in this vast "sea" called America, seemingly unconnected, and without common grounds at all, just as was the case back in 1787, when America was only thirteen states occupying then what can be called a thin strip of OUR present-day America!

If we had no "commonality" as a PEOPLE at the time that OUR nation was formed, then perhaps it is simply an impossibility now that we have grown large that we will ever be able to find things in common to talk about, with respect to government and constitutions, as opposed to baseball and religion, where there is great unanimity of thought all across OUR America.

But to make a blanket assumption that we have nothing at all to talk about with respect to constitutions and government would be foolish on my part, anyway, and so, as an experiement in American citizenship which I have certainly never tried before, I have this thread going, as an experiment, just as on a day-to-day basis, OUR America itself is an experiment, which consists of each and every one of us as participants, and where the end results can never be known, or even predicted with any degree of certainty, because we are all random factors, and so, we do not lend ourselves readily to any kind of statistical analysis, at all!

In talking about the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia as I have been doing in here, I have used such phrases as "America's best minds", and when I do use words like that, I am forced to have to step back and wonder, because in truth, some of those people in the Constitutional Convention were just like the guy next door, and that is what America is really all about, to me, anyway!

WE ARE IT, AND IT IS US, and there never will be a scalple sharp enough to separate the two, or that is how it is supposed to be in theory, anyway, if not in actual practice!

According to how I was educated as a child here in OUR America at the close of WWII, it is my duty as an American citizen to bootstrap myself up to the level of the Tom Jeffersons, and George Washingtons and John Adams, etc., for the good of the nation, and if I cannot quite get there, well, then I am supposed to take comfort in the fact that my neighbor, or the guy or woman just down the road will have been born with more "gifts" than I, and so, their strength will come over to help sustain mine, and because of that, the nation will be stronger!

But what happens when the guy down the street really has the "gifts" of a Jefferson, or Madison, but has a desire to use them to tear down what Madison and company put in place, to protect us?

Can that happen, does anyone think?

Can there be people out there in OUR America who see OUR United States Constitution as an impediment to their being able to make the profits that they feel they need to have in their pockets so they can have the standard of living that they feel is befitting them and their "station" in life?

Suppose George Washington had felt that way?

He could have been a king, after all, but settled for being an American president, instead, for the good of the nation!

SO?

The example of a wise man?

Or the example of a fool?

Or is there no difference?

Stay tuned for further discussion!

Live!

And brought to you by real American people, to boot!

[jeffmoskin]

And here I have to agree with you as well, jeffmoskin!

I think in that quote above that George W. Bush is saying exactly what he means, that in his interpretation of "government" here in OUR America, that the EXECUTIVE is in fact the JUDICIARY, all combined in one office, so that any person that he puts into place as a federal judge is nothing more than his designee, to do as he bids!

In that scheme, federal judges end up being like college quarterbacks on the college football team; they do not call the plays themselves, rather, they have the signals sent into them, play by play by play, and they just run the plays, as they are told to do!

That however, turns rule of law into rule by whim, and for us, here in OUR America, that is one giant step backwards for all of us, except the corrupt among us, and they will thrive in that environment, since it will be they and only they, who will be able to "afford" the price-tag set by the EXECUTIVE to obtain "justice" FROM the EXECUTIVE!

That is what makes this such a serious issue, at least to me, and it is serious because WE, the PEOPLE, are completely shut out of this process, and most of us do not even know it is happening, the process of actually putting federal judges on the bench, let alone what might be happening as that is done, which is to say how these individuals are even selected, beyond through partisan politics.

Secrecy in a democracy is incompatible with the very concept of democratic government, and so, whither justice in OUR America, when we, the people of OUR America, are absent from the process?

Kind of gets back to your earlier quote from the Baron de Montesquieu:

The Spirit of the Laws

By Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu

1748

In every government there are three sorts of power; the legislative; in respect to things dependent on the law of nations; and the executive, in regard to things that depend on the civil law.

By the third, he punishes criminals, or determines the disputes that arise between individuals.




And in Bushworld, there is no "Judicial Branch" but a "Punishment Branch."

[Livyjr]

Kind of gets back to your earlier quote from the Baron de Montesquieu:

The Spirit of the Laws

By Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu

1748

In every government there are three sorts of power; the legislative; in respect to things dependent on the law of nations; and the executive, in regard to things that depend on the civil law.

By the third, he punishes criminals, or determines the disputes that arise between individuals.

And in Bushworld, there is no "Judicial Branch" but a "Punishment Branch."

And here, jeffmoskin, I think you are hitting a nail right on the head, here, with your analysis of this very situation!

"THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO NO WRONG, EVER!"

Royal government in France in 1748!

Through the eyes of Baron de Montesquieu, who was there to witness and observe!

But by 1787, we now had OUR own independent experience of Royal government, and so, in the Constitutional Convention, Montesquieu was taken with a grain of salt, as to that particular sentiment, WHICH WAS TRUE OF KINGS, WHICH IS TO SAY, ROYAL OR MONARCHICAL PEROGATIVE AS THE EXECUTIVE!

Unchecked, unlimited power!

Just look in the Declaration of Independence, which document set in motion that chain of events that led directly to the adoption of the New York State Constitution on April 20, 1777:

"FOR TRANSPORTING US BEYOND SEAS TO BE TRIED FOR PRETENDED OFFENSES!"

There was Montesquieu's system of the Executive being also the judicial gone completely awry, and as a result, IN OUR AMERICA, THAT SYSTEM WAS TOSSED RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW by the founding fathers in the United States Constitution, BY MY VIEW OF THINGS, as I understand them from my own continual study of this history, which I could probably spend a couple of lifetimes researching, it is so extensive!

NEVER AGAIN THAT FOR US!

"THIS GOVERNMENT TOO SHALL NOT BE CAPABLE OF REPRESSING THE PEOPLES OF THE VARIOUS STATES IN OUR AMERICA!"

That is what OUR United States Constitution says, to us common folks, and that is by intent and by design, precisely because each of the thirteen states that ratified the United States Constitution had felt the lash of what happens when Montesquieu's system goes bad!

And now, through George W. Bush, and thanks to the complicity of Bill Frist in the endeavor, we are right back to Montesquieu, and the power of the executive, through HIS courts to punish the people - whenever!

That is what this case is really all about, in essence, which is a delegation of alleged "executive authority" down to the State of New York from Washington, D.C., through the federal bench in the Northern District of New York to allow the "state's" executive, REPUBLICAN George Pataki, to use his own Montesquieu-esque "EXECUTIVE JUDICIAL POWER TO PUNISH" to have people like the PLAINTIFF herein punished for the act of speaking out against the "state", which can do no wrong, by EXECUTIVE JUDICIAL DECREE!

If by EXECUTIVE JUDICIAL DECREE, the "state" can do no wrong, then anyone who challenges the "state" must be crazy, which is to say, dangerously insane!

And so ....

And it is a very slick and a very dangerous policy, jeffmoskin, because one can never know when one has just been denounced, and is about to be the object of a SWAT team assault on one's home, so as to transport one to the local GULAG for some brain-scrambling!

As you have observed ......

[Livyjr]

And here, jeffmoskin, I think you are hitting a nail right on the head, here, with your analysis of this very situation!

"THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO NO WRONG, EVER!"

Royal government in France in 1748!

Through the eyes of Baron de Montesquieu, who was there to witness and observe!

But by 1787, we now had OUR own independent experience of Royal government, and so, in the Constitutional Convention, Montesquieu was taken with a grain of salt, as to that particular sentiment, WHICH WAS TRUE OF KINGS, WHICH IS TO SAY, ROYAL OR MONARCHICAL PEROGATIVE AS THE EXECUTIVE!

Unchecked, unlimited power!

Just look in the Declaration of Independence, which document set in motion that chain of events that led directly to the adoption of the New York State Constitution on April 20, 1777:

"FOR TRANSPORTING US BEYOND SEAS TO BE TRIED FOR PRETENDED OFFENSES!"

There was Montesquieu's system of the Executive being also the judicial gone completely awry, and as a result, IN OUR AMERICA, THAT SYSTEM WAS TOSSED RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW by the founding fathers in the United States Constitution, BY MY VIEW OF THINGS, as I understand them from my own continual study of this history, which I could probably spend a couple of lifetimes researching, it is so extensive!

NEVER AGAIN THAT FOR US!

"THIS GOVERNMENT TOO SHALL NOT BE CAPABLE OF REPRESSING THE PEOPLES OF THE VARIOUS STATES IN OUR AMERICA!"

That is what OUR United States Constitution says, to us common folks, and that is by intent and by design, precisely because each of the thirteen states that ratified the United States Constitution had felt the lash of what happens when Montesquieu's system goes bad!

And now, through George W. Bush, and thanks to the complicity of Bill Frist in the endeavor, we are right back to Montesquieu, and the power of the executive, through HIS courts to punish the people - whenever!

That is what this case is really all about, in essence, which is a delegation of alleged "executive authority" down to the State of New York from Washington, D.C., through the federal bench in the Northern District of New York to allow the "state's" executive, REPUBLICAN George Pataki, to use his own Montesquieu-esque "EXECUTIVE JUDICIAL POWER TO PUNISH" to have people like the PLAINTIFF herein punished for the act of speaking out against the "state", which can do no wrong, by EXECUTIVE JUDICIAL DECREE!

If by EXECUTIVE JUDICIAL DECREE, the "state" can do no wrong, then anyone who challenges the "state" must be crazy, which is to say, dangerously insane!

And so ....

And it is a very slick and a very dangerous policy, jeffmoskin, because one can never know when one has just been denounced, and is about to be the object of a SWAT team assault on one's home, so as to transport one to the local GULAG for some brain-scrambling!

As you have observed ......

And this brings us back to a point that people continually quiz me about, which is this relationship between Eliot Spitzer and George Pataki in connection with this matter, where Spitzer's client in this matter is one of Pataki's alleged "soldiers".

People say to me, "oh, Livyjr, you have to be mistaken, here!"

"Eliot Spitzer and George Pataki are bitter rivals", they say, and so, according to that theory of "politics", Spitzer would never sanction something that Pataki did, like this, especially, where Pataki's alleged "soldier" is himself alleged to have made and filed a number of false reports with various police agencies in the State of New York and the federal level, as well in order to have this disabled veteran PLAINTIFF incarcerated in a secure mental facility, as a punishment for speaking out against Rensselaer County government in 2001!

I reply, "PRECISELY!"

That's the point!

THEY ARE RIVALS!

They are rivals for power, and Eliot Spitzer wants what George Pataki now has, which is the use of this PSYCHIATRIC TAKEDOWN as a club with which to have his own political enemies crushed, without a word being said in opposition!

SO!

Eliot Spitzer is certainly not defending George Pataki in this, at all!

Eliot Spitzer is defending that Montesquieu-esque "EXECUTIVE JUDICIAL POWER TO HARM" that Pataki now possesses, in the hopes that he, Spitzer, will take the State House, and then that power will be his!

"Always expand the power of your office over that which your predecessor had!"

That is called the Albany Rule up here, and its continual practice over these last ten or so years up here is what has led us to this present situation involving these constitutional issues that I am discussing in here, which stems from an abuse of the EXECUTIVE JUDICIAL POWER TO PUNISH in the REPUBLICAN County of Rensselaer on August 22, 2001!

[Livyjr]

And here, jeffmoskin, I think you are hitting a nail right on the head, here, with your analysis of this very situation!

"THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO NO WRONG, EVER!"

Royal government in France in 1748!

Through the eyes of Baron de Montesquieu, who was there to witness and observe!

But by 1787, we now had OUR own independent experience of Royal government, and so, in the Constitutional Convention, Montesquieu was taken with a grain of salt, as to that particular sentiment, WHICH WAS TRUE OF KINGS, WHICH IS TO SAY, ROYAL OR MONARCHICAL PEROGATIVE AS THE EXECUTIVE!

Unchecked, unlimited power!

Just look in the Declaration of Independence, which document set in motion that chain of events that led directly to the adoption of the New York State Constitution on April 20, 1777:

"FOR TRANSPORTING US BEYOND SEAS TO BE TRIED FOR PRETENDED OFFENSES!"

There was Montesquieu's system of the Executive being also the judicial gone completely awry, and as a result, IN OUR AMERICA, THAT SYSTEM WAS TOSSED RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW by the founding fathers in the United States Constitution, BY MY VIEW OF THINGS, as I understand them from my own continual study of this history, which I could probably spend a couple of lifetimes researching, it is so extensive!

NEVER AGAIN THAT FOR US!

"THIS GOVERNMENT TOO SHALL NOT BE CAPABLE OF REPRESSING THE PEOPLES OF THE VARIOUS STATES IN OUR AMERICA!"

Way back in the beginnings of OUR America, in 1787, eleven years after the Declaration of Independence had been signed and ratified by the thirteen colonies, what is now OUR America was in grave danger, then, of a complete and total collapse, as states vied with states, and intrigued with foreign powers, allegedly, anyway, for advantage over their neighbors, such as New York and weaker New Jersey, for example.

As a result, the thirteen colonies, or people in OUR America at that time in the colonies, called for a Constitutional Convention that was originally thought to be for the sole purpose of amending the then-existing Articles of Confederation which had brought the fledgling colonies through the War for Independence with England, but instead, that Convention was to produce an entirely new document, OUR United States Constitution, but that was yet to come!

During that Constitutional Convention in the summer months of 1787, in Philadelphia, in modern-day Pennsylvania, there was a point reached of where the Convention itself was in grave danger of collapse, with "big states" like Virginia and Pennsylvania, arrayed against "small states" like Maryland and Delaware and New Jersey, and no possible grounds for agreement in sight, and it was at this point that Dr. Ben Franklin made this speech in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 about "Divine Providence" in OUR America that I find to be especially relevant in here, right now, where we are talking about the difference in KNOWLEDGE of, and beliefs about "government" that existed, here in OUR America, between Montesquieu's time, and the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia:

"The small progress we have made, after four or five weeks close attendance and continual reasonings with each other - OUR DIFFERENT SENTIMENTS ON ALMOST EVERY QUESTION .... producing almost as many noes as ayes, is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding."

"We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it."

"WE HAVE GONE BACK TO ANCIENT HISTORY FOR MODELS OF GOVERNMENT, AND EXAMINED THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF THOSE REPUBLICS WHICH, HAVING BEEN FORMED WITH THE SEEDS OF THEIR OWN DISSOLUTION, NOW NO LONGER EXIST!"

"And we have viewed modern states all around Europe, but find none of their constitutions suitable to OUR circumstances."

"In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, HOW HAS IT HAPPENED, SIR (this to George Washington, in the "chair" as presiding officer), THAT WE HAVE NOT HITHERTO ONCE THOUGHT OF HUMBLY APPLYING TO THE FATHER OF LIGHTS TO ILLUMINATE OUR UNDERSTANDINGS?"

Here, Dr. Franklin reminded the members of the Constitutional Convention, and us, as well, HOW, at the begiining of the war with England, the Continental Congress itself had had prayers FOR DIVINE PROTECTION, in the very room where the Constitutional Convention was then sitting!

Said Franklin to George Washington, and the assemblage in that room in 1787:

"OUR PRAYERS, SIR, WERE HEARD, and they were graciously answered!"

"ALL OF US WHO WERE ENGAGED IN THE STRUGGLE MUST HAVE OBSERVED FREQUENT INSTANCES OF A SUPERINTENDING PROVIDENCE, IN OUR FAVOR!"

"To that kind PROVIDENCE, we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace ON THE MEANS OF ESTABLISHING OUR FUTURE NATIONAL FELICITY!"

"AND HAVE WE NOW FORGOTTON THAT POWERFUL FRIEND?"

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, AND THE LONGER I LIVE, THE MORE CONVINCING PROOFS I SEE OF THIS TRUTH - that God governs in the affairs of men!"

end quotes

And so .....

Is that still true?

WAS IT EVER TRUE?

And if so ......

[Livyjr]

And here, jeffmoskin, I think you are hitting a nail right on the head, here, with your analysis of this very situation!

"THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO NO WRONG, EVER!"

Royal government in France in 1748!

Through the eyes of Baron de Montesquieu, who was there to witness and observe!

But by 1787, we now had OUR own independent experience of Royal government, and so, in the Constitutional Convention, Montesquieu was taken with a grain of salt, as to that particular sentiment, WHICH WAS TRUE OF KINGS, WHICH IS TO SAY, ROYAL OR MONARCHICAL PEROGATIVE AS THE EXECUTIVE!

Unchecked, unlimited power!

Just look in the Declaration of Independence, which document set in motion that chain of events that led directly to the adoption of the New York State Constitution on April 20, 1777:

"FOR TRANSPORTING US BEYOND SEAS TO BE TRIED FOR PRETENDED OFFENSES!"

There was Montesquieu's system of the Executive being also the judicial gone completely awry, and as a result, IN OUR AMERICA, THAT SYSTEM WAS TOSSED RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW by the founding fathers in the United States Constitution, BY MY VIEW OF THINGS, as I understand them from my own continual study of this history, which I could probably spend a couple of lifetimes researching, it is so extensive!

NEVER AGAIN THAT FOR US!

"THIS GOVERNMENT TOO SHALL NOT BE CAPABLE OF REPRESSING THE PEOPLES OF THE VARIOUS STATES IN OUR AMERICA!"

And these were there to observe as well; just as we are here today:

From The Avalon Project at Yale Law School.

The Lillian Goldman Law Library in Memory of Sol Goldman

The Constitution of New York : April 20, 1777

IN CONVENTION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THIS STATE OF NEW YORK,

Kingston, 20th April, 1777.

Whereas the many tyrannical and oppressive usurpations of the King and Parliament of Great Britain on the rights and liberties of the people of the American colonies had reduced them to the necessity of introducing a government by congresses and committees, as temporary expedients, and to exist no longer than the grievances of the people should remain without redress;

And whereas the congress of the colony of New York did, on the thirty-first day of May now last past, resolve as follows, viz:

"Whereas the present government of this colony, by congress and committees, was instituted while the former government, under the Crown of Great Britain, existed in full force, and was established for the sole purpose of opposing the usurpation of the British Parliament, and was intended to expire on a reconciliation with Great Britain, which it was then apprehended would soon take place, but is now considered as remote and uncertain;

"And whereas many and great inconveniences attend the said mode of government by congress and committees, as of necessity, in many instances, legislative, judicial, and executive powers have been vested therein, especially since the dissolution of the former government by the abdication of the late governor and the exclusion of this colony from the protection of the King of Great Britain;

"And whereas the Continental Congress did resolve as followeth, to wit:

" 'Whereas His Britannic Majesty, in conjunction with the lords and commons of Great Britain, has, by a late act of Parliament, excluded the inhabitants of these united colonies from the protection of his Crown;

and whereas no answers whatever to the humble petition of the colonies for redress of grievances and reconciliation with Great Britain has been, or is likely to be, given, but the whole force of that kingdom, aided by foreign mercenaries, is to be exerted for the destruction of the good people of these colonies;

and whereas it appears absolutely irreconcilable to reason and good conscience for the people of these colonies now to take the oaths and affirmations necessary for the support of any government under the Crown of Great Britain, and it is necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority under the said Crown should be totally suppressed, and all the powers of government exerted under the authority of the people of the colonies for the preservation of internal peace, virtue, and good order, as well as for the defense of our lives, liberties, and properties, against the hostile invasions and cruel depredations of our enemies:

Therefore,

" 'Resolved, That it be recommended to the respective assemblies and conventions of the United colonies, where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs has been hitherto established, to adopt such government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular, and America in general.'

Document Information

The Avalon Project : The Constitution of New York : April 20, 1777

The document is located at this URL : http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/ny01.htm.

The document was last corrected for conversion errors or the markup was updated on: 05/29/2005 16:31:14

The Lillian Goldman Law Library in Memory of Sol Goldman.
127 Wall Street
New Haven, Connecticut 06520

[Livyjr]

And these were there to observe as well; just as we are here today:

From The Avalon Project at Yale Law School.

The Lillian Goldman Law Library in Memory of Sol Goldman

The Constitution of New York : April 20, 1777

IN CONVENTION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THIS STATE OF NEW YORK,

Kingston, 20th April, 1777.

Whereas the many tyrannical and oppressive usurpations of the King and Parliament of Great Britain on the rights and liberties of the people of the American colonies had reduced them to the necessity of introducing a government by congresses and committees, as temporary expedients, and to exist no longer than the grievances of the people should remain without redress;

And so, here, for me, anyway, as a citizen of the State of New York, is where it all begins, and I guess I am curious as to how people in other states in OUR America see things here, where this part of OUR American history is in many ways fractured, and so, does not apply to all of us equally, or does it?

In another thread, where I was talking about living near the Saratoga Battlefield, I was informed by another poster that I was acting arrogant about that, sort of claiming, to him, a superior patriotism because of my proximity to Saratoga, and that is not the case at all!

Or at least, not to me, since Saratoga is a direct part of this heritage of LIBERTY in OUR America FOR ALL OF US, whether we know of that battle or not, that we are talking about in here.

And it is not about patriotism anyway, that we are talking about in here; to the contrary, it is about citizenship, and I for one think that there is and can be, and maybe should be, a vast difference between the two, with citizenship being an internal thing that we practice within OUR communities, while patriotism is external, as in us standing up for America when talking with other citizens of the world who are not themselves Americans!

In any event .....

In fact, Saratoga took place at all, and we won that turning point battle, because OUR forebears were fighting for this thing called LIBERTY, and to them, these words from 1777 above which may sound trite to us today, such as the "many tyrannical and oppressive usurpations of the King and Parliament of Great Britain on the rights and liberties of the people of the American colonies", were quite real, and so, were the impetus to fight to win, as the other alternative, losing, was just not acceptable, for the consequences of harm to these early Americans that losing at Saratoga would have entailed!

And perhaps, on this Memorial Day weekend, it is fitting that we are having this conversation in here, on where we all came from, as a nation on this earth today, and how that all really came to be, to OUR benefit today, which perhaps we take for granted, as though it were simply OUR due, and not something instead that we ourselves have to work as American citizens to maintain!

And so ....

[Livyjr]

And perhaps, on this Memorial Day weekend, it is fitting that we are having this conversation in here, on where we all came from, as a nation on this earth today, and how that all really came to be, to OUR benefit today, which perhaps we take for granted, as though it were simply OUR due, and not something instead that we ourselves have to work as American citizens to maintain!

And so ....

Well, Livyjr, goes a hypothetical question, what if someone works hard all day long, and don't have time to think and then goes home tired, and to relax, all they want to do is play video games, instead of reading all of this stuff about constitutions which no one cares about anyway, what about him?

And what about him, would be my answer!

If that is what a person is doing at the moment, that is what they are doing, and that is that!

And so it is with me, anyway, with this thing that we call LIBERTY!

The guy that wants to play video games actually gets to do, IN A LAND OF LIBERTY FOR ALL, so long as his playing video games is not harmful to another, OUTSIDE of his home, and that is that!

It certainly is not mine to tell the person that they must be a constitutional scholar, instead of simply relaxing after a hard day's work, and that kind of brings me back to this thing of constitutions, and what this discussion in here is really all about - if we have them, constitutions, that is, and if the only way that we can contiunue to have them is through eternal vigilence, and if no one feels like being eternally vigilent, or doesn't have the time to be, then where does that leave us, and truthfully, that is a very tough question to answer!

I think it fair to say that if left to OUR own devices, each of us would be tending to OUR own business, and that would be that, and so, in that ideal world, we would not need a constitution, at all, because there would never be tyrannies and usurpations to have to defend OURSELVES against, and so .....

In the ideal world, one does not extend his or her arm into the space already occupied by another, because one wants one's own space respected, and so, does not violate the space of another so as to invite retaliation, or is it restitution, instead?

In the early days of this nation, life itself was quite brutal, because of the hardships associated with carving a nation out of a vast wilderness, and so, OUR forebears in LIBERTY had quite different ideas about life and LIBERTY than many of us, in this different day and age do today, and so, people of today are prone, it seems to me, anyway, and perhaps hasty, as well, to simply toss on the scrapheap of history these constitutions that these forebears of OURS fashioned out of literally nothing but a string of bad experiences with all the other types of government that then existed in this world of OURS, over two hundred years ago!

Ancient history, people say, and perhaps it is!

Perhaps constitutions are now out of date, and so, maybe we do need some new scheme of things to govern OUR lives for the next two hundred years, if in fact, as some say, these constitutions are no longer valid, here in OUR America.

After all, look at what just happened in Europe where the French people soundly rejected a constitution that would have made the Republic of France into a part of something that they themselves either did not fully understand, or else found insufficient or unsatisfactory, TO THEIR NEEDS, as human beings on this earth of OURS, for that is who constitutions are supposed to protect, which is the citizens of a nation so formed:

"France rejects European constitution - Voters signal dissatisfaction with EU's future; defeat is setback to coalition's plans"

By CRAIG WHITLOCK, Washington Post
First published: Monday, May 30, 2005

PARIS -- Unhappy French voters derailed plans on Sunday to further erase political and economic barriers in Europe by decisively rejecting the proposed European constitution and thumbing their noses at the country's governing elite, which had pleaded for approval of the measure.

Voters turned out in strong numbers to defeat the measure by a wide margin, with about 56 percent voting against the constitution.

Opposition leaders harnessed widespread disenchantment over several issues, including the unpopularity of President Jacques Chirac, the weakness of the French economy and fears the country would lose its clout to a strengthened European central government.

The French defeat throws into confusion -- for now -- the campaign to fashion a constitution for Europe, since each of the 25 countries that belong to the European Union must approve the document before it can take effect.

The French vote does not mean the end of the European Union, which will continue to function under rules adopted by a treaty in 2000.

But it will freeze efforts to give more authority to the central European government in Brussels, such as the power to set foreign policy as well as to regulate fisheries, housing and myriad other issues.

"There is no longer a constitution," said Philippe de Villiers, leader of Movement For France, a nationalist party that warned France would suffer if the European Union continued to expand its borders to include poorer countries such as Turkey.

"We need to reconstruct Europe."

"This vote says there is a real difference in this country between the institutions and what the people really want."

In a brief televised address shortly after the polls closed, Chirac said he accepted the will of the voters.

"France has expressed itself democratically," said Chirac, who had lobbied heavily for approval of the constitution.

"It is your sovereign decision."

"But let's not be mistaken," he added.

"The decision of France inevitably creates a difficult context for the defense of our interests in Europe."

Chirac did not comment on his own political future but hinted that in the coming days he would announce a shake-up in the government, which has sagged in opinion polls.

Critics amplified calls for him to resign before his term ended in 2007.

Chirac has not ruled out running for re-election, but his already weak political standing was hurt even more by the referendum results.

EU leaders held out hope they could salvage the constitutional campaign.

They noted nine countries had given their assent and insisted other members be allowed their say as well.

If France remains the lone holdout, backers of the constitution suggested another referendum could be held and French voters could be cajoled into approving the document.

"The European process does not come to a halt today," Luxembourg's prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker said at a news conference at the union's headquarters in Brussels.

Juncker holds the EU's rotating presidency.

"The ratification procedure must be pursued in other countries," he said.

But the constitution could run into more trouble Wednesday, when voters in the Netherlands are scheduled to hold a non-binding referendum.

Polls show a majority of Dutch voters are inclined to vote no.

If the Dutch join the French in opposition, some lawmakers and analysts said the constitution might have to be scrapped or renegotiated.

The French revolt against a stronger Europe marks a reversal of its historical support for greater unity with its continental neighbors.

The origins of the European Union can be traced to an agreement forged a half-century ago by France and Germany to combine their coal and steel industries.

Many French political leaders -- including Chirac -- have pushed for a more integrated Europe as a political and economic counterweight to the United States and China.

Former French President Giscard d'Estaing helped draft the proposed constitution and lobbied for its passage, along with most French political leaders, and the business and media elite.

But dissatisfaction has bubbled under the surface in France, as well as in other European countries that have been plagued for years by high unemployment and uncertainty over members of the European club.

Many French voters who opposed the constitution said it rankled them that they were not given a chance to vote on EU expansion from 15 members to 25 last year, pulling in most of Eastern Europe.

The prospect that Europe's boundaries might be extended even further -- to Muslim Turkey and impoverished Ukraine -- has unsettled many people in France.

[Abu Beacon]

And it is not about patriotism anyway, that we are talking about in here; to the contrary, it is about citizenship, and I for one think that there is and can be, and maybe should be, a vast difference between the two, with citizenship being an internal thing that we practice within OUR communities, while patriotism is external, as in us standing up for America when talking with other citizens of the world who are not themselves Americans!

Ran across this story while doing a little surfing recently.

For some reason it caused me to think of your situation, Livyjr.

There are many disimilarities between this situation and the one in which you are involved, Without really knowing all the behind the scenes facts here, it does appear that the Public Works Director ( Engineer? ) is more or less in cahoots with those who are holding the town back, even though he is putting the clamps on the would be developers. So that is on the opposite side of the fence from where you are.

What was interesting to me was the plea to the townspeople to become part of the town government. Shouldn't we all be?

Also the slogan at the top of the article, taken I believe from something written by Sir Walter Scott? I'm not sure of that.

How true that is!
.
********************************************************************

While attending a town council meeting several weeks ago I was taken aback by an event that occurred when the public was allowed to speak. Prior to that time we had been listening to a long dissertation by Mr. Wilder (Our new Public Works Director) concerning the status of our water system. Mr. Wilder was very delicately waltzing around the issue of a water moratorium. He steadfastly denied that he was asking for a water moratorium, instead he was asking for the power to deny building permits at his discretion. After making all the feel good statements that developers could go right ahead and complete their subdivisions, and if they wanted to they could go ahead and build houses he then stated that if in his opinion water could not be supplied, then the developer or builder would have to wait to sell the house until he determined that water was available. I am sure it must have occurred to Mr. Wilder that no business man would take such a risk. When pressed by council members about the true state of the water system, Mr. Wilder indicated that he would be very uncomfortable issuing more that a few water certificates at the present time. Just two weeks earlier Mr. Wilder had told the planning commission that there was no real emergency with the water system except for increasing the storage capacity of the system and improving the delivery portion of the water system. He estimated that those two improvements could be made in approximately a year or two. As I listened to his presentation, I got the impression there was no panic concerning the water in his presentation. Rather, I was impressed with his ability to prioritize what had to be done to solve the problem with in a year or two and complemented him on his assumptions. How does this fit with his attitude at the town council meeting? It seems impossible he could have changed his position so much in two weeks. Then the light came on when Mrs. Rosalie Van Cleve came forward during the public comment section, aided by Mrs. Pat Van Eaton and brought forward an assortment of signatures that she indicated was numbering near 100 hundred. The documents were a group of signatures from people who were stating that they wanted a Moratorium placed on growth, because of the water problem. Amazingly, some one had spread the rumor that during the power outage the water was drawn down at the storage tanks and was so low by the time the power outage was over that there was not enough water to fight a fire with. Oh what a tangled web we weave, just enough truth to sell the lie. Sure the water level was drawn down, but nobody thought to add the fact that the back up generator necessary to run the pumps to keep the water level constant was broken down. Whose job was it to see that the emergency equipment was in working condition? So, all of a sudden we have an EMERGENCY! What alarmist mentality brought this condition upon the town? I was able to acquire copies of the so called petition with over 100 hundred signatures on it (At least 60 signatures were added after the announcement of the 100 figure was made for effect at the town council meeting, just a little segment of the web that some seem to be weaving in this town.) Let me give you the statistics associated with
the petition. We had some real celebrities sign the petition; Santa Claus, Donny Brasco (a movie title), Wayne Newton of Las Vegas fame, and even Joe Blow managed to get his signature on the petition. Some people signed it twice 6 people to be exact, 33 signers do not live in Eatonville, 13 must be doctors (you can’t read their signatures) So we have 57 names that are either false, impossible to read, live out of town or signed the petition twice. That leaves 49 folks that were panicked into bringing this ludicrous document forward for the publicity that it would bring. Who were some of them? Edwina Van Eaton, Pat Van Eaton, Rosemarie Van Cleve, George Van Cleve, Christine Van Cleve, Elsie Van Eaton, Vernon Fisher, Sylvia Fisher, Jaquelin McTee, and Charles McTee, among others. This special interest group brought this flawed petition to the town council meeting to panic people into thinking that the sky was falling. The last person I knew who fell for that old line was Henny Penny. Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Those of you, who were impressed with this simple attempt to shade the truth, may want to reconsider what your position on this issue should be. If the no growth people bring forward tricks and slight of hand attempts such as this so called petition, what other areas of the truth will they be willing to stretch to reach their goal. If they succeed, all they will be accomplishing is the eventual death of this town. Some people maybe willing to trade the death of this town to accomplish their selfish desires, I will not. I urge you to consider carefully who you vote for in the coming town councilman election. We can keep our town vibrant and quaint and we can do it by having the right people on the town council. The repeated attempts to exaggerate the water issue are just a small sample of depth that the “no growth crowd” will go to secure their agenda at the expense of citizens of this town. If you think your utilities and taxes are high now, just keep letting this group take control. Let common sense prevail, do everything you can to become a part of your town government. Attend all the meetings, find out what is happening. A population that is informed and participates will never be pushed into a web of deceit no matter how skillful the spider is.

Grins Pierce Eatonville Washington


Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive

A.B.

[Livyjr]

What was interesting to me was the plea to the townspeople to become part of the town government.

Shouldn't we all be?

A.B.

And there IS the point, Mr. A.B., SHOULDN'T WE REALLY ALL BE A PART OF TOWN GOVERNMENT, or should the alleged "anti-growth" people, the "tree-huggers", the "enviros", and all that ilk be kept outside, while the "good" folk, the "growth at any cost" crowd, in this case, who of course know what is best for all of us, so long as it benefits them, get to run the show?

And this article that you posted, Mr. A.B., could be coming right from my own town hall, it sounds so familar to me, or from the town halls of the towns all around me, for that matter, because this letter writer seems to be a "universal" character these days, all over the place, where I am, which is really why this is such an emotional issue up here, especially where New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is so openly taking money from the housing industry, while he is serving as Attorney General of the State of New York!

As New York State Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer HAS AN OBLIGATION, through the Constitution and laws of the State of New York, to treat ALL citizens of the state equally, INCLUDING the "enviros", and "tree-huggers", especially with the language of the 1969 amendment to the New York State Constitution above, which makes preservation of the environment a matter of state priority, FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE, and when he is taking money openly from a faction that itself is openly hostile to the alleged "anti-growth" people in New York State, who are really "pro-Constitutionalists" as I see it, then Eliot Spitzer is simply an oath-breaker, and to me, that makes him unfit to hold his office, especially in this case, where the evidence in the record makes it incandescently clear that the State of New York itself is NOT DOING ITS JOB of protecting the waters of the State of New York, as OUR Constitution requires it to do!

And thanks for posting that, Mr. A.B., because it does serve to highlight what is really the emotional side of what should be a solely technical discussion!

And my impression, Mr. A.B., was that this water guy in this particular situation above here that you posted was just some political hack, who had been handed that job through politics, and so, was not himself competent to give a straight answer, or maybe he just lacked spine .....

Because if he knew his job, and did have some spine, he sure would not have engaged in that song-and-dance that is described in that article above here, and that is a fact.

That is why engineers that are going to practice in the State of New York, ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MUST BE LICENSED, which is to say, SUPPOSEDLY qualified by education, experience, and TEMPERAMENT, including demonstrated and proven integrity, SO AS TO BE ABLE TO maintain that public trust without being CORRUPTED in the process of doing so, which is where this matter begins in 2001, with an engineer who allegedly did not know that distinction, being caught in the act of "taking a turn" impermissable by law in the State of New York.

"POLITICS", and political expediency versus professionalism, and so far, professionalism has been the loser, thanks to politics, and the power that it has over our health, safety, and well-being right now, where the money to buy that "power" is flowing so freely, into the "coffers" and "war chests" of people like New York State Attorney General Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer.

And there is where a big part of this problem up here begins, with political hacks and plain incompetents being given positions of responsibility and authority OVER OUR HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELL-BEING, which they are neither trained for, nor qualified to do, all for purposes of partisan "political expediency", which I am going to classify in here as giving out bogus approvals in exchange for "donations" into the coffers of the party in power at the time!

Selling lies as a means for the "party" to make "its" money!

And we who are affected by this negligence, this malfeasance, we are to say nothing, OUT OF A CONTINUING FEAR OF FINDING OURSELVES BRANDED PUBLICLY AS DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENTS, AND INCARCERATED IN SECURE CORPORATE GULAGS, SO AS TO INSURE OUR CONTINUED SILENCE?

This case that I am talking about in here itself first became a very public matter that caught everyone's attention in October of 1988, when John Buono, the Rensselaer County Executive at the time, appeared in an on-camera interview on TV Channel 13 out of Albany, New York, with news anchor Christine Kapostacey Jansing, and announced that (1) a group of developers in Rensselaer County had got up an EIGHTY-THOUSAND DOLLAR WAR CHEST that they were going to give to anyone that would get rid of this engineer that we are talking about in here; and (2) that he was getting rid of the engineer, himself!

SO?

WHERE DID THE EIGHTY GRAND GO, THEN?

Just curious, of course!

To be continued .....

[Livyjr]

And there IS the point, Mr. A.B., SHOULDN'T WE REALLY ALL BE A PART OF TOWN GOVERNMENT .....

From the volume "TOWN" Law in the State of New York

ARTICLE 1

SHORT TITLE; DEFINITIONS

Section 1. Short title.
2. Definition of town.

Section 1. Short title. This chapter shall be known as the "town law."

S 2. Definition of town. A town is a municipal corporation comprising the inhabitants within its boundaries, and formed for the purpose of exercising such powers and discharging such duties of local government and administration of public affairs as have been, or, may be conferred or imposed upon it by law.

[Livyjr]

S 2. Definition of town. A town is a municipal corporation comprising the inhabitants within its boundaries, and formed for the purpose of exercising such powers and discharging such duties of local government and administration of public affairs as have been, or, may be conferred or imposed upon it by law.

SO?

Just out of curiosity, IF a "town" is a municipal corporation comprising the inhabitants within its boundaries, who then should be excluded, by the town, or by factions in the town, from participating in its governmental or public affairs?

Tree-huggers, maybe?

Or how about them "enviros" who want to stop the "RENAISSANCE" from happeneing, as was alleged to be the case up here in both Poestenkill and Rensselaer County?

Why should we allow these trouble-makers to hold back growth and development, even when there is no adequate way for these new developments to adequately dispose of their sewage?

Isn't that what creeks and swamps are really for, anyway?

Any thoughts, America?

After all, it is YOUR future that we are talking about in here, as well as OURS!

[Livyjr]

SO?

Just out of curiosity, IF a "town" is a municipal corporation comprising the inhabitants within its boundaries, who then should be excluded, by the town, or by factions in the town, from participating in its governmental or public affairs?

Well, more harassment and intimidation coming my personal way, here!

Someone has stolen my mailbox, complete with the pole and all, sometime last night likely, but whoever knows!

SO?

Who should be excluded from government, here in OUR America?

Honest folks?

[Livyjr]

Ran across this story while doing a little surfing recently.

For some reason it caused me to think of your situation, Livyjr.

There are many disimilarities between this situation and the one in which you are involved.

Without really knowing all the behind the scenes facts here, it does appear that the Public Works Director (Engineer?) is more or less in cahoots with those who are holding the town back, even though he is putting the clamps on the would be developers.

So that is on the opposite side of the fence from where you are.

A.B.

Well, after I left here this morning, in an admitted state of agitation over my missing mailbox, I got to thinking what someone was going to do with a whole mailbox and pole and all, and with that thought on my mind, I went down to the end of the road, and looked over the bridge railing and down into the gorge below, and there, as I thought it would be, was my mailbox, pole and all!

And so, I went home and fashioned up a metal hook, and I got some rope and went back, and climbed down ito the gorge below the bridge, and I fished out my mailbox, and now, it is back in its place, as my "flag of defiance" to intimidation and harassment, I would call it!

LET THE THUGS COME!

And likely they will, because the 16th day of June, when the appellate brief is due, is now looming large on the horizon, and if that brief is not safely down in New York City by that day, this appeal IS DEAD, and OUR hopes for rule of law in the Town of Poestenkill and the County of Rensselaer and the State of New York, with it!

And so ......

[Livyjr]

Yesterday, I had to go down to the Federal Court House in Albany, New York, and while I was there, I noticed a Notice that had been put up in the window at the Clerk's Office, stating that George W. Bush had raised the cost of filing a Complaint in Federal Court by $100, so that what was $150 when this Complaint was filed, is now $250!

And where does this money go, I had to wonder, and what do we citizens out here get for having to pay this extra hundred dollars simply to pass a stapled pack of papers through a slot in the window to a person standing on the other side?

"Judicial Branch at a Disadvantage in Competition for Senior Staff"

By Stephen Barr, Washington Post

Wednesday, June 1, 2005; Page B02

The judicial branch is rapidly losing its ability to attract and retain top-level staff because it cannot pay as much as the executive and legislative branches, according to a memo prepared for senior U.S. court officials.

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts "is experiencing serious recruitment problems," and courthouses in the larger metropolitan areas also face hiring problems, wrote Leonidas Ralph Mecham , director of the Administrative Office.

In recent months, Mecham said, the Administrative Office lost two employees to higher-paying jobs, a budget chief, who went to the Department of Homeland Security, and a legislative affairs director, who took a position on Capitol Hill.

The number of applicants "for our executive vacancies has dropped significantly," Mecham said.

He noted that after the retirement of the Administrative Office's No. 2 finance and budget executive, three applicants for the job decided they didn't want it.

One applicant withdrew after learning that the salary was lower than those in the executive branch, and the other two took higher-paying jobs after being interviewed.

"It appears that we can no longer get the seasoned senior executives that we must have if we are to carry out our mission in support of the courts, including securing appropriations and enacting legislation for the entire third branch," Mecham wrote.

Mecham's memo, first reported by the Federal Times, was sent to the chief justice and members of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking arm of the court system.

Mecham's office provides administrators, accountants, statisticians and others who provide professional services to meet the needs of federal judges nationwide.

Pay in the judicial branch has lagged in recent years, partly because Congress has been unwilling to lift a statutory cap on the salaries of federal judges.

As a result, salaries of top law school deans and senior law professors are higher than those of District Court judges.

But Congress recently raised the maximum pay for senior executives and others who work in federal agencies, a change that appears to be hindering the ability of the judicial branch to compete for talented professionals.

Federal agencies that comply with requirements of the Office of Personnel Management can pay as much as $208,100 -- the salary of the vice president -- in salaries and bonuses.

Without OPM approval, federal agencies can pay a total of $180,100, Mecham said in his memo.

The judicial branch, however, may not pay more than $149,200 in salary to court executives and rarely hands out bonuses, Mecham said.

He also noted that Congress permits higher compensation for some employees, such as committee staff members, who can be paid a top salary of $160,600.

"Without a doubt, the judiciary has lost significant ground in relationship to the other two branches of government," Mecham wrote.

He said he planned to ask an internal resources committee to consider a proposal that would allow executive salaries to rise in higher-cost cities as a step toward addressing equity issues raised by higher executive and legislative branch salaries.

E-mail:barrs@washpost.com

[Livyjr]

Ran across this story while doing a little surfing recently.

For some reason it caused me to think of your situation, Livyjr.

There are many disimilarities between this situation and the one in which you are involved.

Without really knowing all the behind the scenes facts here, it does appear that the Public Works Director (Engineer?) is more or less in cahoots with those who are holding the town back, even though he is putting the clamps on the would be developers.

So that is on the opposite side of the fence from where you are.

A.B.

And here, Mr. A.B., I can now finally get back to this article that you have posted in here above, for it certainly serves as a very good focus for what some of the issues in here really are, and how we are all are affected by similar goings-on in OUR town halls, despite where we might be located in OUR America.

And here, I want to focus in on your assumption that this water guy is putting any kind of clamps on anyone, at all!

To the contrary, in my mind, the water guy looks like he is either incompetent, as I said before, or else he is doing a little dance that up here in Rensselaer County, in the alleged corrupt EMPIRE State of New York, is quite familiar to those of us who do watch on as these things in the various town halls around here take place; all these little "show-biz" antics in planning board meetings, and zoning board meetings up here that have, over time, taken on such descriptive names as "Flash the Pan", "Ruffle the Goose", "Pet the Kitty", "Ride the Donkey", "Hut-Hut", and "strut the Monkey"!

And it specifically makes me think of a time down in Poestenkill Town Hall in the mid-1980's when I was personally taken aside by a member of the Poestenkill Planning Board who told me that "you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar", at which point this person then launched into an exposition on "making nice" and "playing pretty" with developers so that they would feel good about giving you some money, in exchange for your "vote"!

This person actually thought that I was trying some different kind of "shake down" routine, when I said that this developer's project was not feasible, for what were sound engineering reasons!

"You're trying to strong-arm him, Livyjr, and that never works!"

"You've got to learn how to make nice, and play pretty, then you get the candy!"

"Making nice" and "playing pretty"!

According to this operative "political" theory, you get up there on the stage as a public official with the power to approve, or withhold approval, and you sashay this way, and shimmy back the other way, and do some bump-and-grind, and maybe a little bit of electric slide, AND ALWAYS PLAY HARD TO GET, and next thing you know, your pocket is bulging with a little bag of money in it, of which you keep a little, and pass the rest on up the party "chain of command", and the townsfolk never know that they have been sold out!

Except they do!

And that is why I personally never played that game!

And if I had, I bet I would be in there yet, to this day, except, I wouldn't want to see the face of that person in my mirror every morning, and so .....

[Livyjr]

And here, Mr. A.B., I can now finally get back to this article that you have posted in here above, for it certainly serves as a very good focus for what some of the issues in here really are, and how we are all are affected by similar goings-on in OUR town halls, despite where we might be located in OUR America.

And here, I want to focus in on your assumption that this water guy is putting any kind of clamps on anyone, at all!

To the contrary, in my mind, the water guy looks like he is either incompetent, as I said before, or else he is doing a little dance that up here in Rensselaer County, in the alleged corrupt EMPIRE State of New York, is quite familiar to those of us who do watch on as these things in the various town halls around here take place; all these little "show-biz" antics in planning board meetings, and zoning board meetings up here that have, over time, taken on such descriptive names as "Flash the Pan", "Ruffle the Goose", "Pet the Kitty", "Ride the Donkey", "Hut-Hut", and "strut the Monkey"!

"Strut the Monkey", indeed!

And here is what Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice Hon. James B. Canfield had to say about one instance of it in 2002 in the Town of Poestenkill involving the Poestenkill Planning Board and a "gravel operator" from out of town who had successfully employed "Ruffle the Goose" and "Pet the Kitty" in his effort to bamboozle the townsfolk of the Town of Poestenkill, and thereby obtain an unlawful approval from the Poestenkill Town Planning Board, as intended by the ruses employed, with the willingness of the Planning Board, and connivance, as well:

"Turning to Poestenkill's challenged determination approving Shower's subdivision, the Court is not authorized simply to substitute its judgment for the respondent's (Poestenkill Planning Board)."

"The scope of judicial review of administrative determinations IS LIMITED TO ANALYZING whether the respondent agency WAS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, that is whether it took the action without a sound basis in reason or without regard for the facts; ACTED IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION; IN VIOLATION OF LAWFUL PROCEDURE, positive statutory or constitutional requirements; or in abuse of its discretionary power."

"Barring such wrongs, the Court must confirm the determination."

"Upon reviewing the administrative record presented here, IT IS CLEAR that Showers and Valente PRESENTED MATERIALLY ERRONEOUS INFORMATION to Poestenkill AND THAT THE ERRONEOUS INFORMATION SERVED AS THE BASIS for the challenged determinations!"

"Showers and Valente misinformed Poestenkill that they had an existing DEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation) mining permit, when they now concede that they had withdrawn their latest permit application six months before AND THEIR PRIOR PERMITS HAD ALL BEEN ELIMINATED BY PRIOR COURT ORDERS, which Showers and Valente failed to mention to Poestenkill."

"Showers and Valente failed to inform Poestenkill that they still had not complied with the requirements of prior mining permits on the property, BUT INSTEAD HAD OVER-MINED THE LAND making it unusable for residential purposes AND HAD NOT RESTORED THE LAND, AS THEY HAD PROMISED."

"Instead, Showers and Valente misinformed Poestenkill that they were attempting to comply with DEC's engineering and design requirements, WHEN THEY WERE NOT!"

"Showers and Valente materially mischaracterized the present zoning of the area they sought to divide into three parts as a nonconforming 19.18 acre natural products area, WHICH THEY NEEDED TO REDUCE TO LESS THAN TEN ACRES in order to conform to the town's law, WHEN POESTENKILL NOW CONCEDES THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY A 101.73 Acre Residential area which would require one of the subdivisions to be rezoned into a Natural products zone after subdivision."

"Given the misinformation, no reasonable determination of whether the proposed subdivision would have an environmental impact could be made by Poestenkill!"

"UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CHALLENGED DETERMINATIONS GRANTING THE SUBDIVISION AND DETERMINING THAT DOING SO WOULD HAVE NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WAS MADE BY POESTENKILL IN COMPLETE IGNORANCE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS AND ITS DETERMINATION MUST BE ANNULLED ON THAT GROUND ALONE!"

"Poestenkill's extremely casual approach to determining environmental impact also bears notice!"

"The administrative record here REFLECTS POESTENKILL'S COMPLICITY with Showers and Valente in using the proposed subdivision AS A MEANS OF AVOIDING SEQRA review (State Environmental Quality Review Act, in conformance with the requirements of the New York State Constitution) by reducing the impact of the immediate proposal without inquiring into the possibility of further development at a later date!"

"Regardless of Showers and Valente's misinformation, Poestenkill's determination of no environmental impact would have to be rejected based on Poestenkill's FAILURE TO EVEN GIVE THE APPEARNCE of complying with SEQRA!"

SO ORDERED!

Rensselaer County Supreme Court
October 3, 2002

end quotes

SO!

"Strut that Monkey", indeed, for the yokels will never know!

Except we do!

Which is why we must now be found to be insane, and dangerous!

So the game can go on, without us there to impede it!

"Hut-Hut"!

[Livyjr]

Does anyone really think lawyering involves ethical behavior?

I recently spoke to a class at Hartwick College on legal ethics.

As I spoke, I realized that the practice of law is essentially amoral.

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

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

We are all but prohibited from doing so!

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

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

We advise.

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

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

Think again, Jack.

We are not the clergy.

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

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

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

"The scope of judicial review of administrative determinations IS LIMITED TO ANALYZING whether the respondent agency WAS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, that is whether it took the action without a sound basis in reason or without regard for the facts; ACTED IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION; IN VIOLATION OF LAWFUL PROCEDURE, positive statutory or constitutional requirements; or in abuse of its discretionary power."

"Barring such wrongs, the Court must confirm the determination."

"Upon reviewing the administrative record presented here, IT IS CLEAR that Showers and Valente PRESENTED MATERIALLY ERRONEOUS INFORMATION to Poestenkill AND THAT THE ERRONEOUS INFORMATION SERVED AS THE BASIS for the challenged determinations!"

"Given the misinformation, no reasonable determination of whether the proposed subdivision would have an environmental impact could be made by Poestenkill!"

"UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CHALLENGED DETERMINATIONS GRANTING THE SUBDIVISION AND DETERMINING THAT DOING SO WOULD HAVE NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WAS MADE BY POESTENKILL IN COMPLETE IGNORANCE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS AND ITS DETERMINATION MUST BE ANNULLED ON THAT GROUND ALONE!"

"Poestenkill's extremely casual approach to determining environmental impact also bears notice!"

"The administrative record here REFLECTS POESTENKILL'S COMPLICITY with Showers and Valente in using the proposed subdivision AS A MEANS OF AVOIDING SEQRA review (State Environmental Quality Review Act, in conformance with the requirements of the New York State Constitution) by reducing the impact of the immediate proposal without inquiring into the possibility of further development at a later date!"

"Regardless of Showers and Valente's misinformation, Poestenkill's determination of no environmental impact would have to be rejected based on Poestenkill's FAILURE TO EVEN GIVE THE APPEARANCE of complying with SEQRA!"

SO ORDERED!

Rensselaer County Supreme Court
October 3, 2002

end quotes

SO!

"Strut that Monkey", indeed, for the yokels will never know!

Except we do!

Which is why we must now be found to be insane, and dangerous!

So the game can go on, without us there to impede it!

"Hut-Hut"!

It is not often, at least in my own experience of things, that we, the common folks here in America, really get to take a hard look at what goes on behind the scenes in this world of law, because generally, there is simply no transparency, whatsoever!

Yes, if we are diligent, we can go to a local county law library, where we may find some records and briefs to study, or we may go to the County Clerk's Office and find similar records, but all of that presumes an a priori, that we know what we are looking for in the first place, and that is not always so, especially, if like this case above, there has been absolutely no media coverage whatsoever, nor is there likely to be, outside of here, in this forum, and in this thread!

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

WHAT IS DISSENT, ANYWAY?

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

Or is DISSENT something different?

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

"REFUSAL TO AGREE WITH AN ACT PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED!"

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

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

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

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

end quotes

The Rensselaer County Department of Health was in business to facilitate developers and development, RATHER THAN TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC!

Well, so what?

Yes, so what!

Or at least that is what I have heard many people say, over time, BECAUSE ...

In the State of New York, at least, corruption has been with us so long that it is just WHAT IS!

People accept it, and then, they wallow in it, actually, like pigs in mud, because it is there!

"Go along to get along" is the operative saying up here, for those who would get ahead in politics, and it means exactly what it says, as this case so aptly points out to all of us common citizens who had pinned our hopes for reform of OUR government up here on this one case, where the evidence was so meticulously gathered, and then coherently collated so as to present an unbroken chain of causality running from at least 1979 to the present time, where corruption in Rensselaer County AND the State of New York was not merely alleged, or complained about, by common citizens, but was confirmed by no less an investigative body than the F.B.I., itself.

An on-going course of conduct that is corruption!

That is what the record in this matter clearly demonstrated, and for once, we, the people, had acting for US an individual WITH the professional credentials to back up all of OUR allegations, AT NO COST TO US, other than OUR own diligence!

And then 8-22 happened ........

SO?

A recap, then, for the moment, thanks to this insightful input above here from Mr. A.B., an older American gentleman who is not afraid to ask the hard questions, which is a quality in Mr. A.B. that I find very refreshing in this day and age, to be quite turthful, as it forces a younger American like myself to have my facts in order, and my arguments finely honed, because no wool will be pulled over Mr. A.B.'s eyes at this point in his life, and I am not even going to consider trying!

One, it is not my nature in the first place to try and do so, and two, my mother did not raise those kinds of fools that would try!

SO!

Okay, looking back here at this issue of "WHO SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM REPRESENTATION IN OUR AFFAIRS OF GOVERNMENT, HERE IN OUR AMERICA", or at least up here in the Capital District area of the State of New York, and REPUBLICAN-controlled Rensselaer County in particular, it is clear from reading this dissertation above here by Mr. Michael P. Friedman, the President of the Albany County Bar Association in New York State that the most heinous members of OUR society already have "red carpet treatment" with respect to "representation" in OUR government, and courts, especially, at least up here in the Albany area of the State of New York, where they have the alleged "Bar Association of the STARS" catering to their whims and wishes, in the totally amoral manner in which this particular bar association has sunk down to, if it was not already all the way down there right at its very inception, and so, they are accounted for!

And, let's see, who does that leave left?

WOW!

Who does that leave left?

US, isn't it?

The non-heinous members of OUR society, and the non-amoral!

I guess we are the EXCLUDED!

SO?

What did we do wrong, here?

Didn't pay OUR bribes in time, when God was handing out "protection of law" to those who could afford it, or is that really "protection by those who have the power to make laws in your favor, if you can afford to buy their services"?

We were born to poor to buy an amoral lawyer, who could then buy us some influence with these "most heinous members" of OUR society whose interests these amoral lawyers in the Albany County Bar Association represent?

And what about the Town of Poestenkill Planning Board?

Or the Rensselaer County Department of Health?

WERE THEY REPRESENTED BY A LAWYER, WHEN ALL OF THESE LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS WERE SO CALLOUSLY DISREGARDED, IN THE NAME OF POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY, AND GRAFT, OF COURSE?

Stay tuned and see ......

And for those of you who like to do some advance research, try the name Bob Smith, and see what you see!

To be continued .......

This post has been edited by Livyjr: Jun 2 2005, 07:37 AM

[jeffmoskin]

Does anyone really think lawyering involves ethical behavior?

I recently spoke to a class at Hartwick College on legal ethics.

As I spoke, I realized that the practice of law is essentially amoral.

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

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

We are all but prohibited from doing so!

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

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

We advise.

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

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

Think again, Jack.

Obfuscation and Prevarication is what "the law" as practiced today is all about. Twelve ordinary people are expected to listen to a pack of lies and decide, based upon those lies, which lie is closest to the truth.

But woe be unto the lawyer who gets CAUGHT telling a lie which is provable as such!

Oh Horror. Oh Perjury. Oh Graybar Hotel.

There is justice in this world, but finding it in a court of law is purely coincidental.