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

[Livyjr]

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.

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

And here, jeffmoskin, I have to say that I am of quite mixed emotions as to the sentiments that you have expressed here, because as corny as it may sound, I am a believer in the ultimate power of OUR court system to deliver justice, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF LAWYERS, AND THUS, LIES, PUT IN ONE'S PATH, BY THEM; BUT ONLY IF IT, JUSTICE, FOR YOU, IS PURSUED WITH VIGOR, BY YOU, and if I did not get any other message across in here but that one, then I would feel as if this thread had served some greater good, and that is a fact.

Justice never comes to you; you must always get to it, and even 99% of the way is not sufficient, you must go the whole mile, and not an inch less, no matter how high the hill seems, nor how steep the path upwards!

How is that saying?

He (and she) who hesitates is lost, or words to that effect?

As for me, I learned to win in court as a non-lawyer by studying very astutely how people lose, and then not going down that particular path to ruin, and that is one of the reasons that I always handle my own legal affairs WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDING MY OWN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

No lawyers!

For the simple reason that you never know where they might have been last, and whose money they might have been taking for purposes that are inimical TO YOUR OWN RIGHTS, as in the case I mentioned above where my friend bought a brand-new house situated right smack dab in the middle of the bed of an intermittent stream that caused his sewage system to fail, and had as his lawyer, the same lawyer who was representing the developer who had put the house there in the first place, which was a clear case of negligence on the part of the developer and county health department!

There, the lawyer went for the big money, as they are wont to do, and gave the developer the better representation, and that was a conflict of interest that stunk to high heaven, and was right out there in the open, to boot.

To me as a citizen, the right to go to court MYSELF, and state my grievances in my own words is a precious right, and I treat it as such, 24/7!

Now, intrinsic in all of that, of course, is the very distinct possibility, which I fear will become a virtual certainty, of finding biased and prejudiced judges who simply are going to toss you and your case right out of court, BECAUSE THE STATE IS NEVER WRONG, REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER IT DOES, and they will humiliate and demean you in the process, and thereby, in some cases anyway, put your health, safety and well-being in grave jeopardy, AND THAT IS JUST A PART OF WHAT ONE MUST EXPECT, AND ACCEPT, IF ONE IS GOING TO BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN to the fullest of the responsibilities which that entails!

That is why I am more concerned with the caliber of OUR judges, especially federal judges, than I am of even the president, because presidents are gone every four years, while bad law put on the books by bad or execrable judges, or really, unqualified people playing at being a judge, and demeaning the office in the course of doing so, lasts for a lifetime, with deleterious affects for us all, whether we even know about it or not!

And then, it is too late!

And people who are concerned about what is going on in their communities, whatever that may be, need to know, and they need to learn that you cannot stand idly by while something is going through a planning board, or zoning board, and not say a word, and then expect to go out and file a lawsuit to defeat something that you never objected to on the record when you were afforded due process to do so!

That's the surest way to get yourself tossed right out of court and hit with sanctions for being frivolous, and THAT IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, those due process rights!

I don't know, jeffmoskin, about anyone else, here in OUR America, but I take my right to have my health and well-being with respect to air and water quality in the Town of Poestenkill and the County of Rensselaer protected by the "state", AS OUR NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION DIRECTS OUR NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT TO DO, and when the "state" decides, FOR ANY REASONS, that it is going to deny me that right, while at the same time affording another the right to foul my drinking water, then I and the "state" will have a date in court, and that is that!

And so .......

[Livyjr]

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.

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

And here, jeffmoskin, I have to say that I am of quite mixed emotions as to the sentiments that you have expressed here, because as corny as it may sound, I am a believer in the ultimate power of OUR court system to deliver justice, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF LAWYERS, AND THUS, LIES, PUT IN ONE'S PATH, BY THEM; BUT ONLY IF IT, JUSTICE, FOR YOU, IS PURSUED WITH VIGOR, BY YOU, and if I did not get any other message across in here but that one, then I would feel as if this thread had served some greater good, and that is a fact.

Justice never comes to you; you must always get to it, and even 99% of the way is not sufficient, you must go the whole mile, and not an inch less, no matter how high the hill seems, nor how steep the path upwards!

How is that saying?

He (and she) who hesitates is lost, or words to that effect?

As for me, I learned to win in court as a non-lawyer by studying very astutely how people lose, and then not going down that particular path to ruin, and that is one of the reasons that I always handle my own legal affairs WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDING MY OWN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

No lawyers!

For the simple reason that you never know where they might have been last, and whose money they might have been taking for purposes that are inimical TO YOUR OWN RIGHTS ......

To me as a citizen, the right to go to court MYSELF, and state my grievances in my own words is a precious right, and I treat it as such, 24/7!

Now, intrinsic in all of that, of course, is the very distinct possibility, which I fear will become a virtual certainty, of finding biased and prejudiced judges who simply are going to toss you and your case right out of court, BECAUSE THE STATE IS NEVER WRONG, REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER IT DOES, and they will humiliate and demean you in the process, and thereby, in some cases anyway, put your health, safety and well-being in grave jeopardy, AND THAT IS JUST A PART OF WHAT ONE MUST EXPECT, AND ACCEPT, IF ONE IS GOING TO BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN to the fullest of the responsibilities which that entails!

That is why I am more concerned with the caliber of OUR judges, especially federal judges, than I am of even the president, because presidents are gone every four years, while bad law put on the books by bad or execrable judges, or really, unqualified people playing at being a judge, and demeaning the office in the course of doing so, lasts for a lifetime, with deleterious affects for us all, whether we even know about it or not!

And then, it is too late!

"Ruth Drollinger Fought the Law and Won!"

:: ejournal@halt.org

:: http://www.halt.org

:: 1-888-FOR-HALT

HALT-An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform | 1612 K Street N.W. | Suite 510 | Washington | DC | 20009

Ruth Drollinger has been trying to divorce her abusive husband and keep their four children safe for eight years.

In her long journey, she has encountered unethical attorneys and indifferent judges, but she's also found help from surprising sources and encouragement from battered women who, she hopes, will benefit from her trailblazing efforts.

Ruth's first lawyer took on her divorce case at the last minute for $5,000 and then did little at trial except "draw cartoons on his legal pad."

Unable to find a suitable replacement and frustrated with a legal system that seemed to favor her husband, Ruth decided to take matters into her own hands and act as her own advocate in the courtroom.

Armed only with a sample brief, resources from the Internet and some coaching by an attorney who was willing to help for free, Ruth successfully persuaded the Montana Supreme Court to end the unsupervised visits ordered by the lower court because of concerns for her children's safety.

In the years since her first victory, Ruth has had to represent herself numerous times to keep herself and her children safe.

In 2003, Ruth again went pro se before the Montana Supreme Court, this time in order to move her child custody case to Washington, where she felt safe.

In a landmark ruling, the Court agreed with her and held that domestic violence is reason enough to move a case into another state if a victim is better protected there.

Today, Ruth is still trying to finalize her divorce and acting as her own lawyer.

She's encountered setbacks along the way but now considers herself as good a lawyer as any she's been up against.

Recently HALT Program Associate Amy Dieterich talked with Ruth Drollinger about her experience, the lessons she has learned and what's on the horizon.

Why did you decide to proceed pro se?

I felt I didn't have any other choices.

I was denied Legal Aid and had already dealt with a lawyer who took $5,000 and didn't do any work.

I decided the law was available for me to use-as it is available to everyone-and I was going to use it, with any help I could find to arm myself.

What would you tell other consumers who are trying to bring their case pro se?

First, get your emotions out of it.

Be totally rational in presenting your case.

I think that's a problem with many people going pro se, especially in family law cases.

When you walk into a court room pro se you're automatically discriminated against.

But if you're rational, have your facts and can apply the law in your case, you will have a credible record to appeal if the judge treats you unfairly.

That's what I ended up having to do.

Have your experiences with unethical lawyers changed your perspective on lawyers and their role in the civil justice system generally?

My view of lawyers is not totally skewed.

The two lawyers who had the guts to help me, Michael Kakuk, who helped me win my Supreme Court case in 2003 and whose only pay was one of my white German Shepherd puppies, and Suzanne Marshall, who took my case in 2004 to help me obtain a hearing on my property, are lawyers who are interested in more than just making money.

I like how Abraham Lincoln practiced law.

He once told a prospective client whose case for $600 would bankrupt a widow and impoverish her six children, "Some things that are right legally are not right morally."

Lincoln refused to take the case and added "I advise an energetic sprightly man like you to try your hand at making $600 in some other way."

I think lawyers have abandoned those principles and lost their moral compass for the sake of greed.

How did HALT help you?

I think the information that HALT provides is just phenomenal.

I just can't get over the work that you've done and the success you've had in bringing to light the abuses occurring in the legal system.

I found the brochure "I Have a Problem with My Lawyer, What Do I Do Now?" and The Legal Reformer really encouraging.

Just knowing that I wasn't the only one and that there was an organization out there going to bat for people like me was great.

Where will you go from here?

When I'm finally done, I hope to be able to go out and speak on a platform of exposing these crimes against women in the legal system and also promoting legal reform.

In the quiet rural communities of this country there are victims of crime that are being re-victimized by the legal system.

I think we can't be afraid of these people--the judges and lawyers who think they are all-powerful.

They're just people and as long as you're fearless, you can win.

Eventually I want to write a book and turn it into a screen play.

I've been told my story is better than Erin Brokovitch's!

end quotes

Well, there are some thoughts that are worthy of consideration, and so ......

To be continued ........

[Livyjr]

"Ruth Drollinger Fought the Law and Won!"

:: ejournal@halt.org

:: http://www.halt.org 

:: 1-888-FOR-HALT 

HALT-An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform | 1612 K Street N.W. | Suite 510 | Washington | DC | 20009

Ruth Drollinger has been trying to divorce her abusive husband and keep their four children safe for eight years.

In her long journey, she has encountered unethical attorneys and indifferent judges, but she's also found help from surprising sources and encouragement from battered women who, she hopes, will benefit from her trailblazing efforts.

Ruth's first lawyer took on her divorce case at the last minute for $5,000 and then did little at trial except "draw cartoons on his legal pad."

Unable to find a suitable replacement and frustrated with a legal system that seemed to favor her husband, Ruth decided to take matters into her own hands and act as her own advocate in the courtroom.

Armed only with a sample brief, resources from the Internet and some coaching by an attorney who was willing to help for free, Ruth successfully persuaded the Montana Supreme Court to end the unsupervised visits ordered by the lower court because of concerns for her children's safety.

I decided the law was available for me to use-as it is available to everyone-and I was going to use it, with any help I could find to arm myself.

What would you tell other consumers who are trying to bring their case pro se?

First, get your emotions out of it.

Be totally rational in presenting your case.

I think that's a problem with many people going pro se, especially in family law cases.

When you walk into a court room pro se you're automatically discriminated against.

But if you're rational, have your facts and can apply the law in your case, you will have a credible record to appeal if the judge treats you unfairly.

That's what I ended up having to do.

Have your experiences with unethical lawyers changed your perspective on lawyers and their role in the civil justice system generally?

My view of lawyers is not totally skewed.

The two lawyers who had the guts to help me, Michael Kakuk, who helped me win my Supreme Court case in 2003 and whose only pay was one of my white German Shepherd puppies, and Suzanne Marshall, who took my case in 2004 to help me obtain a hearing on my property, are lawyers who are interested in more than just making money.

I like how Abraham Lincoln practiced law.

He once told a prospective client whose case for $600 would bankrupt a widow and impoverish her six children, "Some things that are right legally are not right morally."

Lincoln refused to take the case and added "I advise an energetic sprightly man like you to try your hand at making $600 in some other way."

I think lawyers have abandoned those principles and lost their moral compass for the sake of greed.

In the quiet rural communities of this country there are victims of crime that are being re-victimized by the legal system.

I think we can't be afraid of these people--the judges and lawyers who think they are all-powerful.

They're just people and as long as you're fearless, you can win.

end quotes

Well, there are some thoughts that are worthy of consideration, and so ......

To be continued ........

Having been to court myself as a pro se litigant, which is to say, a non-lawyer citizen defending himself against attacks on his liberty interests, by the "state", I have a lot of experience with lawyers, and I would have to characterize them generally as having the most pig-like manners of any group of persons that I have ever encountered!

I can just see them at table, eating from the serving bowls with both hands!

BUT ......

That's what they are, and so, I simply accept that, and then, I do not let their conduct pierce my own state of calm, which is what they are really trying to do!

They are like gladiators in the Roman ring; they exist to fight, for sport and money!

And like the Roman gladiators, at least the ones who lived, they fight very dirty, so as to win!

And in that, they are quite predicatable, if you can only stay calm, while they are slinging dirt at your eyes, so they can come in with a low blow, and gut you on the spot!

Once you know the tricks, well, the rest is easy, because the arrogance of the lawyer is really the non-lawyer's best defense against the lawyer, since lawyers just love to "make a run" at a non-lawyer, like a bull going after a red cloth, and so ......

And just today, in fact, we yokels up here in the State of New York who are standing around watching this appeal take shape, had a prime example of the pig-like behavior of the "high-tone", or "fancy" lawyer, when one of the counsel in this matter, the one for Rensselaer County, as a matter of fact, sent the PLAINTIFF, now the APPELLENT, a letter informing the PLAINTIFF that pursuant to this lawyer's supposed "order", the PLAINTIFF was going to have to have placed in the APPENDIX to the appeal, a number of superfluous documents that if inserted, would drive the cost of this already expensive-for-a-disabled-veteran appeal, right on out of sight, which is the intent here!

Attack a seemingly inexperienced non-lawyer with a long and threatening "LAWYER'S LETTER", and then, through the intimidating nature and character of such letter, induce enough fear in the PLAINTIFF to make him back out, completely, from filing the appeal, out of fear of sanctions from the court if the "LAWYER'S LETTER" is not followed to the letter, and out of fiscal inability to comply!

EXCEPT IT IS ALL A BUNCH OF CRAP, the "LAWYER'S LETTER", and so, the lawyer is going to be notified of that fact, in no uncertain terms, BUT .....

THERE SHALL BE NO RANCOR, WHATSOEVER, IN THAT LETTER, NONE!

And there is where common citizens end up losing, all to often!

They let lawyers intimidate them, force them off-balance, and then, out of fear, they go away, the victims, themselves!

Fear!

A very powerful tool, indeed!

In fact, the mind killer, plain and simple, and if it cannot be overcome, oh well ....

Which is why this woman's words above here are so important, at least to me - DO NOT BE AFRAID!

Over and over and over again - DO NOT BE AFRAID!

And so ......

To be continued ......

[Livyjr]

"Ruth Drollinger Fought the Law and Won!"

:: ejournal@halt.org

:: http://www.halt.org 

:: 1-888-FOR-HALT 

HALT-An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform | 1612 K Street N.W. | Suite 510 | Washington | DC | 20009

In 2003, Ruth again went pro se before the Montana Supreme Court, this time in order to move her child custody case to Washington, where she felt safe.

In a landmark ruling, the Court agreed with her and held that domestic violence is reason enough to move a case into another state if a victim is better protected there.

SO?

Can a common American citizen find justice in a court of law in OUR America, if that common citizen is not a lawyer, and is defending him or herself, or their rights?

As an American citizen myself, I believe the answer is yes, even though, as jeffmoskin intimates, the evidence is often to the contrary, and again, when that is so, and it is all too commonly, at least up here where I am, this contrary evidence only serves to continue to inform me how very important it is to have on the bench at any level, IN ALL OF OUR AMERICA, from the lowest court to the highest in the land, judges who are totally independent, and who are willing to place the "law" above all else, and especially money and partisan politics.

And I myself have met some of these independent judges, and as a non-attorney, I certainly appreciate and value these judges, if and when I have to go to court, which up here, is far too many times for my own liking, but so what?

For as I see it, going to court against the "state", when necessary, as dictated by the circumstances, IS A DUTY, A REQUIREMENT OF CITIZENSHIP IN OUR AMERICA, in my value-system, anyway, and so, "liking" and "disliking" are just not an operative part of that equation!

If something in the public domain is wrong, and that wrongness is harming people, like the State of New York allowing pollution of ground water by industrial chemicals, say, then the longer that that is allowed to continue, the more harm to human health is potentially done, and so, what does one do in that particular case?

And what are the alternatives, besides doing nothing, or taking action in court to halt the abuse, even though that action of going to court, or trying to, in what led up to this appeal, may cause your teeth to be kicked right down your throat by some thugs whose job it is to protect the rights of the polluter, the poisoner, the despoiler, who makes more and more "profit" by polluting, since polluting doesn't cost the polluter a dime in a state like New York that is willing to crush a licensed professional engineer in the state investigating that pollution, which is contrary to the express language of the New York State Constitution, which is the organic law in this state, that which is supposed to be not only a check on the abuses of government, but a source of positive law, as well.

As an older American who has been around here long enough to now appreciate the "interconnet" between generations, where the following generations inherit both the "PUBLIC" good and bad of the generations before them, I see the harm that can come about to subsequent generations when previous generations, like my parents', for example, had an attitude of "keep quiet", and say nothing, with respect to governmental abuses that we always end up paying for, with our taxes, and more importantly, in the areas that I am concerned with, with our lives and health, as well, which is what makes this a pressing matter to me personally, for up here in the State of New York, at least, environmental and therefore health protection, has gone out the window, so that New York State can compete with the "Mexicos" of the world, and since their standards aren't coming up, well, OURS must go down, and that loss in environmental protection up here where I am will have grave consequences for generations that are yet to come, up here, where New York State can now boast of having within its borders a number of lakes that will no longer sustain life, because of their acidity, and it can further boast of air too dirty to breathe in its Capital District area, at times, in what I call state-sponsored "BLACK AIR ZONES", where the environment is essentially given over to the special interests to treat as they will, with the citizens of this state having no voice at all in the matter, as is the case now with extractive mining operations in the state, as a direct result of the ESCAPA Covenant that I began to discuss above here, a few days ago.

Back in 1969, a generation of New Yorkers who had grown up with rampant environmental pollution and contamination AS OUR LEGACY from the generations preceeding OURS, got together in the polling places of this state, including absentee ballots that were sent to people like me then in Viet Nam, and we said no more, through the vehicle of amending OUR New York State Constitution to send a message to OUR state legislature that this contamination and pollution was no longer acceptable, and that before it was too late, change was necessary!

Well, in many ways, that was a pipe dream on my part, at least, to think that merely changing a state Constitution was going to reverse anything deleterious or inimical to OUR generation, and those to follow, BUT ....

It had to start someplace, and so it did, with the amending of that Constitution in 1969, even if those of us who voted for that change did not exactly know what would happen next, as was really the case with the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, who produced that very document that we up here in the County of Rensselaer in the State of New York today are actively working to defend in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City, sometime this fall, although the Appellant's brief is due in just so many days now, and so, when that is filed, issues to be appealed will be settled, and lines in the sand will be drawn, for all the candid world to see!

And there is something that I would hope this generation coming along after mine begins to realize at as early an age as possible, and that is that "rights" do not come to us, merely because we believe we have them, and so, are content to sit there and relish what we have in our minds, but not in reality, because we have lost the integrity of OUR judicial system to partisan politics, long ago, and in our distraction, we did not even know it!

If young people can find no other good reason to vote, and vote intelligently, the thought of losing JUSTICE to the whims of partisan politics should be an incentive, and that will not happen if we common citizens here in OUR America do not begin to realize that we have something precious to lose in the first place, like a legal system that can deliver true justice, DESPITE THE EFFORTS OF LAWYERS and the special interests that they represent, to pervert OUR system of justice, to make it their toadying lapdog, instead.

SO!

Hence this thread, to hopefully raise some "consciousness", here in OUR America, as this woman Ruth Drollinger has done, in her own way above here.

To be continued .....

[Livyjr]

And once again, it's time for a recap, and an update on the progress of this appeal, which is due in New York City by the 16th of this month.

For anyone just dropping by, we are having in here what could be called a multi-level conversation, I suppose, where we are looking at this subject of the independence and integrity of the judiciary in OUR America in general, but through the specific eyes of common citizens in OUR America who are not lawyers, and who do not wish or purport to be lawyers, BUT do feel that American citizens should not only know the "law", at least as it applies to OUR citizenship duties and responsibilities, and further, should be able themselves to stand up in a court of law, anywhere in OUR America, AT ANY TIME, to vindicate those rights, so that the generations who are yet to come, OUR posterity, as it were, do not inherit from us an empty shell of a REPUBLIC in name only, but inherit the substance of that REPUBLIC as well, as OUR forefathers in LIBERTY wished it to be, for all of us, forever!

Now, those might sound like noble or high-falutin intentions, and be that as it may be!

The fact is that unless someone goes to court today to vindicate a right that has been trampled on by "government", and here, I am not talking about fighting speeding tickets, or fighting a drunk driving case, I am talking about violations of the compact between a "state" and its citizens known as a constitution, or "organic law"; unless someone goes and actually challenges a loss of liberty when it occurs, OUR collective silence gives assent to the loss, and so, there we all are, one rung down from where we were yesterday, and no way back up, which is what that now-hackneyed, tired old seeming cliche is all about:

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilence!"

Is it really?

And in this complex, complicated world in which we now find ourselves living in, is eternal vigilence even possible, anymore, and by whom?

As an older American, of course, my views on this subject have had quite a bit of time to "mature", and in the course of all of that time now, which spans more than thirty years, at this point, if anything, my resolve has only hardened with respect to challenging alleged on-going government corruption where I am, and looking back, it is necessary that my resolve has hardened, because the amount of retaliation to be expected from "government" has increased considerably!

The further though the "veil" we pierce, to expose the double-dealing, and conniving, that goes on behind closed doors in OUR town hall, the greater, and more grave, the threats to us from those who "hold power" become; and this case in here in particular is stark and graphic evidence of that "retaliation" and how serious to one's health and well-being that "retaliation" can be, when one can be thrown into a mental institution for asking why the "government" just did something the way that it did, in violation of existing laws, rules and regulations to the contrary!

IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO KNOWS THE LAW, BUT IS NOT A LAWYER, OR A POLITICIAN, INSANE, AND DANGEROUSLY SO, BECAUSE KNOWING THE LAW, WHEN NOT A LAWYER, OR A POLITICIAN, MAKES YOU DANGEROUSLY INSANE?

In Rensselaer County in the State of New York, and more sadly, in the Federal Northern District of New York, right now, that answer is YES, you are, and automatically so!

And that is not my "opinion" being stated here, rather, that is the only "position" left to us citizens up here by the facts in this case, and that is what this appeal is all about, to challenge those findings of the District Court for the Northern District of New York that without anything at all, no proof, no nothing, the State of New York, and its political subdivisions, the County of Rensselaer and the Town of Poestenkill, can simply order the arrest of a dissenting citizen who is about to go to court, against the "state", on trumped-up "psychiatric grounds", BY THE STATE, so that the citizen will then never make it to court, as has been the case here, in this matter, to date!

With respect to this thread, and its "purposes", it has been my own personal observation, from where I am in OUR America, that the more "open" government is supposed to have become in OUR America post-Watergate, which "event" in our nation's history a lot of younger Americans reading these words might not even connect with; THE MORE OPEN IT IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BECOME, the less open it has actually become, because abuse of the alleged "power of office", ONCE THAT "POWER" IS ACQUIRED, through its unchallenged exercise, such as was the case in the Watergate business, that abuse dies hard, and the fact that laws and regulations are passed to supposedly usher it out that much quicker actually means doodly-squat, UNLESS WE, THE PEOPLE, STAND THERE UNITED AND HAVE IT BE OTHERWISE, and before the advent of the computer forum, that was nigh on impossible, and that is a fact.

And now, because of this internet forum, we have literally entered into a brand-new era, here in OUR America, and so, once more again, in OUR America, we have pioneeers, and folks, THAT IS US, you who are reading these words, and me, who is writing them, as a chronicler of OUR times, here in OUR America!

Yes, America, that is exactly right!

In this forum, which has never existed in my lifetime before, as just a common American citizen without extravagent means, there has never been such an opportunity afforded me as this, where I can sit at a computer keyboard in my humble abode and talk to the world with the same ease as a BILLIONAIRE could do, just a matter of a few short years ago!

And so ....

What does that do for me, personally?

Well, as an older person who has had some time now to think on these things, I would say that this new freedom of communications offered by this forum, especially with respect to the JUDICIAL branch of OUR government, puts upon me personally a great and grave responsibility to act intelligently in here, not only because credibility does not come automatically with the right to communicate freely, but because to me, this subject of OUR Constitution being something more than just an empty historical document has great meaning to me, personally, having been in Viet Nam during that war, where there was no law at all, because there was no Constitution to force that law to operate, and in its absence, there was chaos and turmoil, instead.

Rogue consciousness, I call that, since most Americans today, and especially younger ones, have never seen what can transpire in a nation when there is no law, no adherence to some set of basic "human values", which are embodied in a document called a Constitution, which is supposed to secure LIBERTY, and JUSTICE for all, evenly, and regardless .......

And so, in spite of all the other things that I personally could be doing with my life, instead, my energy is all going into this appeal right now, because if it doesn't, OUR lives up here are significantly diminished, and forever, IF THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER AND THE STATE OF NEW YORK CAN, WITH IMPUNITY, DECLARE AT ANY TIME THAT ANYONE WHO OPPOSES ANY OF THEIR "POLICIES" IS A DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT, AND THEREFORE, MUST BE IMMEDIATELY INCARCERATED IN A SECURE MENTAL INSTITUTION, FOR THE ALLEGED "GOOD" OF SOME NEBULOUS "SOCIETY" WHICH CANNOT HAVE AMONG ITS MEMBERS ANY DISSENTERS, AT ALL!

SO!

In New York State right now, is the right to dissent still inviolate, if by attempting to dissent, you are BRANDED as a dangerous mental patient, and subjected to "treatment" in a state-sponsored mental institution to "cure" you of your "illness", which is rooted in your failure to "agree" with everything that is done by "government"?

Is "DISSENT" now to be in OUR America grounds for an automatic finding of "mental disease or defect" that renders one an immediate danger to "society", so that immediate State Police intervention is called for, and the use of force by the "state" to suppress this "menace" to society that dissent has now been labeled in Rensselaer County and the State of New York by this Federal District Court decision on March 31, 2005 that we are discussing in here?

YES?

Or no?

Stay tuned!

To be continued .....

[Livyjr]

A question for the moment:

IF CONSTITUTIONS MEAN NOTHING, HERE IN OUR AMERICA, WHY MUST PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, INCLUDING TOWN OFFICIALS, WHY MUST THEY TAKE AN OATH OF OFFICE AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY YEAR, OR FACE LOSS OF THEIR POSITIONS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF NOT TAKING THAT OATH OF OFFICE?

AND WHAT DOES TAKING THAT OATH REALLY MEAN?

DO PUBLIC OFFICERS IN OTHER STATES IN THIS UNION HAVE TO TAKE A SIMILAR OATH?

AND SHOULD IT EVEN MATTER, IF CONSTITUTIONS MEAN NOTHING, HERE IN OUR AMERICA?

[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.

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.

And for anyone out there who wonders why we take this so seriously, up here .....

"Los Alamos whistleblower beaten up - Police, FBI investigating attack"

AP

Tommy Hook, a whistleblower at Los Alamos National Laboratory, is seen in a Santa Fe, N.M., hospital on Sunday, after being beaten up by a group of men outside a bar, an attack his wife and lawyer believe was designed to keep him quiet.

The Associated Press
Updated: 9:21 a.m. ET June 7, 2005

SANTA FE, N.M. - A Los Alamos lab whistleblower scheduled to testify before Congress about alleged financial irregularities was badly beaten outside a bar — an attack his wife and lawyer believe was designed to silence him.

Police and the FBI said that they were investigating the circumstances of the incident which, according to his wife, left Tommy Hook hospitalized Monday with a broken jaw and other injuries.

Police Deputy Chief Eric Johnson said officers found Hook after responding to a reported assault at the Cheeks Night Club about 2 a.m. Sunday.

He provided few other details.

“We are working jointly with the FBI, trying to determine what may have happened and what the assault may have stemmed from,” Johnson said.

FBI spokesman Bill Elwell described the agency’s inquiry as preliminary.

Hook’s wife, Susan, alleged the assailants told her husband during the attack: “If you know what’s good for you, you’ll keep your mouth shut.”

Tommy Hook and another whistleblower sued the University of California in March, alleging that after they uncovered management failures, university and lab managers tried to make their jobs miserable so they would quit.

Hook, a former internal auditor who now works at another job at the lab, had been scheduled to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee later this month.

Left for dead

According to Susan Hook, her husband received a call late Saturday from someone wanting to meet with him at a bar.

She said her husband told her the man never showed up, but that as he was leaving the parking lot, a group of men pulled him from his car and beat him.

“They left him in the parking lot for dead,” said Tommy Hook’s lawyer, Robert Rothstein.

Rothstein said the assailants didn’t take Hook’s wallet, other personal belongings or car.

Without any other motive, it appears the beating was related to his whistleblowing, Rothstein contended.

Susan Hook said her husband did not frequent bars.

Los Alamos lab spokesman Kevin Roark called the beating a “senseless and brutal act and should not be tolerated.”

The lab and UC also issued a joint statement decrying the violence.

“Director (Robert) Kuckuck, the University of California and the laboratory believe that any form of physical violence toward an individual is unacceptable,” the statement read.

Hook had been voicing complains about lab management for years.

He testified in a 1997 deposition that the chief of the lab’s audit division “didn’t want to see certain things put in reports,” including “unallowable costs” and “embarrassment to the university.”

end quotes

Here in the State of New York, despite the assault in this case we are talking about in here being on a videotape in the possession of New York State Attorney General Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer, as well as the Rensselaer County District Attorney, and the New York State Police, as well as the Town of Poestenkill, where the assault occurred, not one public official in the State of New York, outside of Rensselaer County Criminal Court Judge Patrick McGrath, has said even one word to condemn this use of violence, and in this case, Judge McGrath was nothing but a voice in the wilderness calling out for justice in this matter, because in this case, he was completely ignored by everyone, including the Federal District Court judge who threw the case out of court, despite Judge McGrath's stated position that in this matter, it appeared that both state and federal criminal statutes had been violated by the defendants when they covered up the assault, and protected the assailant, by first branding the PLAINTIFF in this matter as a dangerous mental patient, and by then ordering his arrest on trumped-up and false psychiatric grounds.

[Livyjr]

And regardless of how you may feel about this particular issue discussed in this following article about a very-recent United States Supreme Court ruling on the relationship between federal law, and state law, which is the issue we are discussing in here, the article itself is interesting, and relevant in here, for the manner in which it discusses the "states-rights" issues that we have been discussing in here, as well:

Law.com

"Justices' Ruling in Medical Marijuana Case Marks Shift for States' Rights"

Tuesday June 7, 3:00 am ET

Tony Mauro, Legal Times

Supporters of the use of marijuana for medical purposes will swiftly take their campaign to Congress in the wake of Monday's Supreme Court decision that federal anti-drug laws can be enforced against users of medical marijuana in California and nine other states.

The 6-3 decision in Gonzales v. Raich was a sharp defeat not only for the medical marijuana movement but also for the Rehnquist-led trend of the past decade that reined in congressional efforts to restrict or pre-empt the states.

"I am disappointed, but it doesn't mean that the battle is over," said Angel Raich, the chronically ill patient who in 2002 challenged the application of federal law against California medical marijuana users.

Emphasizing that Monday's ruling does not strike down California's Compassionate Use Act, passed by voters in 1996, Raich added that she plans to continue using marijuana to ease her pain from several debilitating ailments.

"If I did not use cannabis, I would die."

Indeed, Monday's ruling does appear to leave California's medical marijuana law in place, but concludes that the federal government can, if it chooses to, enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against Californians for doing what California law allows: cultivating and using marijuana on the recommendation of physicians.

A Justice Department spokesman declined comment on future enforcement plans.

Steve Fox, director of the Marijuana Policy Project, said Monday that the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote next week on a budget amendment that would bar use of Justice Department funds to enforce federal drug laws against medical marijuana users in states where it is allowed.

"The timing [of the ruling] is perfect," said Fox, who is hopeful that public attention paid to the high court ruling will translate into congressional support for the measure.

Raich's husband, Robert, a lawyer who participated in the case before the high court, said California medical marijuana users should "rest assured that it remains safe," in part because "99 percent of marijuana arrests take place at the local level."

Boston University law professor Randy Barnett, who argued on behalf of Raich before the high court, also said he was fearful that the public might, by reading headlines about the decision, incorrectly conclude that medical marijuana laws in California and other states are now invalid.

"The ruling has absolutely nothing to do with the continued existence of the Compassionate Use Act," Barnett said, adding that the Court had ruled only on the commerce clause issue in the case -- not the due process claims that Barnett says are still in play.

Another avenue left open -- or even encouraged -- by the ruling Monday is to persuade the Food and Drug Administration to change the classification of marijuana as a completely banned Schedule I substance, which it has refused to do for decades.

In a footnote, Justice John Paul Stevens said that if the scientific evidence offered by medical marijuana supporters is true, it would "cast serious doubt" on the Schedule I classification.

But the main thrust of Monday's ruling is that even when the marijuana at issue never crosses state lines, the Controlled Substances Act is a valid exercise of congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.

"One need not have a degree in economics to understand why a nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana (or other drugs) locally cultivated for personal use ... may have a substantial impact on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular substance," wrote Stevens.

"If there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail."

The Court's decision, the latest of many endorsements of the federal government's "comprehensive regime" of drug laws, was not unexpected.

But it was remarkable in light of Chief Justice William Rehnquist's quiet and recently successful campaign to limit federal encroachment of states' rights in the name of the commerce clause.

As he had earlier in his 33-year tenure, but not as much recently, Rehnquist on Monday found himself in the minority on a major federal-state dispute.

He joined a dissent written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and joined by Justice Clarence Thomas that repeated many of the pro-states' rights arguments that have prevailed of late.

"This case exemplifies the role of states as laboratories," wrote O'Connor.

"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens."

Exercising those powers, she continued, California had decided to allow decriminalized marijuana use in limited circumstances.

Monday's ruling, she said, "extinguishes that experiment."

Monday's decision, O'Connor said, was "irreconcilable" with United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, which struck down congressional enactments on gun possession near schools, and violence against women, respectively.

Lopez and Morrison are prominent hallmarks of the Rehnquist federalism trend.

In his majority opinion, Stevens said the medical marijuana case was distinguishable from Lopez and Morrison because the Controlled Substances Act was a "lengthy and detailed statute" that dealt with undeniably commercial transactions.

Stevens based the ruling on one of the high-water marks of federal power, the classic 1942 decision Wickard v. Filburn, which said New Deal-era federal agricultural regulations could reach down to restrict a farmer's home-grown wheat even if it never enters interstate commerce.

"The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking," Stevens said.

In a separate dissent, Thomas sharply criticized the majority for drifting back toward an expansive view of the commerce clause that would allow Congress to regulate "quilting bees, clothing drives and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states."

He added, "The majority is not interpreting the Commerce Clause, but rewriting it."

Interestingly, O'Connor's dissent included a personal statement about the merits of medical marijuana that Rehnquist and Thomas specifically indicated they did not join.

"If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act," O'Connor wrote.

"But whatever the wisdom of California's experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case."

Go to Law.com for legal information and services on the web.

Sign up today for a free subscription to the Law.com daily legal newswire.

[jeffmoskin]

But it was remarkable in light of Chief Justice William Rehnquist's quiet and recently successful campaign to limit federal encroachment of states' rights in the name of the commerce clause.

As he had earlier in his 33-year tenure, but not as much recently, Rehnquist on Monday found himself in the minority on a major federal-state dispute.

He joined a dissent written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and joined by Justice Clarence Thomas that repeated many of the pro-states' rights arguments that have prevailed of late.

Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Thomas... defenders of state's rights against federal encroachment...

Something is terribly out of whack here.

[Livyjr]

Law.com

"Justices' Ruling in Medical Marijuana Case Marks Shift for States' Rights"

Tuesday June 7, 3:00 am ET

Tony Mauro, Legal Times

Supporters of the use of marijuana for medical purposes will swiftly take their campaign to Congress in the wake of Monday's Supreme Court decision that federal anti-drug laws can be enforced against users of medical marijuana in California and nine other states.

The 6-3 decision in Gonzales v. Raich was a sharp defeat not only for the medical marijuana movement but also for the Rehnquist-led trend of the past decade that reined in congressional efforts to restrict or pre-empt the states.

In a separate dissent, Thomas sharply criticized the majority for drifting back toward an expansive view of the commerce clause that would allow Congress to regulate "quilting bees, clothing drives and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states."

He added, "The majority is not interpreting the Commerce Clause, but rewriting it."

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., PETITIONERS v. ANGEL McCLARY RAICH et al.

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

[June 6, 2005]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice Thomas, dissenting.

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana.

If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Respondents' local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States." U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3.

By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power.

The majority supports this conclusion by invoking, without explanation, the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Regulating respondents' conduct, however, is not "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" Congress' restrictions on the interstate drug trade. Art. I, §8, cl. 18.

Thus, neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to regulate respondents' conduct.

As I explained at length in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate the buying and selling of goods and services trafficked across state lines. Id., at 586-589 (concurring opinion).

The Clause's text, structure, and history all indicate that, at the time of the founding, the term " 'commerce' consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes." Id., at 585 (Thomas, J., concurring).

Commerce, or trade, stood in contrast to productive activities like manufacturing and agriculture. Id., at 586-587 (Thomas, J., concurring).

Throughout founding-era dictionaries, Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention, The Federalist Papers, and the ratification debates, the term "commerce" is consistently used to mean trade or exchange--not all economic or gainful activity that has some attenuated connection to trade or exchange. Ibid. (Thomas, J., concurring); Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 101, 112-125 (2001).

The term "commerce" commonly meant trade or exchange (and shipping for these purposes) not simply to those involved in the drafting and ratification processes, but also to the general public. Barnett, New Evidence of the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 55 Ark. L. Rev. 847, 857-862 (2003).

Even the majority does not argue that respondents' conduct is itself "Commerce among the several States." Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Ante, at 19.

Monson and Raich neither buy nor sell the marijuana that they consume.

They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California--it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction.

Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value.

In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

On this traditional understanding of "commerce," the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U. S. C. §801 et seq., regulates a great deal of marijuana trafficking that is interstate and commercial in character.

The CSA does not, however, criminalize only the interstate buying and selling of marijuana.

Instead, it bans the entire market--intrastate or interstate, noncommercial or commercial--for marijuana.

Respondents are correct that the CSA exceeds Congress' commerce power as applied to their conduct, which is purely intrastate and noncommercial.

More difficult, however, is whether the CSA is a valid exercise of Congress' power to enact laws that are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" its power to regulate interstate commerce. Art. I, §8, cl. 18.

The Necessary and Proper Clause is not a warrant to Congress to enact any law that bears some conceivable connection to the exercise of an enumerated power.1

Nor is it, however, a command to Congress to enact only laws that are absolutely indispensable to the exercise of an enumerated power.2

In McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819), this Court, speaking through Chief Justice Marshall, set forth a test for determining when an Act of Congress is permissible under the Necessary and Proper Clause:

"Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional." Id., at 421.

To act under the Necessary and Proper Clause, then, Congress must select a means that is "appropriate" and "plainly adapted" to executing an enumerated power; the means cannot be otherwise "prohibited" by the Constitution; and the means cannot be inconsistent with "the letter and spirit of the [C]onstitution." Ibid.; D. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years 1789-1888, pp. 163-164 (1985).

The CSA, as applied to respondents' conduct, is not a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Congress has exercised its power over interstate commerce to criminalize trafficking in marijuana across state lines.

The Government contends that banning Monson and Raich's intrastate drug activity is "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" its regulation of interstate drug trafficking. Art. I, §8, cl. 18. See 21 U. S. C. §801(6).

However, in order to be "necessary," the intrastate ban must be more than "a reasonable means [of] effectuat[ing] the regulation of interstate commerce." Brief for Petitioners 14; see ante, at 19 (majority opinion) (employing rational-basis review).

It must be "plainly adapted" to regulating interstate marijuana trafficking--in other words, there must be an "obvious, simple, and direct relation" between the intrastate ban and the regulation of interstate commerce. Sabri v. United States, 541 U. S. 600, 613 (2004) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment); see also United States v. Dewitt, 9 Wall. 41, 44 (1870) (finding ban on intrastate sale of lighting oils not "appropriate and plainly adapted means for carrying into execution" Congress' taxing power).

On its face, a ban on the intrastate cultivation, possession and distribution of marijuana may be plainly adapted to stopping the interstate flow of marijuana.

Unregulated local growers and users could swell both the supply and the demand sides of the interstate marijuana market, making the market more difficult to regulate. Ante, at 9-10, 19 (majority opinion).

But respondents do not challenge the CSA on its face.

Instead, they challenge it as applied to their conduct.

The question is thus whether the intrastate ban is "necessary and proper" as applied to medical marijuana users like respondents.3

Respondents are not regulable simply because they belong to a large class (local growers and users of marijuana) that Congress might need to reach, if they also belong to a distinct and separable subclass (local growers and users of state-authorized, medical marijuana) that does not undermine the CSA's interstate ban. Ante, at 6-7 (O'Connor, J., dissenting).

The Court of Appeals found that respondents' "limited use is distinct from the broader illicit drug market," because "th[eir] medicinal marijuana ... is not intended for, nor does it enter, the stream of commerce." Raich v. Ashcroft, 352 F. 3d 1222, 1228 (CA9 2003).

If that is generally true of individuals who grow and use marijuana for medical purposes under state law, then even assuming Congress has "obvious" and "plain" reasons why regulating intrastate cultivation and possession is necessary to regulating the interstate drug trade, none of those reasons applies to medical marijuana patients like Monson and Raich.

California's Compassionate Use Act sets respondents' conduct apart from other intrastate producers and users of marijuana.

The Act channels marijuana use to "seriously ill Californians," Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. §11362.5(b)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2005), and prohibits "the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes," §11362.5(b)(2).4

California strictly controls the cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical purposes.

To be eligible for its program, California requires that a patient have an illness that cannabis can relieve, such as cancer, AIDS, or arthritis, §11362.5(b)(1)(A), and that he obtain a physician's recommendation or approval, §11362.5(d).

Qualified patients must provide personal and medical information to obtain medical identification cards, and there is a statewide registry of cardholders. §§11362.715-.76.

Moreover, the Medical Board of California has issued guidelines for physicians' cannabis recommendations, and it sanctions physicians who do not comply with the guidelines. See, e.g., People v. Spark, 121 Cal. App. 4th 259, 263, 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 840, 843 (2004).

This class of intrastate users is therefore distinguishable from others.

We normally presume that States enforce their own laws, Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 795 (1988), and there is no reason to depart from that presumption here: Nothing suggests that California's controls are ineffective.

The scant evidence that exists suggests that few people--the vast majority of whom are aged 40 or older--register to use medical marijuana. General Accounting Office, Marijuana: Early Experiences with Four States' Laws That Allow Use for Medical Purposes 22-23 (Rep. No. 03-189, Nov. 2002), http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01389.pdf (all Internet materials as visited on June 3, 2005, and available in Clerk of Court's case file).

In part because of the low incidence of medical marijuana use, many law enforcement officials report that the introduction of medical marijuana laws has not affected their law enforcement efforts. Id., at 32.

These controls belie the Government's assertion that placing medical marijuana outside the CSA's reach "would prevent effective enforcement of the interstate ban on drug trafficking." Brief for Petitioners 33.

Enforcement of the CSA can continue as it did prior to the Compassionate Use Act.

Only now, a qualified patient could avoid arrest or prosecution by presenting his identification card to law enforcement officers.

In the event that a qualified patient is arrested for possession or his cannabis is seized, he could seek to prove as an affirmative defense that, in conformity with state law, he possessed or cultivated small quantities of marijuana intrastate solely for personal medical use. People v. Mower, 28 Cal. 4th 457, 469-470, 49 P. 3d 1067, 1073-1075 (2002); People v. Trippet, 56 Cal. App. 4th 1532, 1549 (1997).

Moreover, under the CSA, certain drugs that present a high risk of abuse and addiction but that nevertheless have an accepted medical use--drugs like morphine and amphetamines--are available by prescription. 21 U. S. C. §§812(b)(2)(A)-(B); 21 CFR §1308.12 (2004).

No one argues that permitting use of these drugs under medical supervision has undermined the CSA's restrictions.

But even assuming that States' controls allow some seepage of medical marijuana into the illicit drug market, there is a multibillion-dollar interstate market for marijuana. Executive Office of the President, Office of Nat. Drug Control Policy, Marijuana Fact Sheet 5 (Feb. 2004), http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/public...uana/index.html.

It is difficult to see how this vast market could be affected by diverted medical cannabis, let alone in a way that makes regulating intrastate medical marijuana obviously essential to controlling the interstate drug market.

To be sure, Congress declared that state policy would disrupt federal law enforcement.

It believed the across-the-board ban essential to policing interstate drug trafficking. 21 U. S. C. §801(6).

But as Justice O'Connor points out, Congress presented no evidence in support of its conclusions, which are not so much findings of fact as assertions of power. Ante, at 13-14 (dissenting opinion).

Congress cannot define the scope of its own power merely by declaring the necessity of its enactments.

In sum, neither in enacting the CSA nor in defending its application to respondents has the Government offered any obvious reason why banning medical marijuana use is necessary to stem the tide of interstate drug trafficking.

Congress' goal of curtailing the interstate drug trade would not plainly be thwarted if it could not apply the CSA to patients like Monson and Raich.

That is, unless Congress' aim is really to exercise police power of the sort reserved to the States in order to eliminate even the intrastate possession and use of marijuana.

Even assuming the CSA's ban on locally cultivated and consumed marijuana is "necessary," that does not mean it is also "proper."

The means selected by Congress to regulate interstate commerce cannot be "prohibited" by, or inconsistent with the "letter and spirit" of, the Constitution. McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at 421.

In Lopez, I argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general "police power" over the Nation. 514 U. S., at 584, 600 (concurring opinion).

This is no less the case if Congress ties its power to the Necessary and Proper Clause rather than the Commerce Clause.

When agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration raided Monson's home, they seized six cannabis plants.

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers--as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause--have no meaningful limits.

Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce." United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 627 (2000) (Thomas, J., concurring).

Even if Congress may regulate purely intrastate activity when essential to exercising some enumerated power, see Dewitt, 9 Wall., at 44; but see Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause, 6 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 183, 186 (2003) (detailing statements by Founders that the Necessary and Proper Clause was not intended to expand the scope of Congress' enumerated powers), Congress may not use its incidental authority to subvert basic principles of federalism and dual sovereignty. Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 923-924 (1997); Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 732-733 (1999); Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 585 (1985) (O'Connor, J., dissenting); The Federalist No. 33, pp. 204-205 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (hereinafter The Federalist).

Here, Congress has encroached on States' traditional police powers to define the criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.5 Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 635 (1993); Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U. S. 707, 719 (1985).

Further, the Government's rationale--that it may regulate the production or possession of any commodity for which there is an interstate market--threatens to remove the remaining vestiges of States' traditional police powers. See Brief for Petitioners 21-22; cf. Ehrlich, The Increasing Federalization of Crime, 32 Ariz. St. L. J. 825, 826, 841 (2000) (describing both the relative recency of a large percentage of federal crimes and the lack of a relationship between some of these crimes and interstate commerce).

This would convert the Necessary and Proper Clause into precisely what Chief Justice Marshall did not envision, a "pretext ... for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the government." McCulloch, supra, at 423.

end quotes

A "pretext ... for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the government!"

Like declaring witnesses about to "blow the whistle" on the "state" to be dangerous mental patients!

Hijacking witnesses against the "state" is one of those objects not intrusted to any government, here in OUR America, anyway, and as it is reminiscent of Stalinist Russia, and its own GULAGS, it is not welcome, but despite that .....

[Livyjr]

And to update OUR own personal progress here, the appendix to the appeal brief is done, and is on its way to the print shop, for copying, and the brief is written, and is now in the process of being edited down to the final version, and so ......

The clock is ticking, and the pressure on us rises incrementally by the day!

BUT ......

Is there an alternative?

Other than quitting, of course, or cutting and running?

I, for one, don't think so, because to simply give up, to quit, to say "they" are just too powerful, or the "system" is not "fair" would make a mockery out of everything that I personally believe in as an American citizen, and I have had these "beliefs" now for too long a time to just abandon them now, for nothing in return, because that would be the reward of quitting - NOTHING, nothing at all!

And so .....

Please stay tuned!

As always, your continued interest is appreciated, and very much so, indeed!

[Livyjr]

Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Thomas... defenders of state's rights against federal encroachment...

Something is terribly out of whack here.

Well, jeffmoskin, let's take a look and see, and to do that, well, I went right to the source, which is Justice O'Connor, herself:

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., PETITIONERS v. ANGEL McCLARY RAICH et al.

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

[June 6, 2005]

Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join as to all but Part III, dissenting.

We enforce the "outer limits" of Congress' Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of government. United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 557 (1995); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 37 (1937).

One of federalism's chief virtues, of course, is that it promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

This case exemplifies the role of States as laboratories.

The States' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 635 (1993); Whalen v. Roe, 429 U. S. 589, 603, n. 30 (1977).

Exercising those powers, California (by ballot initiative and then by legislative codification) has come to its own conclusion about the difficult and sensitive question of whether marijuana should be available to relieve severe pain and suffering.

Today the Court sanctions an application of the federal Controlled Substances Act that extinguishes that experiment, without any proof that the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, if economic activity in the first place, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and is therefore an appropriate subject of federal regulation.

In so doing, the Court announces a rule that gives Congress a perverse incentive to legislate broadly pursuant to the Commerce Clause--nestling questionable assertions of its authority into comprehensive regulatory schemes--rather than with precision.

That rule and the result it produces in this case are irreconcilable with our decisions in Lopez, supra, and United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598 (2000).

Accordingly I dissent.

Section III

We would do well to recall how James Madison, the father of the Constitution, described our system of joint sovereignty to the people of New York: "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined."

"Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite... . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

Relying on Congress' abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use.

This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently.

"If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act."

But whatever the wisdom of California's experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.

For these reasons I dissent.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[jeffmoskin]

We enforce the "outer limits" of Congress' Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of government[/u]. United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 557 (1995); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 37 (1937).

One of federalism's chief virtues, of course, is that it promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

This case exemplifies the role of States as laboratories.

The States' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens[/u]. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 635 (1993); Whalen v. Roe, 429 U. S. 589, 603, n. 30 (1977).

Exercising those powers, California (by ballot initiative and then by legislative codification) has come to its own conclusion about the difficult and sensitive question of whether marijuana should be available to relieve severe pain and suffering.

Today the Court sanctions an application of the federal Controlled Substances Act that extinguishes that experiment, without any proof that the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, if economic activity in the first place, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and is therefore an appropriate subject of federal regulation.

In so doing, the Court announces a rule that gives Congress a perverse incentive to legislate broadly pursuant to the Commerce Clause--nestling questionable assertions of its authority into comprehensive regulatory schemes--rather than with precision.

That rule and the result it produces in this case are irreconcilable with our decisions in Lopez, supra, and United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598 (2000).

Accordingly I dissent.

Section III

We would do well to recall how James Madison, the father of the Constitution, described our system of joint sovereignty to the people of New York: "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined."

Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite... . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

Relying on Congress' abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use.

This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently.

"If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act."

But whatever the wisdom of California's experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.

For these reasons I dissent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remarkable.

I completely agree with her.

I heard myself say that.

[Livyjr]

Remarkable.

I completely agree with her.

I heard myself say that.

And perhaps it could be, and maybe should be said, jeffmoskin, that thank God, SHE AGREES WITH YOU, because in this Federal Republic of OURS, we are supposed to be the sovereign, and the Congress is supposed to REPRESENT US, and the president is supposed to be OUR PRIME MINISTER, and not OUR king, and as time passes, or progresses, and people become more and more ignorant of exactly what OUR America is supposed to be, OUR America is changing into something that the Constitution was supposed to prevent, and to OUR detriment, we don't even know what is happening, in large part, in that regard, because we are simply unaware ........

Unaware of all too much that concerns us, and by the time we realize that we have lost something, which up here is "equal protection of law" comparable to that which the "monied interests" can buy from the "government", which now belongs to the political parties, and not us, the common American citizens without means to buy some "government" for ourselves, or in my case, anyway, a firm and solid belief, that as a natural-born American citizen, I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BUY MY LIBERTY FROM ANYONE, and especially the "government" set in place by my state Constitution to protect me, IT IS SOMETIMES TOO LATE, as this Supreme Court case above here suggests, to do anything at all to reverse that "state of being".

And for those of you just stopping by, what jeffmoskin and I are doing in here is that traditional American "thing" of "reading law", which means exactly what it says, although one does not really hear the expression much anymore, here in OUR America, again, to OUR detriment, I think, anyway, where we have all these "instant" lawyers being produced by all these "law schools" in three short years who seem to know all the ins and outs of cadging and wheedling to get every last penny that they can out of the pockets of some poor sucker that they are fleecing, or shaking down, at any given moment, but not much else, beyond that, and certainly not scholarship, when it comes to this nation, and its history, and what that history means to us as a PEOPLE, and as a nation, TODAY, and TOMARROW, which is what the Constitution as a "living document" is supposed to be all about!

Now I don't know about jeffmoskin, but as for me, I am no "superstar", or "master of the universe", or any of those grandiose kinds of things, and yet, here I am, along with jeffmoskin, and Justice O'Connor, "reading" law, JUST LIKE ABRAHAM LINCOLN did before us, and generations did before him, AND THAT TO ME, IS THE AMERICAN WAY, where the law is accessible and available to each and every one of us, regardless of station, here in OUR America, BUT FOR ......

BUT FOR THOSE WHO WOULD HAVE IT BE OTHERWISE, that the "LAW" be the exclusive province of just a handful, a powerful elite, who, like a "priesthood", are the sole possessors, and arbiters of that which affects each and every one of us in OUR daily lives, although we may not even know that it is happening, like with this PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN POLICY up here in the State of New York, which, BUT FOR THIS FORUM, which is the purest form of democracy that I have ever experienced in my lifetime, NO ONE WOULD EVER KNOW ABOUT, until it happened to you, of course, and then .....

So, in this day and age of computers and the internet being so available and accessible to everyone in the world, as well as to me, an older traditional American who is the son of a "blue-collar" worker, here in OUR America, one who was brought up on the traditional American maxim of "ignorance of the law is never an excuse", with all of this knowledge about OUR Constitution and OUR law being available to us, immediately as the ink off these Supreme Court Justices pens is drying, WHAT POSSIBLE EXCUSE CAN ANY OF US HAVE FOR BEING IGNORANT, other than a desire to be so, that is?

[Livyjr]

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., PETITIONERS v. ANGEL McCLARY RAICH et al.

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

[June 6, 2005]

Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join as to all but Part III, dissenting.

We would do well to recall how James Madison, the father of the Constitution, described our system of joint sovereignty to the people of New York: "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined."

"Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite... . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

Remarkable.

I completely agree with her.

I heard myself say that.

And after some more thought on this subject, jeffmoskin, I am not sure how completely I do agree with the Honorable Supreme Court Justice, although I do not disagree with her, at all.

Rather, as an older New York State citizen, I wonder at how her analysis proceeds, since it seems to make a presumption that the states are a creation of the federal government, or Constitution, and with respect to the majority of states, that in fact may be true, HOWEVER ....

And here, this is a big HOWEVER with me, since it would seem that here in the State of New York, OUR Constitutional protections and safeguards are going right out the window, and that is in part due to whatever relationship there is between the "state" and the federal government, versus between the "citizen, and the "state", on the one hand, and the "citizen" and the federal government, on the other.

And this is not just idle thinking here, on my part!

To the contrary, this is quite serious stuff, for us, since in this specific case that we are dealing with in here, we had the exact opposite situation, where the district court acceded fully to the "state's" wish to have no federal interference whatsoever in this matter, despite past United States Supreme Court decisions which demonstrate that in this matter, we had a legitimate federal "question", which gives the federal district court original jurisdiction in this matter, as a matter of law, in OUR America, anywhere in OUR America, if the United States Constitution is to remain a valid document, or source of positive law, for us, the common citizens of OUR America, in OUR times today.

What exactly is this "dual sovereignty" issue that these Supreme Court justices talk about above, here, and exactly what does that mean to us, as common American citizens, today, and tomarrow, as opposed to yesterday, or two hundred years ago, or more, when James Madison walked this earth in the flesh, and in that guise, served as the "Father of the United States Constitution"?

In this case above here, the marijauna case, the task of the plaintiffs in that matter was to show that in that case, the federal government EXCEEDED ITS BOUNDS, while in this case that I am involved with, we have to demonstrate that the federal government did not meet its bounds, which is a different test altogether, and to make that demonstration to a Federal Appeals Court, we have to know how the minds of these Supreme Court Justices really do work when performing THEIR analysis of a set of legal arguments before them, and that is why these words of Justice O'Connor above are so important to me, a non-lawyer, personally, as they are quite illuminating as to how the United States Supreme Court Justices are viewing this relationship, right now, today, which is the only time that ever counts, when you must go to court to vindicate rights that one believes have been violated in an unconstitutional manner.

Simply stated, BUT FOR the twelve states that actually did sit, through their delegates, in the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there would be no United States Constitution, and there would be no United States Supreme Court for Justice O'Connor to be a member of, and so, I think her view of matters is not wrong, but incomplete, instead, and for these reasons which will follow.

And it has to do with something in the Constitutions of the first thirteen states called "resort to first principles", which in 1787, meant one thing, to each and every American at that time, who had lived through the American Revolution; and to the delegates themselves, including James Madiosn, whose words Justice O'Connor relies on above, and that was, and included the right to overturn a bad government, at any time!

Each of the Constitutions of the original thirteen states was based upon this premise, because the first thirteen states, including New York, were themselves the creation of the application of "first principles" in the Declaration of Independence which created the United States of America, at that time.

In the waning days of the Constitutional Convention, when the debate centered on who was to actually ratify the new constitution, James Madison himself stated that here in OUR America, to him, at least, THE PEOPLE, which is US, all of us, are "in fact the fountain of all power", and in that same speech, he stated that THE PEOPLE "could alter constitutions as they pleased", because "it was a principle in the [state] bills of rights, that first principles might be resorted to", which means that in the original thirteen states, the right to overturn a bad government was embodied as law of the land in the bills of rights of those original states.

Now, the question for OUR times is one of what that really means, to us, as opposed to do we have that right?

And that is quite a serious question, to me, anyway, as a loyal American citizen who believes in this country, and my role as a citizen in it.

IF, according to "first principles", it is a natural "right of man (and woman)" to be able to overturn bad government, at any time, does that mean we will be at constant war, here?

Or do we have the right to overturn bad government peaceably built into OUR dual sovereignties?

Specifically, is OUR right to resort to first principles only limited to the original thirteen states, in which case all the other states which came into the union afterwards are lacking this protection, or safeguard?

Or can those states formed after the union in 1787 "combine" in such a way to take that right away from those Americans who do live in the original thirteen states, in which case OUR state constitutions that pre-exist the United States Constitution can be rendered null and void by "new" states acting through the federal government?

And how do we figure out the "truth" of this conundrum, if conundrum it be?

Stay tuned .....

And again, thank you for your continuing interest in this matter of vital importance to those of us who reside in Rensselaer County in the EMPIRE state of New York, where the question of the day remains one of whether or not we have any constitutional rights left to us, at all, despite anything James Madison might have said to the contrary, all those long years ago, now!

[Livyjr]

Simply stated, BUT FOR the twelve states that actually did sit, through their delegates, in the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there would be no United States Constitution, and there would be no United States Supreme Court for Justice O'Connor to be a member of, and so, I think her view of matters is not wrong, but incomplete, instead, and for these reasons which will follow.

And it has to do with something in the Constitutions of the first thirteen states called "resort to first principles", which in 1787, meant one thing, to each and every American at that time, who had lived through the American Revolution; and to the delegates themselves, including James Madiosn, whose words Justice O'Connor relies on above, and that was, and included the right to overturn a bad government, at any time!

Each of the Constitutions of the original thirteen states was based upon this premise, because the first thirteen states, including New York, were themselves the creation of the application of "first principles" in the Declaration of Independence which created the United States of America, at that time.

In the waning days of the Constitutional Convention, when the debate centered on who was to actually ratify the new constitution, James Madison himself stated that here in OUR America, to him, at least, THE PEOPLE, which is US, all of us, are "in fact the fountain of all power", and in that same speech, he stated that THE PEOPLE "could alter constitutions as they pleased", because "it was a principle in the [state] bills of rights, that first principles might be resorted to", which means that in the original thirteen states, the right to overturn a bad government was embodied as law of the land in the bills of rights of those original states.

Now, the question for OUR times is one of what that really means, to us, as opposed to do we have that right?

And that is quite a serious question, to me, anyway, as a loyal American citizen who believes in this country, and my role as a citizen in it.

IF, according to "first principles", it is a natural "right of man (and woman)" to be able to overturn bad government, at any time, does that mean we will be at constant war, here?

Or do we have the right to overturn bad government peaceably built into OUR dual sovereignties?

And as I continue to work on this thread, and as I watch this appeal come together, which it pretty much has now, as of last night, anyway, I continue to be amazed at how little we really do know about this country of OURS, in the aggregate, and I think that is partly because the nation is so large, in landmass, and we are really still separate and disparate in our interests when we cross state lines, although we never really realize it, because interstate travel or even cross-country travel is now so easy, that we ignore the ramifications of crossing state lines, if indeed there are any outside of political philosophy, and yet, when it comes to the law, political philosphy is everything, since OUR law is a creation of mankind, and so, is no more perfect than its source, which should be us, in the original scheme of things, but has now really devolved from us to the two political parties, where the Republicans and their "values", whatever those might really be, are in charge of things, like the law, and how it shall be applied to us, regardless of what OUR state constitutions might have to say about it, or the United States Constitution, either.

Back in the earlier days of this nation's history, on May 19, 1821, John Adams, himself a "revolutionary", said to Thomas Jefferson that "A free government is a complicated piece of machinery, the nice and exact adjustment of whose springs, wheels, and weights, is not yet well comprehended by the artists of the age, AND STILL LESS BY THE PEOPLE", and when I was young, quite young, as I recall, I and the others who I went to school with were taught these words, as a direct warning, or admonition, perhaps, to us, that being a citizen of a democratic Republic was damn serious business, and so, OUR job as young people was to learn about that democratic Republic, and what OUR place in it might be, SO AS TO OVERCOME THIS LACK OF UNDERSTANDING that Adams told Jefferson about, back in 1821!

And in my naivete, I thought that every other child in OUR America was getting this same lecture, so that later, when we all graduated and went out into the world, it would be with one common view of this nation's history, and our responsibilities, as citizens, to know that history, and to keep that "complicated piece of machinery" running as smoothly as possible.

And then, I went out into the world, and when I did, I came to realize that we are not all taught the same things about this nation's history, at all!

It's like the Tower of Babel, where no one speaks a common tongue!

And that is that, apparently!

SO?

If we have no common views, are we really a nation?

Or put another way, if we have no national history in common, can we ever be a nation?

Or are we simply down here, like cattle on a great big feedlot?

And if that is so, why do we really need a Constitution?

To tell us where we can't go, instead of the usual barbed wire fences, which do the same for cows in real life?

[jeffmoskin]

SO?

If we have no common views, are we really a nation?

Or put another way, if we have no national history in common, can we ever be a nation?

Or are we simply down here, like cattle on a great big feedlot?

And if that is so, why do we really need a Constitution?

To tell us where we can't go, instead of the usual barbed wire fences, which do the same for cows in real life?

as Gore Vidal told an interviewer in "City Pages,"

CP: Has the media played a role in transforming citizens into spectators of this process?

Vidal: Well, they have been transformed, by design, by corporate America, aided by the media, which belongs to corporate America. They are no longer citizens. They are hardly voters. They are consumers, and they consume those things which are advertised on television. They are made to sound like happy consumers. Listen to TV advertising: This one says, "I had this terrible pain, but when I put on Kool-Aid, I found relief overnight. You must try it too." All we do is hear about little cures for little pains. Nothing important gets said. There used to be all those talk shows back in the '50s and '60s, when I was on television a great deal. People would talk about many important things, and you had some very good talkers. They're not allowed on now. Or they're set loose in the Fox Zoo, in which you have a number of people who pretend to be journalists but are really like animals. Each one has his own noise--there's the donkey who brays, there's the pig who squeals. Each one is a different animal in a zoo, making a characteristic noise. The result is chaos, which is what is intended. They don't want the people to know anything, and the people don't.


Methinks there is a lot of truth in this.


http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1268/article13085.asp

[Livyjr]

as Gore Vidal told an interviewer in "City Pages,"

CP: Has the media played a role in transforming citizens into spectators of this process?

Vidal: Well, they have been transformed, by design, by corporate America, aided by the media, which belongs to corporate America.

They are no longer citizens.

They are hardly voters.

They are consumers, and they consume those things which are advertised on television.

They are made to sound like happy consumers.

Listen to TV advertising: This one says, "I had this terrible pain, but when I put on Kool-Aid, I found relief overnight."

"You must try it too."

All we do is hear about little cures for little pains.

Nothing important gets said.

There used to be all those talk shows back in the '50s and '60s, when I was on television a great deal.

People would talk about many important things, and you had some very good talkers.

They're not allowed on now.

Or they're set loose in the Fox Zoo, in which you have a number of people who pretend to be journalists but are really like animals.

Each one has his own noise--there's the donkey who brays, there's the pig who squeals.

Each one is a different animal in a zoo, making a characteristic noise.

The result is chaos, which is what is intended.

They don't want the people to know anything, and the people don't.

end quotes

Methinks there is a lot of truth in this.

http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1268/article13085.asp

You know, jeffmoskin, I try and think back on my own "career" here as an American citizen, to see when these ideas that I am presenting in here, might not have been in there, in my mind, that is, and I find that I cannot find that time!

It seems that from my earliest days, I have been brought up to see OUR America as a certain kind of thing, and a living, breathing thing, at that, WHICH I WAS TO BE A PART OF, and hence, from my earliest days, I was taught responsibility, and ignorance of the law, or rules is no excuse!

Of course, then, which was right at the end of WWII, that something that I personally knew as America, was the little community down the road from where I lived in the country, and at that time, July 4th was celebrated as Independence Day, and so, as a young child, on that day, I was confronted by my responsibilities as an American citizen, when I would see the veterans marching, because back then, every year, on July 4th, there was a big too-do down in town, and all of us knew why - that was the day we became free of English tyranny, forever!

Independence Day!

And because of the struggles of those who did gain that Independence for us, I was to be thankful on July 4th, where now, what is it - a day to get just sloppy drunk?

And when I was young, the roads to town were dirt!

There was no TV in my house, for quite a few years, and no telephone, either, and so, we exercised our minds by reading, and that reading, when I was young, was history, history, history, so that I would know where this community and nation of mine had come from, so as to enable me to see my place in it, where I was to be all that I could be, for the common good, as was envisioned back in 1776, by those in the State of New York who had endorsed the Declaration of Independence, and subsequently, the New York State Constitution which still stands, at least on paper, to this day.

And so, jeffmoskin, like you, I have witnessed this passage of time that Mr. Vidal speaks to above here, and like you, I too see more than a modicum of truth in it, and how is that saying about the best slaves being those who assume the yoke willingly?

And if you don't perceive it as a yoke at all, well .......

[Livyjr]

SO!

I became a "marked man", Mr. A.B., or a nuisance, perhaps, as you call it, and something had to be done about that!

I wanted an investigation into how this legal instrument had made is way into the Town of Poestenkill as alleged "proof" of compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations, when it fact, it was a fraud, and the Town of Poestenkill and the garbage company wanted me gone, and HARD, with a bounce or two, for undoing a "DEAL" between them, and they made that position quite well known to me, and the general public as well, which consisted of two opposing camps, the BID-NESS PROTECTIVE people on one side, who had closed ranks with the garbage company, and the affected citizens!

And the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation did as well, for I had "un-done" in a very public way a "PRIVATE" deal that had gone down between the garbage hauler and the DEC which resulted in that "permit" changing "hands" between the DEC and this trash company; that public "un-doing of the DEC DEAL" being in Albany County Supreme Court, where Judge Williams, an old straight-shooting type of judge, actually put the Assistant New York State Attorney General under oath in front of the entire courtroom, including the press, and had her repeat for him and the court what she had already sworn to in her affidavit, that when the NYSDEC issued this solid waste facility construction permit to this Poestenkill garbage firm, it had violated every law and regulation which governed the issuance of such permits!

I took "candy" away, in a public way, in a court of law, in front of a lot of people, and that just cannot be had!

It "upsets" an "order", and that just cannot be allowed!

It's about the power of graft, and I was getting right in the road, and so ......

WHAM!

SO!

You really can fight city hall, Mr. A.B., if you know the law, and you can win!

And it is then, that HELL will descend, and rapidly so, BECAUSE you had the real bad grace to win, which means some very big egos just had to take a loss, in public, to a pip-squeak who is not even a lawyer!

Beware the wrath of the modern state when it is scorned, Mr. A.B., when its carefully constructed "deals" are undone by a commoner like me, especially when that state thinks that it is an EMPIRE all to itself, subject to no laws, rules or regulations, whatsoever, and it wants to keep things that way, for the financial renumeration that it brings to certain greedy fingers and pockets.

What makes this March 31, 2005 FEDERAL Notice of Decision particularly odious to us, and shocking to OUR sense of "fair play", as well, is the latitude and "discretion" that it appears to give to New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to be able to "remove" at will at any time, BASED ON NOTHING, and through the "vehicle" of the blatantly unlawful and illegal "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN", any other professional engineers, who like this one, decide to take on the representation of citizens like us in matters involving corruption in state agencies such as the New York State Department of Health and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

And speaking of taking on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, or NYSDEC, as it is known, I came across this "missive" earlier, from the files of the NYSDEC, concerning how it looks at us, and the law, and especially judges, here in OUR America:

October 22, 1993

TO: Bill Clarke and Arthur Henningson, NYSDEC Region IV Office

FROM: Richard Ostrov, NYSDEC attorney

Kathleen Morrison (an Assistant New York State Attorney General) called me today to say that the hearing in the above captioned matter was held before Judge Williams.

As you remember, the Department is not opposing a nullification of the permit and remand because PLAINTIFF's arguments on lack of SEQRA review and inadequate record have merit.

Benson Brothers (a trash hauling company now owned by Waste Management) filed a motion to throw out the proceeding because PLAINTIFF has no standing (an interest) to challenge the permit.

PLAINTIFF's reply to the Motion is due by Wednesday, October 27, 1993.

It is likely that the Judge will rule soon after Wednesday and under local practice rules, PLAINTIFF would prepare the Order for the Court.

This might delay the issuance of the Order.

Stockli, Benson's attorney, was hopeful that when the matter is remanded, DEC would expeditiously address the new application.

It goes without saying that DRA (DEC's Division of Regulatory Affairs) should not process the recently received modification request BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO PERMIT TO MODIFY!

Kathleen indicated that because of this Judge's personal slant toward DEC, OUR RECORD SHOULD BE AIR-TIGHT WHEN THE NEW PERMIT APPLICATION IS PROCESSED!

She pointed out that PLAINTIFF's basis for standing is his well's proximity to the site of the transfer station.

It appears from her review of the record that the wastewater impact of the transfer station was not adequately addressed in the record.

DOW (Division of Water) staff wrote a memo or letter on this matter, but no resolution of the issue is addressed in the record.

Please have your staff pay particular attention to this issue and any other issue raised by PLAINTIFF in his petition.

Essentially the review of the next permit application must be by the book -- not just for our own credibility, but to enhance the likelihood that a permit challenge won't be successful.

If you have any questions on this matter, let's discuss!

[Livyjr]

And speaking of taking on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, or NYSDEC, as it is known, I came across this "missive" earlier, from the files of the NYSDEC, concerning how it looks at us, and the law, and especially judges, here in OUR America:

October 22, 1993

TO: Bill Clarke and Arthur Henningson, NYSDEC Region IV Office

FROM: Richard Ostrov, NYSDEC attorney

Kathleen Morrison (an Assistant New York State Attorney General) called me today to say that the hearing in the above captioned matter was held before Judge Williams.

As you remember, the Department is not opposing a nullification of the permit and remand because PLAINTIFF's arguments on lack of SEQRA review and inadequate record have merit.

It goes without saying that DRA (DEC's Division of Regulatory Affairs) should not process the recently received modification request BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO PERMIT TO MODIFY!

Kathleen indicated that because of this Judge's personal slant toward DEC, OUR RECORD SHOULD BE AIR-TIGHT WHEN THE NEW PERMIT APPLICATION IS PROCESSED!

Essentially the review of the next permit application must be by the book -- not just for our own credibility, but to enhance the likelihood that a permit challenge won't be successful.

If you have any questions on this matter, let's discuss!

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Memorandum

TO: Director Wayne Brewer, Environmental Conservation Police

FROM: Captain E.T. Washburn, Environmental Conservation Police

DATE: February 13, 1998

I have assigned Lt. Paul Bernstein and ECO Karen Staniewski to investigate PLAINTIFF!

Please be advised that the Attorney general's Office has been looking into this site and are reviewing DEC Solid Waste files.