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

[Salute_Liberty]

BUSH IS REALLY GOING FAST WITH HIS STRENGTHENING OF HIS MAFIA CLUB!

[Livyjr]

BUSH IS REALLY GOING FAST WITH HIS STRENGTHENING OF HIS MAFIA CLUB!

And he has to, when you think on it!

Like a snake eating a mouse!

Away goes OUR liberty if we let that snake get ahold of OUR nose, as is happening, judicial district by judicial district, here in OUR America, for once that happens, the feet rapidly follow, and we are gone!

The problem for us common folks, of course, at least up here in the Northern Federal Judicial District of New York has been multi-fold, since we are in no way a part of the process by which federal judges are selected, and then appointed, and not being a part of that process, we don't even know that it is going on, and all of a sudden, as was the case, here, a new judge shows up in town, and all is forever changed, and different after that, and we have had absolutely no representation at all in the matter, and now have none, since the deal has gone down.

I myself have been researching this matter of how this Gary L. Sharpe became a federal judge, and it is like trying to find where TOPSY came from!

No answers!

Other than that George W. Bush is the one who put Gary L. Sharpe on the Federal bench here in the Pataki-ite Capital City of Albany, New York.

And it is interesting that one of the very first decisions that this Judge Sharpe has made here in effect rules against Judge Hurd, who upon information and belief is one of these alleged "activist" judges that George W. Bush is so all-fired riled up about, allegedly because Judge Hurd ruled against the alleged Pataki-allies, and therefore, BUSH allies, the $13,000 per hour Gold Johnson boys, themselves, in Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Department of Social Services, 234 F.Supp.2d 140 (NDNY 2002).

Did the Chief Judge of the Northern District allow Thuillez, Ford & Gold Johnson to "judge-shop" for a more favorable judge, once this matter had been filed before Judge Hurd, where the Gold Johnson boys had just lost in Ruhlmann, or did the Chief Judge himself intervene to move this case over to this newly-appointed BUSH CONSERVATIVE?

That, of course, is one of the more intriguing questions here, as once the PLAINTIFF made clear to the Gold Johnson boys his reliance on Ruhlmann, and their loss therein, which made quite questionable, and specious, to boot, assertions that they were making in this case, which in many ways is a copy-cat of the same abuse and contempt for law as was outlined by Judge Hurd in Ruhlmann, the case was almost immediately thereafter taken from Judge Hurd, and given over to Judge Sharpe, who subsequently dismissed Ruhlmann as having any relevancy, whatsoever, apparently as the alleged fruits of what was considered to be judicial activism on the part of Judge Hurd by the Gold Johnson $13,000 per hour crowd in deciding Ruhlmann in the manner that he had, AGAINST the Pataki-ally GOLD JOHNSONS!

And your use of the term mafia is quite apt when it is applied to the manner in which OUR engineering expert was literally WHACKED right in the head by the Rensselaer County REPUBLICAN defendants on 8-22-01, with the aid and assistance of the GOLD JOHNSON defendant doctor who made out the bogus psychiatric commitment order in this case, sight unseen, and allegedly for money for services rendered, just like a MAFIA hit-man would have done, and for the same end purpose - to remove a witness against them, and so, extort silence in a court of law from those who were depending on the witness to make their case for them, in a court of law!

SO!

In that case, I personally must agree with you about strengthening the club, whatever in the end it is actually called, and if that were to be "mafia club", somehow, I wouldn't be surprised by that, for by its actions in this case in Rensselaer County on 8-22-01, it is already there, to me!!

[Livyjr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SO!

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

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

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

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

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

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

And if so, HOW can that be countered?

To be continued ..........

And another question which has come up in here by way of background has to do with the involvement of the State of New York, itself, in this matter, which involvement then brings in the alleged "White Night on Broadway", Mr. New York State Attorney General, and GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE, Eliot Spitzer, himself, on the side of the "HOUSING INDUSTRY", and surprise, surprise.

IF the problems are with the Rensselaer County Department of Health, as alleged, what role does the New York State Department of Health play in this on-going drama from the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York?

For that answer, of course, the best place to start is right back with the March 15, 1989 Axelrod Report that was annexed to the original FEDERAL COMPLAINT in this above matter, where in the Executive Summary, Dr. Axelrod held as follows with respect to the role of the New York State Department of Health in causing or allowing or actually promoting all of the problems of misfeasance and malfeasance found in the Rensselaer County Department of Health in 1989:

"The State Health Department also did not provide adequate oversight of the realty subdivision and private water supply and sewage disposal programs which are supported in part by State Local Assistance Funds."

At page 9 of the Report, Dr. Axelrod was a bit more emphatic on what he meant by that comment:

"Finally, the State Health Department has not exercised appropriate oversight of county performance."

"Although the Public Health Law provides for a great deal of county autonomy with respect to the subdivision and individual sewage programs, the Department is charged by Public Health Law Section 201.1(a) to 'supervise the work and activities of the local boards of health and health officers' throughout the state."

"CLEARLY, SINCE 1978, THE DEPARTMENT HAS FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COUNTY PROGRAMS WERE DEVIATING FROM ITS OWN STANDARDS."

end quotes

SO!

1978!

How about that?

The magic number here, isn't it, where in 1976, two years prior to the date this "failure" of state oversight in Rensselaer County began, the State of New York itself KNEW that white collar crime in the State of New York was at that time already $44 BILLION, and spiraling ever upwards.

Which raises the question, rhetorical or otherwise, of what those people who had taken or stolen all that money were going to do with it, as ill-gotten gains?

How do you "clean up" $44 BILLION in ill-gotten gains, anyway?

Don't you need "something" legitimate in appearance to "LAUNDER" that money through?

Like real estate subdivisions and strip malls, for example?

Oh, but how did I know that?

Well, that's easy, I've already read the book once, and I really know it by heart now, which is why I can tell it so easy in here, FOR ......

I WAS THERE!

AND ......

Thanks to the wonders of modern technology, and this FORUM, now you are too!

[Livyjr]

That, of course, is one of the more intriguing questions here, as once the PLAINTIFF made clear to the Gold Johnson boys his reliance on Ruhlmann, and their loss therein, which made quite questionable, and specious, to boot,  assertions that they were making in this case, which in many ways is a copy-cat of the same abuse and contempt for law as was outlined by Judge Hurd in Ruhlmann, the case was almost immediately thereafter taken from Judge Hurd, and given over to Judge Sharpe, who subsequently dismissed Ruhlmann as having any relevancy, whatsoever, apparently as the alleged fruits of what was considered to be judicial activism on the part of Judge Hurd by the Gold Johnson [b]$13,000 per hour crowd in deciding Ruhlmann in the manner that he had, AGAINST the Pataki-ally GOLD JOHNSONS!

There's just something about a GOLD JOHNSON man![/b]

And back to the subject of "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM" in here, for a moment, to provide some necessary background that will serve to clarify for us all exactly what a "bad-to-the-BUSH" JUDICIAL ACTIVIST really looks like, so that we can then have a JUDICIAL STANDARD OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM to compare Judge Hurd of the Northern District of New York to, and the "model" for that standard which allegedly has George W. Bush just "foaming at the mouth" in sheer rage, comes directly from right on down there in BUSH/Delay country, itself, that being the Federal Court for the Southern District of Texas, in Houston!

And what I am referring to as the QUINTESSENTIAL EXAMPLE of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN OUR AMERICA is a 24-page opinion of Federal District Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the Southern District of Texas, dated October 27, 2003, in United States of America v. Edwin Paul Wilson, Criminal Case H-82-139, which makes for very interesting reading concerning the CIA, the United States Justice Department and the shipping of tons of plastic explosives to Libya in exchange for "good information,", and oh yeah, a whole lot of lying then, by OUR government, to cover that all back up again, so we won't know it happened, of course.

SO!

How about that?

Don't believe me?

That's alright, I might not myself, believe me, that is, if I didn't know better, and the source of that KNOWLEDGE, IS ACTIVIST Federal Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes in the United States of America v. Edwin Paul Wilson!

Want to see what I mean?

Good!

Let's go look at what a real ACTIVIST JUDGE in OUR America really looks like, up close and personal!

And more to the point of this discussion, let's really look at why George W. Bush and "TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY" Delay HATE JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS SO!

Some relevant quotes from what I consider one of my favorite JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS here in OUR America follow, but let's start here, and recall, this is Federal Judge Lynn N. Hughes speaking out against the government of the United States of America on October 27, 2003:

"America did not defeat the Axis because it locked up Japanese Americans."

"America did not defeat the Soviet union because it tried to lock up its philosophic fellow-travelers here."

"America will not defeat Libyan terrorism by double-crossing a part-time, informal government agent."

And WHOA, folks, what's this talk of America, allegedly OUR America, "double-crossing" a part-time government agent?

And this from a federal District Court Judge, no less.

What exactly is going on here, besides JUDICIAL ACTIVISM?

Let's look and see:

"The government's preparation, presentation, and preservation of false evidence are not the process that is due from the government."

Whoa!

Smoking, folks, no wonder George W. Bush hates a JUDICIAL ACTIVIST, when they talk back to the GUMMINT like this!

Yaaahoooo!

"The government has no legitimate interest in buying or presenting false evidence from outsiders - it has less than none in lying to the Court itself!"

HEY, wait a minute here!

What is this?

This is OUR government, OUR alleged "Justice Department", being told off by one courageous Federal District Court Judge in October of 2003, and that folks, IS WHAT JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IS REALLY ALL ABOUT!

And that is why George W. Bush and HIS, including "TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY", are out to CRUSH JUDICIAL ACTIVIST FEDERAL JUDGES, to protect the corruption in OUR government that these kinds of Judges expose, for all the candid world to see, as is the case right here in WILSON!

SO!

Here is JUDICIAL ACTIVISM in a nutshell, from Judge Hughes:

"Don't you dare come in to my Courtroom and lie to me!"

Now, how about that, folks?

I think this Judge is a real example of what an American really can and should be in this Republic of ours.

Here, in this case, the CIA, playing footsie with God knows who in Libya, allegedly arranged for the shipment, and then did allegedly cause to be shipped to Libya, tons of plastic explosives, AND THEN .....

According to the "ANALYSIS" provided to us by Judge Hughes, the CIA then tried to burn the person who did the deal in an apparent failed attempt to cover over the deal.

And it is that ANALYSIS by the Judge that is considered to be the ACTIVISM!

From the pen of Federal District Judge Lynn N. Hughes in United States of America v. Edwin Paul Wilson, Federal Criminal Case H-82-139, on October 27, 2003:

I. Introduction

Twenty years ago, the government tried a former Central Intelligence officer for exporting explosives to Libya.

His defense was simple.

He said he was still working for the Company.

The government refused to disclose records of his continued association with the agency.

When he presented witnesses to his contacts after the end of his formal employment, the government convinced the judge to admit an affidavit from a principal CIA official to the effect that there were, with one minor exception, none -zero.

THERE WERE, IN FACT, OVER 80 CONTACTS, including actions parallel to those in the charges.

The government discussed among dozens of its officials and lawyers whether to correct the testimony.

NO CORRECTION WAS MADE - not after trial, not before sentencing, not on appeal, and not in this review.

BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT KNOWINGLY USED FALSE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM AND SUPPRESSED FAVORABLE EVIDENCE, HIS CONVICTION WILL BE VACATED.

This opinion refers only to the part of the record that the government has reluctantly agreed may be made public.

It does not attempt to recount even that limited range of data in its entirety; THE GOVERNMENT DECEIT MENTIONED HERE IS ILLUSTRATIVE, NOT EXHAUSTIVE.

2. Background.

From 1955 through early 1971, Edwin P. Wilson was employed full-time - mostly as an undercover agent - by the United States government through the Central Intelligence Agency.

His assignments sometimes required him to establish and use "front" companies to gain access to information and to support CIA operations here and abroad commercially.

Immediately after leaving the CIA - and with the agency's knowledge and approval - Wilson began working for Naval intelligence on a secret unit, Task Force 157.

He again used companies, including one called Consultants International, to mask his intelligence gathering abroad.

He worked for the Navy through April 1976.

Throughout this period and beyond, Wilson had professional and personal relationships with CIA employees.

The CIA even took over one of his projects.

In January 1978, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia began investigating Wilson's activities in Libya.

A court in the Eastern District of Virginia then convicted him of exporting firearms to Libya without permission and sentenced him to ten years.

In 1983, he was convicted in the Southern District of texas for similar crimes.

This case is the 1983 conviction.

3. Investigation.

In September 1976, a former CIA employee told the FBI that a U.S. corporation - possibly controlled by Wilson and another ex-CIA agent - had contracted to sell Libya "one complete educational and vocational training labratory."

The informant believed Libya planned to use the labratory to train terrorists.

The corporation used another former CIA agent as its supplier.

With the help of a current CIA employee, ten timers that could be used with explosives were purchased and shipped to Libya.

In April 1977, the Washington Post published an article about "ex-CIA officer" Wilson's attempts to smuggle 500,000 explosive timers to Libya the previous summer.

CIA representatives were called before the House of representative's Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to explain.

President Ford and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were also briefed.

Two days after the article about Libya appeared, John Waller, the CIA's inspector general, instructed ten officials to "ascertain if the Agency has any official relationships or contacts with Mr. Wilson within their respective areas of responsibility" and to "determine if [he] has any unofficial relationships or contacts with .... employees which could be construed as providing Mr. Wilson with official Agency support or assistance."

(That investigation was terminated)

In 1981, Wilson was a fugitive in Libya.

In October (1981) another scandal broke when the U.S. news media linked Wilson and Clines, now retired from the CIA, to the surreptitious award of a lucrative contract to ship U.S. arms to Egypt.

Even while investigating - and officially distancing itself from - Wilson, the government was still gathering intelligence from him.

While Wilson was a fugitive in 1981, the FBI, ATF and assistant United States Attorneys from the District of Columbia interviewed him in Rome, Italy, in July 1981.

As a show of good faith before the interviews, Wilson produced documents for the CIA about Libya's nuclear program, including technical plans for manufacturing an atomic device.

Over three days in Rome, Wilson provided information about Iran, Russia, Taiwan and Libya.

He described Libya's military equipment, assassination teams, intelligence fronts, and identified (a) American, British and italian companies supplying Iran with military parts or servicing Qaddifi's personal aircraft and (b) Americans assisting or taking bribes from the Libyans.

4. Texas Trial.

In June 1982, the government lured Wilson out of Libya and brought him to the United States.

On July 19th, Wilson was indicted in the Southern District of Texas for:

* Conspiring to ship 20 tons of C-4 plastic explosives to Libya.
* Presenting a falsified shipper's export declaration.
* Exporting explosives without a license, and
* Transporting explosives by cargo aircraft in october 1977.

After a two-week trial, a jury convicted Wilson on all four counts on February 5, 1983.

He was sentenced on february 18, 1983, to seventeen years and fined $145,000.

A. Defense.

Wilson defended himself against the charges by saying that he had acted - at least implicitly - under the direction and authority of the CIA.

B. Response.

To rebut Wilson's evidence, on February 4, 1983, the government introduced an affidavit from Charles A Briggs.

Briggs served as the CIA's inspector general until mid-1982 when he became its executive director - the third highest ranking official of the CIA.

In the affidavit, he swore that - with one exception - the CIA did not ask Wilson to work for it after he officialy stopped working there.

Briggs signed the affidavit under penalty of perjury, and Stanley Sporkin - the general counsel of the CIA - certified it with his signature and the agency's seal.

The prosecutors introduced the affidavit at trial despite the expressed reservations of some of the government's lawyers, including the CIA's general counsel.

After deliberating for one day, the jury asked the judge to re-read the Briggs affidavit to them.

An hour after the re-reading, the jury found Wilson guilty.

5. Post-trial.

Three days after trial but before sentencing, the government admitted INTERNALLY that the affidavit was false.

Two days later, the CIA forwarded the memorandum to the United States Attorney's Office.

That day, an attorney at the Department of Justice sent the deputy assistant attorney general of the criminal division a memorandum entitled "Duty to Disclose Possibly false testimony and summarizing case law.

The government debated what to do about the affidavit's "inaccuracies".

Later that month, it drafted a letter to Wilson's attorneys, mentioning a few of Wilson's post-1971 contacts with the CIA but defending the affidavit.

Deciding that the letter would open "the entire universe of questioned contacts [between Wilson and the CIA]", the government never sent it.

It stood by the affidavit.

Doubts remained.

Mark M. Richard, the deputy assistant attorney general of the criminal division, urged assistant attorney general, head of the criminal division, Daniel Lowell Jensen, "I think we must make a disclosure - either to the judge or the defense attorney (a third option is to disclose to both)."

After ten months of researching the law, reviewing records, and holding inter-agency meeting, the government never told the trial court or Wilson's counsel that it had knowlingly used false evidence.

7. Years later.

Many years after his conviction, Wilson discovered internal government documents that prove the Briggs affidavit was false and that the prosecutors knew about it before they used it at trial.

Confronted with the documents, the government now admits - twenty years after using the the affidavit to convict Wilson - that "With the benefit of retrospection and in light of all the information now known to the Department, it appears that the statement was inaccurate."

It now says that "following Wilson's termination as a CIA employee, he was asked to perform or did perform what can be described as services on its behalf."

THE JUDGE'S ANALYSIS OF ALL OF THIS:

Honesty comes hard to the government.

It describes its non-disclosure as "information allegedly concealed by the Briggs affidavit."

This is a semantic game - the information was not allegedly concealed; it was actively and actually concealed.

The government also justifies its choice to remain silent by saying that, by the time it finished investigating its perjury, the case had been appealed and was outside of the district cout's jurisdiction.

The investigation is a dodge; there was no need to investigate: it knew the affidavit was false BEFORE it offered it.

8 Burden.

The government shifts the burden to Wilson to explain why he did not earlier raise the falsity issue.

Wilson bears no burden, for his witnesses at the trial saying the opposite PROVOKED the affidavit.

The burden now, instead, is that the government must justify (a) its use of the affidavit and (b) its failure to disclose the truth when other people knew it had been false.

It alone lied.

It alone possessed - and witheld - the information that documented the falsehoods.

9B. Intent.

The government says that its use of the false affidavit was an innocent error.

It says the law does not require a retrial when a man is convicted on manufactured evidence as long as the use was not intentional.

Under the Constitution, an argument may be reasonably made that the government should be responsible for the integrity of the evidence that it presents.

In this case, however, the falsity comes from high public officials with sole access to voluminous records - not some high-school dropout street-level drug dealer with a memory of one sale.

Among the people who knew the government - through the CIA and Department of Justice - was both failing to disclose records of Wilson's work and offering a false affidavit was the CIA's general counsel.

Yet the Department of Justice refused his request to correct or not use the false affidavit.

This person was no obscure paper-shuffler; he had been director of enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission and, after his CIA tenure, became a federal judge.

Similar careers were had by people at the Department of Justice.

The government must be responsible for its internal fabrication of evidence.

The test is not the ingenuousness of the prosecutor but the integrity of the government itself.

The government would like to restrict the scope of responsible knowledge to the individual prosecutor in the courtroom, but the prosecution is brought in the name of the United States of America.

The evidence, now, shows that the hierarchies of both the Justice Department and CIA were as knowledgable as was the individual talking to the judge and jury.

The government's attempt to split the the government into the personal belief of the least informed attorney will not work.

The court has identified about two dozen government lawyers who actively participated in the original non-disclosure to the defense, the false rebuttal testimony, and the refusal to correct it.

Governmental regularity - due process - requires personal and institutional integrity.

end quotes

And there is where I will end this discussion for the moment.

SO?

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!

Any questions, after all of this, as to what the term really means?

NO?

I didn't think so!

And you are right!

TO US, the American citizens without a "stake" in the continuing corruption of OUR government, JUDICIAL ACTIVISM is really acting in a responsible manner!

SO?

Why does George W. Bush hate that so?

Any guesses?

[anderson_perry]

And back to the subject of "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM" in here, for a moment, to provide some necessary background that will serve to clarify for us all exactly what a "bad-to-the-BUSH" JUDICIAL ACTIVIST really looks like, so that we can then have a JUDICIAL STANDARD OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM to compare Judge Hurd of the Northern District of New York to, and the "model" for that standard which allegedly has George W. Bush just "foaming at the mouth" in sheer rage, comes directly from right on down there in BUSH/Delay country, itself, that being the Federal Court for the Southern District of Texas, in Houston!
 
And what I am referring to as the QUINTESSENTIAL EXAMPLE of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN OUR AMERICA is a 24-page opinion of Federal District Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the Southern District of Texas, dated October 27, 2003, in United States of America v. Edwin Paul Wilson, Criminal Case H-82-139, which makes for very interesting reading concerning the CIA, the United States Justice Department and the shipping of tons of plastic explosives to Libya in exchange for "good information,", and oh yeah, a whole lot of lying then, by OUR government, to cover that all back up again, so we won't know it happened, of course.

SO!

How about that?

Don't believe me?

That's alright, I might not myself, believe me, that is, if I didn't know better, and the source of that KNOWLEDGE, IS ACTIVIST Federal Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes in the United States of America v. Edwin Paul Wilson!

Want to see what I mean?

Good!

Let's go look at what a real ACTIVIST JUDGE in OUR America really looks like, up close and personal!

And more to the point of this discussion, let's really look at why George W. Bush and "TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY" Delay HATE JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS SO!

Some relevant quotes from what I consider one of my favorite JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS here in OUR America follow, but let's start here, and recall, this is Federal Judge Lynn N. Hughes speaking out against the government of the United States of America on October 27, 2003:

"America did not defeat the Axis because it locked up Japanese Americans."

"America did not defeat the Soviet union because it tried to lock up its philosophic fellow-travelers here."

"America will not defeat Libyan terrorism by double-crossing a part-time, informal government agent."

And WHOA, folks, what's this talk of America, allegedly OUR America, "double-crossing" a part-time government agent?

And this from a federal District Court Judge, no less.

What exactly is going on here, besides JUDICIAL ACTIVISM?

Let's look and see:

"The government's preparation, presentation, and preservation of false evidence are not the process that is due from the government."

Whoa!

Smoking, folks, no wonder George W. Bush hates a JUDICIAL ACTIVIST, when they talk back to the GUMMINT like this!

Yaaahoooo!

"The government has no legitimate interest in buying or presenting false evidence from outsiders - it has less than none in lying to the Court itself!"

HEY, wait a minute here!

What is this?

This is OUR government, OUR alleged "Justice Department", being told off by one courageous Federal District Court Judge in October of 2003, and that folks, IS WHAT JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IS REALLY ALL ABOUT!

And that is why George W. Bush and HIS, including "TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY", are out to CRUSH JUDICIAL ACTIVIST FEDERAL JUDGES, to protect the corruption in OUR government that these kinds of Judges expose, for all the candid world to see, as is the case right here in WILSON!

SO!

Here is JUDICIAL ACTIVISM in a nutshell, from Judge Hughes:

"Don't you dare come in to my Courtroom and lie to me!"

Now, how about that, folks?

I think this Judge is a real example of what an American really can and should be in this Republic of ours.

Here, in this case, the CIA, playing footsie with God knows who in Libya, allegedly arranged for the shipment, and then did allegedly cause to be shipped to Libya, tons of plastic explosives, AND THEN .....

According to the "ANALYSIS" provided to us by Judge Hughes, the CIA then tried to burn the person who did the deal in an apparent failed attempt to cover over the deal.

And it is that ANALYSIS by the Judge that is considered to be the ACTIVISM!

From the pen of Federal District Judge Lynn N. Hughes in United States of America v. Edwin Paul Wilson, Federal Criminal Case H-82-139, on October 27, 2003:

I. Introduction

Twenty years ago, the government tried a former Central Intelligence officer for exporting explosives to Libya.

His defense was simple.

He said he was still working for the Company.

The government refused to disclose records of his continued association with the agency.

When he presented witnesses to his contacts after the end of his formal employment, the government convinced the judge to admit an affidavit from a principal CIA official to the effect that there were, with one minor exception, none -zero.

THERE WERE, IN FACT, OVER 80 CONTACTS, including actions parallel to those in the charges.

The government discussed among dozens of its officials and lawyers whether to correct the testimony.

NO CORRECTION WAS MADE - not after trial, not before sentencing, not on appeal, and not in this review.

BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT KNOWINGLY USED FALSE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM AND SUPPRESSED FAVORABLE EVIDENCE, HIS CONVICTION WILL BE VACATED.

This opinion refers only to the part of the record that the government has reluctantly agreed may be made public.

It does not attempt to recount even that limited range of data in its entirety; THE GOVERNMENT DECEIT MENTIONED HERE IS ILLUSTRATIVE, NOT EXHAUSTIVE.

2. Background.

From 1955 through early 1971, Edwin P. Wilson was employed full-time - mostly as an undercover agent - by the United States government through the Central Intelligence Agency.

His assignments sometimes required him to establish and use "front" companies to gain access to information and to support CIA operations here and abroad commercially.

Immediately after leaving the CIA - and with the agency's knowledge and approval - Wilson began working for Naval intelligence on a secret unit, Task Force 157.

He again used companies, including one called Consultants International, to mask his intelligence gathering abroad.

He worked for the Navy through April 1976.

Throughout this period and beyond, Wilson had professional and personal relationships with CIA employees.

The CIA even took over one of his projects.

In January 1978, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia began investigating Wilson's activities in Libya.

A court in the Eastern District of Virginia then convicted him of exporting firearms to Libya without permission and sentenced him to ten years.

In 1983, he was convicted in the Southern District of texas for similar crimes.

This case is the 1983 conviction.

3. Investigation.

In September 1976, a former CIA employee told the FBI that a U.S. corporation - possibly controlled by Wilson and another ex-CIA agent - had contracted to sell Libya "one complete educational and vocational training labratory."

The informant believed Libya planned to use the labratory to train terrorists.

The corporation used another former CIA agent as its supplier.

With the help of a current CIA employee, ten timers that could be used with explosives were purchased and shipped to Libya.

In April 1977, the Washington Post published an article about "ex-CIA officer" Wilson's attempts to smuggle 500,000 explosive timers to Libya the previous summer.

CIA representatives were called before the House of representative's Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to explain.

President Ford and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were also briefed.

Two days after the article about Libya appeared, John Waller, the CIA's inspector general, instructed ten officials to "ascertain if the Agency has any official relationships or contacts with Mr. Wilson within their respective areas of responsibility" and to "determine if [he] has any unofficial relationships or contacts with .... employees which could be construed as providing Mr. Wilson with official Agency support or assistance."

(That investigation was terminated)

In 1981, Wilson was a fugitive in Libya.

In October (1981) another scandal broke when the U.S. news media linked Wilson and Clines, now retired from the CIA, to the surreptitious award of a lucrative contract to ship U.S. arms to Egypt.

Even while investigating - and officially distancing itself from - Wilson, the government was still gathering intelligence from him.

While Wilson was a fugitive in 1981, the FBI, ATF and assistant United States Attorneys from the District of Columbia interviewed him in Rome, Italy, in July 1981.

As a show of good faith before the interviews, Wilson produced documents for the CIA about Libya's nuclear program, including technical plans for manufacturing an atomic device.

Over three days in Rome, Wilson provided information about Iran, Russia, Taiwan and Libya.

He described Libya's military equipment, assassination teams, intelligence fronts, and identified (a) American, British and italian companies supplying Iran with military parts or servicing Qaddifi's personal aircraft and ( Americans assisting or taking bribes from the Libyans.

4. Texas Trial.

In June 1982, the government lured Wilson out of Libya and brought him to the United States.

On July 19th, Wilson was indicted in the Southern District of Texas for:

* Conspiring to ship 20 tons of C-4 plastic explosives to Libya.
* Presenting a falsified shipper's export declaration.
* Exporting explosives without a license, and
* Transporting explosives by cargo aircraft in october 1977.

After a two-week trial, a jury convicted Wilson on all four counts on February 5, 1983.

He was sentenced on february 18, 1983, to seventeen years and fined $145,000.

A. Defense.

Wilson defended himself against the charges by saying that he had acted - at least implicitly - under the direction and authority of the CIA.

B. Response.

To rebut Wilson's evidence, on February 4, 1983, the government introduced an affidavit from Charles A Briggs.

Briggs served as the CIA's inspector general until mid-1982 when he became its executive director - the third highest ranking official of the CIA.

In the affidavit, he swore that - with one exception - the CIA did not ask Wilson to work for it after he officialy stopped working there.

Briggs signed the affidavit under penalty of perjury, and Stanley Sporkin - the general counsel of the CIA - certified it with his signature and the agency's seal.

The prosecutors introduced the affidavit at trial despite the expressed reservations of some of the government's lawyers, including the CIA's general counsel.

After deliberating for one day, the jury asked the judge to re-read the Briggs affidavit to them.

An hour after the re-reading, the jury found Wilson guilty.

5. Post-trial.

Three days after trial but before sentencing, the government admitted INTERNALLY that the affidavit was false.

Two days later, the CIA forwarded the memorandum to the United States Attorney's Office.

That day, an attorney at the Department of Justice sent the deputy assistant attorney general of the criminal division a memorandum entitled "Duty to Disclose Possibly false testimony and summarizing case law.

The government debated what to do about the affidavit's "inaccuracies".

Later that month, it drafted a letter to Wilson's attorneys, mentioning a few of Wilson's post-1971 contacts with the CIA but defending the affidavit.

Deciding that the letter would open "the entire universe of questioned contacts [between Wilson and the CIA]", the government never sent it.

It stood by the affidavit.

Doubts remained.

Mark M. Richard, the deputy assistant attorney general of the criminal division, urged assistant attorney general, head of the criminal division, Daniel Lowell Jensen, "I think we must make a disclosure - either to the judge or the defense attorney (a third option is to disclose to both)."

After ten months of researching the law, reviewing records, and holding inter-agency meeting, the government never told the trial court or Wilson's counsel that it had knowlingly used false evidence.

7. Years later.

Many years after his conviction, Wilson discovered internal government documents that prove the Briggs affidavit was false and that the prosecutors knew about it before they used it at trial.

Confronted with the documents, the government now admits - twenty years after using the the affidavit to convict Wilson - that "With the benefit of retrospection and in light of all the information now known to the Department, it appears that the statement was inaccurate."

It now says that "following Wilson's termination as a CIA employee, he was asked to perform or did perform what can be described as services on its behalf."

THE JUDGE'S ANALYSIS OF ALL OF THIS:

Honesty comes hard to the government.

It describes its non-disclosure as "information allegedly concealed by the Briggs affidavit."

This is a semantic game - the information was not allegedly concealed; it was actively and actually concealed.

The government also justifies its choice to remain silent by saying that, by the time it finished investigating its perjury, the case had been appealed and was outside of the district cout's jurisdiction.

The investigation is a dodge; there was no need to investigate: it knew the affidavit was false BEFORE it offered it.

8 Burden.

The government shifts the burden to Wilson to explain why he did not earlier raise the falsity issue.

Wilson bears no burden, for his witnesses at the trial saying the opposite PROVOKED the affidavit.

The burden now, instead, is that the government must justify (a) its use of the affidavit and ( its failure to disclose the truth when other people knew it had been false.

It alone lied.

It alone possessed - and witheld - the information that documented the falsehoods.

9B. Intent.

The government says that its use of the false affidavit was an innocent error.

It says the law does not require a retrial when a man is convicted on manufactured evidence as long as the use was not intentional.

Under the Constitution, an argument may be reasonably made that the government should be responsible for the integrity of the evidence that it presents.

In this case, however, the falsity comes from high public officials with sole access to voluminous records - not some high-school dropout street-level drug dealer with a memory of one sale.

Among the people who knew the government - through the CIA and Department of Justice - was both failing to disclose records of Wilson's work and offering a false affidavit was the CIA's general counsel.

Yet the Department of Justice refused his request to correct or not use the false affidavit.

This person was no obscure paper-shuffler; he had been director of enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission and, after his CIA tenure, became a federal judge.

Similar careers were had by people at the Department of Justice.

The government must be responsible for its internal fabrication of evidence.

The test is not the ingenuousness of the prosecutor but the integrity of the government itself.

The government would like to restrict the scope of responsible knowledge to the individual prosecutor in the courtroom, but the prosecution is brought in the name of the United States of America.

The evidence, now, shows that the hierarchies of both the Justice Department and CIA were as knowledgable as was the individual talking to the judge and jury.

The government's attempt to split the the government into the personal belief of the least informed attorney will not work.

The court has identified about two dozen government lawyers who actively participated in the original non-disclosure to the defense, the false rebuttal testimony, and the refusal to correct it.

Governmental regularity - due process - requires personal and institutional integrity.

end quotes

And there is where I will end this discussion for the moment.

SO?

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!

Any questions, after all of this, as to what the term really means?

NO?

I didn't think so!

And you are right!

TO US, the American citizens without a "stake" in the continuing corruption of OUR government, JUDICIAL ACTIVISM is really acting in a responsible manner!

SO?

Why does George W. Bush hate that so?

Any guesses?

Livyjr

I'm not sure what your arguing but i just gotta say...

ROCK ON Livyjr!


Could only wish there were more like you excerising your constitutional duties...

- perry

[Livyjr]

SO?

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!

Any questions, after all of this, as to what the term really means?

NO?

I didn't think so!

And you are right!

TO US, the American citizens without a "stake" in the continuing corruption of OUR government, JUDICIAL ACTIVISM is really acting in a responsible manner!

SO?

Why does George W. Bush hate that so?

Any guesses?

And sometimes, as was the case with Wilson above here, we are lucky in this day and age of rapid computer access to information to get right to the "horse's mouth", as it were, with respect to what a judge is really saying, as in Wilson; or in the case of this following LINK to the Albany County Bar Association URL, what attorneys themselves are really saying to each other, and to judges as well, in this particular case, what "ethics" among lawyers really does mean in the Northern District of New York, and I am specifically referring to the "President's Message" right at the top of page 1, when you open the link:

http://www.albanycountybar.com/MarNL-03.pdf

[Livyjr]

Livyjr

I'm not sure what you're arguing but i just gotta say...

ROCK ON Livyjr!


Could only wish there were more like you excercising your constitutional duties...

- perry

Thanks very much for the kind words, and especially the encouragement, perry, that is very much needed, for ours is indeed a tough row to hoe, right now, bereft as we are of CLOUT, here in this America of George W. Bush and HIS, and up against these $13,000 per hour GOLD JOHNSON lawyer boys as we are, here!

And they are DUTIES to the Constitution, perry, and thank you for pointing that out, in here!

DUTIES!

That means "must do", doesn't it?

Used to anyway, which is what this thread is really all about, to explore that assertion about DUTY to see if it is still so, in this present day and age of George W. Bush's BIG PUSH to STAMP JUDICIAL INTEGRITY AND RESPONSIBILITY right into the ground, and to replace it instead with a servile, sycophantic toady-ism that will do exactly as George W. Bush and TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY Delay tell it to do, which serves to strip us here in America of true JUSTICE, and to instead give us this MOCKERY which follows:

NO REPUBLICAN IN AMERICA IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW!

ANYONE WHO THINKS A REPUBLICAN IN AMERICA IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW IS THEMSELVES A DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT!

THE STATE HAS A CONTINUING DUTY TO REPUBLICANS TO PUT THESE PEOPLE AWAY IN SECURE MENTAL FACILITIES RUN BY CORPORATIONS LOYAL TO THE STATE, FOR THE GOOD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN AMERICA!

That's the opposite of the type of true JUDICIAL ACTIVISM that the HEART AND SOUL of OUR America want and deserve, and that, perry, is what this thread is all about - in that struggle for JUSTICE, here in OUR America, which side is going to win - George W. Bush, or the PEOPLE of OUR America!

SO!

Stay tuned!

And once again, thank you all for your continued patience with what is a difficult subject, and for your continued interest, as well!

[Livyjr]

And sometimes, as was the case with Wilson above here, we are lucky in this day and age of rapid computer access to information to get right to the "horse's mouth", as it were, with respect to what a judge is really saying, as in Wilson; or in the case of this following LINK to the Albany County Bar Association URL, what attorneys themselves are really saying to each other, and to judges as well, in this particular case, what "ethics" among lawyers really does mean in the Northern District of New York, and I am specifically referring to the "President's Message" right at the top of page 1, when you open the link:

http://www.albanycountybar.com/MarNL-03.pdf

And for those of you who may not be able to access Adobe to read this "Message From The President" of the Albany County (New York) Bar Association for March 2003, on the subject of whether or not lawyers in the Northern District of New York have "ethics", as we commoners might consider that word, here is the relevant part of that address in its entirety, for your convenience:

THE ETHICIST

"I have knowingly defended a number of guilty men."

"But the guilty never escape unscathed!"

"My fees are sufficient punishment for anyone!"

- F. Lee Bailey

Does anyone really think lawyering involves ethical behavior?

Some people do!

There are courses in legal ethics required for admission to the bar.

A separate test in legal ethics is supposed to measure one's moral fitness for the practice of law.

We are required to have a few hours of ethical training as part of mandatory Continuing Legal Education.

WHOOP DE DOO!

Did you ever sit through one of these lectures?

For the most part, they are lessons on how not to get sued, i.e., "Don't steal your client's money"; "Don't take a case if you don't know what you're doing"; and my personal favorite, "Don't have sex with your client."

Does any of this have to do with ethics, i.e., the betterment of society, moral duty or the distinction between good and bad?

I don't think so!

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

They were struggling with a truly moral issue, i.e., the termination of life and the role of the health care professional.

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

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

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

We are all but prohibited from doing so!

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

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

We advise.

In matrimonial law, after giving the standards expected of spouses in custody, support or distribution, I am often told by the astonished client, "But it's not fair!"

However, as my fellow Schenectady legal pundit Vince Capasso is fond of saying, "If you want fair, go to Cobleskill."

"They have a fair, there."

"Otherwise, here's the law."

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

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

Think again, Jack.

We are not the clergy.

After all, it is just "Ethical Considerations" in the Code of Professional Responsibility, as in "OK, I've considered it, now here's what we do ....."

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

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

- President, Albany County Bar Association, March 2003

[Livyjr]

And for those of you who may not be able to access Adobe to read this "Message From The President" of the Albany County (New York) Bar Association for March 2003, on the subject of whether or not lawyers in the Northern District of New York have "ethics", as we commoners might consider that word, here is the relevant part of that address in its entirety, for your convenience:

[b]THE ETHICIST

"I have knowingly defended a number of guilty men."

"But the guilty never escape unscathed!"

"My fees are sufficient punishment for anyone!"

- F. Lee Bailey

Does anyone really think lawyering involves ethical behavior?

Some people do!

There are courses in legal ethics required for admission to the bar.

A separate test in legal ethics is supposed to measure one's moral fitness for the practice of law.

We are required to have a few hours of ethical training as part of mandatory Continuing Legal Education.

WHOOP DE DOO!

Did you ever sit through one of these lectures?

For the most part, they are lessons on how not to get sued, i.e., "Don't steal your client's money"; "Don't take a case if you don't know what you're doing"; and my personal favorite, "Don't have sex with your client."

Does any of this have to do with ethics, i.e., the betterment of society, moral duty or the distinction between good and bad?

I don't think so!

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

They were struggling with a truly moral issue, i.e., the termination of life and the role of the health care professional.

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

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

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

We are all but prohibited from doing so!

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

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

We advise.

In matrimonial law, after giving the  standards expected of spouses in custody, support or distribution, I am often told by the astonished client, "But it's not fair!"

However, as my fellow Schenectady legal pundit Vince Capasso is fond of saying, "If you want fair, go to Cobleskill."

"They have a fair, there."

"Otherwise, here's the law."

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

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

Think again, Jack.

We are not the clergy.

- President, Albany County Bar Association, March 2003[/b]

"THINK AGAIN, JACK, WE, are not the clergy!"

Powerful words, eh!

And this is straight from the HORSE'S MOUTH, himself, the PRESIDENT of the COUNTY OF ALBANY, STATE OF NEW YORK BAR ASSOCIATION, in March of 2003, about two months BEFORE the ORIGINAL COMPLAINT was filed in this above matter in Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York!

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

Without regard to ethics!

SO!

How about that, will you?

AND ....

To be quite frank, THAT is what OUR complaints in Rensselaer County are all about, no ethics, and corruption, as a result, to OUR detriment, in OUR own homes and communities.

What is interesting to note and observe, if one has Adobe and so can open the file, is that directly following this message above from the President of the Albany County Bar Association to its members, the highest judges in the State of New York are then pictured in prominent display in that same "e-publication", or "e-zine", as endorsing this STATEMENT OF POSITION above by the President of the Albany County Bar Association that:

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

That, folks, is the highest judiciary in the State of New York, speaking to us, the common folks over here in Rensselaer County, in a loud and clear voice, as to "ITS" opinion about OUR citizen's view of what a court of law in the Town of Poestenkill, the County of Rensselaer, the State of New York, and the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York should be all about, which to us, IS THE LAW, and the Constitution, and that is that!

In OUR VIEW, which is exemplified in the October 2003 decision of Federal Judge Lynn N. Hughes in Matter of Wilson, and more to the point in the 2002 decision of Judge Hurd in Ruhlmann, judges, ALL judges, are supposed to stand up to that amoral standard exemplified by the Albany County Bar Association PRESIDENT, and it is extremely dangerous to OUR liberty when judges do not cleave to the very high standards of ATTORNEY conduct set by Judge Hughes in Wilson.

And there, America, and the world as well, is the "rub", here, WHERE, a small group of powerless people in a small town in the vastness of OUR America, WHO ARE FOR THE LAW, as that law has been stated in 2002, by JUDGE HURD in the FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, have been CRUSHED by the self-avowed amoralists in Albany County, in the State of New York, who control what they call the "LEGAL SYSTEM", without any regard for ethics, at all, while we needed a real CITIZEN'S COURT OF LAW such as that in the Southern District of Texas, in the courtroom of Judge Hughes, where attorneys are held to the standard that we would have employed in the Northern District of New York, as well!

[Livyjr]

WE ARE THOSE, WHO IN MUTE WITNESS, STAND AND OBSERVE;

AND NOW, WE SPEAK, FOR JUSTICE, HERE IN OUR AMERICA!

Hence, this thread!

To tell OUR story, before we are gone!

[Livyjr]

And what about the FBI, then, Livyjr?

What happened to the FBI?

And here is another important question, that needs to be addressed and understood, in assessing this matter that is under discussion in here, which is an alleged "ring" operating in the State of New York, consisting of at least two doctors, and a hospital, and a corporation, and a very powerful and politically connected law firm in the Capital District area of the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York, who for an alleged "pay-off", will allegedly remove a witness in a court proceeding, or a witness who is about to initiate proceedings in court, by the expediency of having the doctor falsely and fraudulently "certify" the witness as being a "dangerous mental patient" who requires immediate care and treatment in a secure mental facility operated by the corporation, with the blessings of the "state", or the REPUBLICAN side of it, anyway.

Once "BRANDED" in this way, of course, the witness is done, literally done, and all who must depend on such witness to make a case of government corruption in a court of law are then done, too, which is what this thread is all about.

SO!

The FBI!

What happened to the FBI?

Simple!

They were turned off like a "light bulb", and that was that!

No more contact allowed, by ORDER of the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York.

How do we know this?

Well, for one, it came directly from the FBI special agent who was doing the digging into this matter of alleged corruption in the Town of Poestenkill Planning Board, and the Rensselaer County Department of Health, from approximately 1978, through 1988, and that is OUR best evidence, of course, and then that fact is also confirmed in Exhibit Q of the ORIGINAL COMPLAINT filed in this matter with Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York on June 18, 2003, about three months AFTER the President of the Albany County, State of New York Bar Association confirmed in a very public newsletter that in the Albany, New York area, where all of this was transpiring, and where the FBI investigation was being conducted out of, ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALBANY COUNTY BAR, have no ethics, which is to say, no integrity.

As the Bar Association President was to say, in paraphrase: "Ah, that GRAND and glorious feeling, give them a GRAND, and they feel just glorious", and folks, that is the way it is!

Money talks, and that is the only voice that can and will be heard in the courts of the State of New York, by order of the management.

Right after the FBI Special Agent filed his report which constitutes Exhibit P of the ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, which exhibit was quoted from above as concluding that the Rensselaer County Department of Health was violating State and local laws to facilitate developers in Rensselaer County, the Office of the U.S. Attorney TURNED THE INVESTIGATION OFF, like a faucet!

According to OUR account, which is based on a first-hand account by a witness, the FBI Special Agent then met with OUR expert and told him that the best course of action for him would be to leave, to just get out of town, and stay there, because OUR witness's "enemies" went way up higher than this FBI Special Agent's head, and where the Office of the U.S. Attorney had officially "turned off" the investigation, there was nothing further that he could do in the matter, and he was not going to jeopardize his career for us, who are essentially, just a bunch of nothing in the world of the rich and powerful in Albany, New York.

And why has this never come out before?

Well, where and how was that going to happen, would be my reply!

After all, it never was a secret in the first place.

Everyone in Rensselaer County at that time KNEW the FBI were investigating, because they don't blend in the first place, when they are around, and they definitely were around, right out in plain sight, trying to find people who would talk about having been threatened or shaken down by personnel from the Rensselaer County Department of Health for an "approval".

And not only was the FBI talking to people in Rensselaer County on what was to be a futile quest to find anyone, outside of OUR expert who would come forward as a witness, they were also present when OUR expert was put on "trial" by Rensselaer County for having made those reports to the State Health Commissioner which resulted in the FBI investigating this matter in the first place.

WE, who in mute witness, stand, were there, and WE saw the FBI there, and they saw us!

SO!

That is how we knew that there would be some kind of FBI records detailing the matter, and years later, through Freedom of Information, we were finally able to obtain copies of those records, which were then immediately "suppressed" again by the "powers-that-be" in Rensselaer County and the State of New York, and that brings us right on up to this present moment in time.

Thank you for your continuing interest.

To be continued .....

[Livyjr]

And what about the FBI, then, Livyjr?

What happened to the FBI?

SO!

The FBI!

What happened to the FBI?

Simple!

They were turned off like a "light bulb", and that was that!

No more contact allowed, by ORDER of the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York.

How do we know this?

How do we know this, indeed!

EXHIBIT L, of the ORIGINAL COMPLAINT says:

To: SAC, FBI, Albany, New York

From: Special Agent

RE: Allegations of Corruption in Rensselaer County Government Relating to Land Development:

On 2/13/89, the writer (FBI Special Agent) attended a disciplinary hearing held in Conference Room B, Fifth Floor, Rensselaer County Office Building, relating to CHARGES Rensselaer County has brought against Environmental Health Director [PLAINTIFF].

There were approximately 18 to 20 spectators in attendance at this hearing, including people who appeared to be interested, members of the general public, and others who were obviously from the press!"

end quotes

SO!

The "people who appeared to be interested", and the "members of the general public" referred to above in this 2/13/89 FBI Memorandum, ARE US!

THOSE, who in MUTE WITNESS, stand ......

And now, all these years later, THERE IS AN INTERNET .....

And so ....

The STORY might now be told!

SO!

How about that now, will you?

Who would have ever guessed!

[Livyjr]

How do we know this, indeed!

EXHIBIT L, of the ORIGINAL COMPLAINT says:

To: SAC, FBI, Albany, New York

From: Special Agent

RE: Allegations of Corruption in Rensselaer County Government Relating to Land Development:

On 2/13/89, the writer (FBI Special Agent) attended a disciplinary hearing held in Conference Room B, Fifth Floor, Rensselaer County Office Building, relating to CHARGES Rensselaer County has brought against Environmental Health Director [PLAINTIFF].

There were approximately 18 to 20 spectators in attendance at this hearing, including people who appeared to be interested, members of the general public, and others who were obviously from the press!"

end quotes

SO!

The "people who appeared to be interested", and the "members of the general public" referred to above in this 2/13/89 FBI Memorandum, ARE US!

THOSE, who in MUTE WITNESS, stand ......

The FBI Report from 2/13/89 then continues:

"There appears to be a lot of public interest in this disciplinary hearing."

end quotes

And was there ever!

What a show it was, and what a show it was yet to be, although at the time that this FBI Special Agent is talking about, February 13, 1989, none of us could have had any inkling at all that one day, TODAY, we would be in here on this internet, talking about this particular "POLITICAL EVENT" in Rensselaer County that was the subject of a news HUB-BUB for over a YEAR, it you can imagine that!

TV coverage from the "BIG CITY" TV stations on a daily basis!

Night after night after night, we would see ourselves on TV, as we sat there in the "audience", in MUTE WITNESS of the proceedings that were going on before OUR eyes, and we watched!

And learned!

Oh, yes, this was "high-stakes" BID-NESS, as a high-ranking SENATOR in the New York State Senate figured prominently in the CHARGES leveled against the individual by Rensselaer County, in retaliation for this person, the PLAINTIFF that we talk about in here, bringing evidence of alleged fraud and corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health as of October 11, 1988 to the attention of then-New York State Health Commissioner, Dr. David Axelrod, and everyone was waiting to see that prominent politician flex his muscles in this case, against Dr. Axelrod, who was himself an appointee of a Democrat, and so without influence in REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County, despite his position as Commissioner of Health in the State of New York!

But ......

I get ahead of myself here ......

And so ...

Please stay tuned for the next installment ........

Up-dated regularly!

[jeffmoskin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In that March 16, 1989 Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was before Judge Sharpe in the Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief as Exhibit J, a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, based upon a review of substantial evidence, concluded:

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

"According to [name deleted], the object of any county health department (in the state of New York) is to protect the public, and not to facilitate developers, or development."

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

It was that last statement by this F.B.I. Special Agent in March of 1989 that set in motion the very chain of causality which has brought us up to this present moment in time in the Northern District of New York, where this Sua Sponte Dismissal of this Federal Civil Rights lawsuit and Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief by Federal District Court on March 31, 2005, now seriously jeopardizes the rights of all citizens in the Northern District of New York by removing from them the services of the licensed professional engineer whose expert witness testimony they would need to file a Petition for Redress of Grievance with the courts of the State of New York alleging a continuation of this same negligence by the State of New York and Rensselaer County Department of Health to this day.

In the State of New York, for a common citizen to file a Petition for Redress of Grievance with the courts of the state, where negligence by the state, or one of its political subdivisions is alleged, it is necessary to have expert witness testimony which supports the claim, otherwise the petition will be dismissed as frivolous, which can then result in sanctions being issued by the court.

By intimidating those few licensed engineers in the State of New York who are qualified to serve as expert witnesses in court against the State of New York, and its political subdivisions, through this illegal device of the "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN", the State of New York has effectively muzzled each and every one of us common citizens here in the Northern District of New York, since without this expert witness testimony, we are simply OUT OF COURT, forever, with no way back in, and the government corruption in the County of Rensselaer and the State of New York that was outlined in that series of F.B.I Reports annexed to the now-dismissed Motion for Injunctive Relief can now flourish with impunity!

The apparent sanctioning of this alleged illegal activity by the State of New York, and its political subdivisions, the County of Rensselaer, and the Town of Poestenkill, by the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York as of March 31, 2005 now sends a very chilling message indeed to the residents of the Northern District of New York, to wit:  "KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT, OR YOU WILL BE NEXT!"

And so, that sucking sound we hear up here is the protection of law going right out the window, and that clanging sound we hear is the massive door of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York slamming shut in OUR faces!

And so it goes, here in the Northern District of New York, for the constitutional right of the common man, and woman in the State of New York to redress of grievance, and the right to dissent against corrupt governmental activities in the State of New York, and its political subdivisions that adversely impact the public health, safety, and well-being of those of us in the State of New York who also reside in the Northern District as it is defined by the United States government!

Going, going, gone!

As of March 31, 2005!

I have to appear before a Bush appointee next week to petition the government to return my property which it seized without due process as "evidence" supporting a case it has yet to file after two and a half years.

I am not encouraged by your experience.

[Livyjr]

I have to appear before a Bush appointee next week to petition the government to return my property which it seized without due process as "evidence" supporting a case it has yet to file after two and a half years.

I am not encouraged by your experience.

No, jeffmoskin, I am not at all encouraged by this experience, either, especially the complete and total "HO HUM, YAWN" nature of it, when people hear about it, as no one, and especially lawyers, seems to EXPECT any kind of integrity at all behind the bench when they have to go to court, especially up here in the corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York, and so, the contempt people have for the courts as a result, just keeps on rising, and when they hear the results of this case, the response is, "WELL, what DID you expect?"

In this case, the original COMPLAINT was 86 pages long, with 284 explicit paragraphs, as to what had occurred, and why, and HOW, the law(s) were violated, and it was accompanied by Exhibits A through Q, which were, in the majority, all official records, including FBI records.

Additionally, there was a sworn affidavit from an Albany, New York Police Officer who personally was at the VA Hospital, where our witness was incarcerated against his will, hijacked, or kidnapped, in essence, as a result of this FRAUD which was perpetrated here by Rensselaer County along with this POLITICAL DOCTOR, and George Pataki's POLITICAL VETERANS' OFFICER, and this Albany Police Officer's first hand account verifies that the PLAINTIFF in this matter was being held against his will in the Albany, New York VA Hospital as a result of the FRAUDULENT PSYCHIATRIC COMMITMENT ORDER having been served on the VA POLICE, by George Pataki's man, himself.

So, a witness account, from a Police Officer, of New York State laws having been violated to cause the unlawful incarceration of a New York State citizen in a federal facility, where he had gone, as a disabled veteran, to seek sanctuary from these illegal and unlawful actions which were being taken against him by the State of New York, and the County of Rensselaer, NOT KNOWING that when he set foot on federal property at the Albany VA Hospital, that he was walking right into a carefully laid trap set for him there, by the State of New York, and the County of Rensselaer, based upon nothing but FRAUD and DECEIT!

AND .....

Before the ink was even dry on that ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, for all practical purposes, it was DISMISSED SUA SPONTE by the Court for being too long, and for being accompanied by TOO MUCH EVIDENCE!

If the PLAINTIFF wanted access to Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York, in Albany, New York, THEN ....

HIS COMPLAINT could only be TWENTY PAGES LONG, and the evidence attached to the first COMPLAINT had to be left out.

And actually, the TWENTY PAGE limit on the COMPLAINT established that end, since there was not even enough space in the TWENTY PAGES to get in all the BOILERPLATE verbiage that is required to have a PROPER COMPLAINT drafted, or crafted, as the paid mouthpieces all say!

And then, predictably, when the altered, or amended TWENTY PAGE version, less evidence was filed, the COURT turned around and said, "just as we thought, this COMPLAINT says nothing, and there is NO EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING OCCURRED, and so, the matter is dismissed, WITH PREJUDICE to the PLAINTIFF!"

BANG!

Just like that!

Down comes the gavel!

NEXT CASE!

We were looking for law, and what we got was the "legal system" instead, which is not intended for honest folks trying to petition for redress of grievance.

It is just a place for the AMORALISTS to go and do their thing before AMORALIST JUDGES, who came from their ranks in the first place, and so, despite the robes, are still part of the "gang", so the AMORALISTS can continue make those big bucks representing society's most heinous individuals, who can afford to pay those huge rates, where honest folks cannot, so as to give the AMORALISTS that GRAND and glorious feeling for one more day, where they got that GRAND in the pocket, and so can feel glorious, for what, a minute or two, until the JONES bites them all over again, and so .....

Good Luck, jeffmoskin.

Especially with a Bush appointee!

They know how to do as they are told, and so ...

And what's this about "your property", anyway?

Didn't you know that all of everything that there is or ever could be, in the world, is the exclusive property of the government, and that we are just leasing it from them, on a minute by minute basis?

Thus, there can be no such "theft", as you say, jeffmoskin, since you never really had the RIGHT to possession in the first place, just as in the end, OUR witness did not have the RIGHT to his own name and integrity, and LIBERTY!

[Abu Beacon]

I have to appear before a Bush appointee next week to petition the government to return my property which it seized without due process as "evidence" supporting a case it has yet to file after two and a half years.

I am not encouraged by your experience.

There was a time when right was right and wrong was wrong.

Those days are history.

Nevertheless, jeffmoskin, there are times when a judge will do the right thing.

I sure hope this will happen in your case.

I also hope you are accompanied by a competent attorney.

Never give up.

A.B.

[jeffmoskin]

There was a time when right was right and wrong was wrong.

Those days are history.

Nevertheless, jeffmoskin, there are times when a judge will do the right thing.

I sure hope this will happen in your case.

I also hope you are accompanied by a competent attorney.

Never give up.

A.B.

Thank's for your encouragement, Mr. A.B.

I will be represented by the most passionate, most concerned, most civil libertarian on the face of the earth...

Me. A non-attorney.

In addition to the difficulties caused to me by my own Government, and to whom I pay taxes every year to protect my person and my property from harm, the cost of "legal representation" would have been so great as to consume whatever victory I might have obtained.

So, I am on my own.

[Livyjr]

Thank's for your encouragement, Mr. A.B.

I will be represented by the most passionate, most concerned, most civil libertarian on the face of the earth...

Me.

A non-attorney.

And that IS what this is all about, jeffmoskin, the right to petition for redress of grievance!

How and where are we supposed to do that, AS AMERICAN CITIZENS, pursuant to the provisions of OUR Constitution?

This "GET AN ATTORNEY" crap is a load of crap!

OUR rights are taken from us, by one attorney, and then we have to buy them back, from another attorney!

And it's a SCAM!

In this case here, one attorney who would even consider taking the case wanted $70,000, up front, in an account, before anything would even begin to happen!

$70 GRAND!

It's a joke!

Attorneys have taken over OUR courts, and they have turned them into a parasitic business, for them, and since Judges are first lawyers, the parasitic practice has spread throughout the land, at least where I am, and the law has been made into a mockery, BY THOSE WHO RULE!

After all, they are untouchable, and especially now!

jeffmoskin, people like you who go to court on your own behalf, keep alive what is one of the most basic of long-term American rights, and that is the right to petition for redress of grievance, ON YOUR OWN, without anyone else being interposed into the system between YOU, and JUSTICE!

SO!

Do the very best job that you can, jeffmoskin, and hold your head high knowing that you did not quit, nor did you yield to extortion from the members of the bar with respect to your right to vindicate your rights at any time in a court of law which IS an impartial and co-equal branch of OUR government with respect to the executive, and the legislature!

When matters get to where they are here, where I am writing from, where the act of beginning the process of petitioning for redress of grievance CAUSES one to be incarcerated in a secure mental health facility as an alleged dangerous mental patient, AT THE ORDER OF the very public official that the one incarcerated was going to seek redress from, then things have already gone way beyond the point of losing that right to redress, period!

THE STATE IS NEVER WRONG!

Thus, there is nothing that requires redress!

GET IT!

Get out of my court!

NOW!

[Livyjr]

The FBI Report from 2/13/89 then continues:

"There appears to be a lot of public interest in this disciplinary hearing."

end quotes

And was there ever!

What a show it was, and what a show it was yet to be, although at the time that this FBI Special Agent is talking about, February 13, 1989, none of us could have had any inkling at all that one day, TODAY, we would be in here on this internet, talking about this particular "POLITICAL EVENT" in Rensselaer County that was the subject of a news HUB-BUB for over a YEAR, it you can imagine that!

TV coverage from the "BIG CITY" TV stations on a daily basis!

There was a time when right was right and wrong was wrong.

Those days are history.

Never give up.

A.B.

Attorneys have taken over OUR courts, and they have turned them into a parasitic business, for them, and since Judges are first lawyers, the parasitic practice has spread throughout the land, at least where I am, and the law has been made into a mockery, BY THOSE WHO RULE!

After all, they are untouchable, and especially now!

And yes, Mr. A.B., there indeed was a time when right was right and wrong was wrong, but that certainly is not now, at least where I am, and it has not been that way for over twenty years now, and it began by groups of people deciding that having laws was just too constricting, and confining, for them, and so, out the window the law went.

There was absolutely no mystery to what was happening, nor was it a secret, as this case I am involved with attests to!

Generally, there were two types of people who allowed it to happen, which consists of the group that made it happen, and those who acquiesced, for whatever reasons.

Just like 80 MILLION Germans acquiesced to Adolph Hitler, and the Nazis.

For us up here, the "process" of loss of OUR rights was made very apparent to us in this set of "hearings" in 1989 that are the subject of this FBI Report that I am citing from above, and that I am going to continue citing from, as to the light that it sheds on this matter of INTIMIDATION of groups of citizens demanding accountability from THEIR government!

And that is it, isn't it, why the INTIMIDATION becomes necessary, BECAUSE it is not OUR government at all!

It is the REPUBLICAN'S government, and people who demand anything from a REPUBLICAN, and especially accountability, are THREATS who must be "removed", and forcibly so, so as to make a STARK, GRAPHIC, and VIVID EXAMPLE to anyone else who would think of doing the same in the area.

RAW POWER!

Display it prominently, have no qualms about using it, instantaneously, and mercilessly, and you will COMMAND, always!

The formula for the use power and intimidation as a tool of public policy, up here in the corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York, and it works very effectively, as in this case, where the POWER STRUCTURE up here allegedly had the Office of the U.S. Attorney up here in the Northern District of New York hopping around on its hind legs like a little trick-performing dog, begging for a biscuit, and sufficiently so for that Office to allegedly tell the FBI to crawl back into its hole and stay there, and to not investigate alleged REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION in Rensselaer County in the State of New York ever again!

None of this was ever a secret, nor was it done behind closed doors, as it were, and why not?

BECAUSE ....

The POWER STRUCTURE, from top to bottom, wanted US to see its power, and to witness an application of that power, to OUR CHAMPION, as it were, the one person in OUR government who was acting as the law required, in the face of this rampant corruption in New York State that had already "placed" $44 BILLION in play for the politicians and political parties to fight over back in 1976.

And so, Mr. A.B., there is the simple version of the story, simply stated, and there really isn't a more complicated version, unless someone, a psychiatrist, or psychologist, perhaps, wanted to look into reasons why people can stand back and allow rampant corruption to overcome their democratic institutions!

All I know from my own experience up here, is that people simply do!

They turn their faces, they bury their own heads in the sand, or whatever other dirt they have available, they go and hide in their basements, on command, and then ....

Democracy is gone!

Just like that!

And so, it is!

[jeffmoskin]

And that IS what this is all about, jeffmoskin, the right to petition for redress of grievance!

How and where are we supposed to do that, AS AMERICAN CITIZENS, pursuant to the provisions of OUR Constitution?

This "GET AN ATTORNEY" crap is a load of crap!

OUR rights are taken from us, by one attorney, and then we have to buy them back, from another attorney!

And it's a SCAM!

In this case here, one attorney who would even consider taking the case wanted $70,000, up front, in an account, before anything would even begin to happen!

$70 GRAND!

It's a joke!

Attorneys have taken over OUR courts, and they have turned them into a parasitic business, for them, and since Judges are first lawyers, the parasitic practice has spread throughout the land, at least where I am, and the law has been made into a mockery, BY THOSE WHO RULE!

After all, they are untouchable, and especially now!

jeffmoskin, people like you who go to court on your own behalf, keep alive what is one of the most basic of long-term American rights, and that is the right to petition for redress of grievance, ON YOUR OWN, without anyone else being interposed into the system between YOU, and JUSTICE!

SO!

Do the very best job that you can, jeffmoskin, and hold your head high knowing that you did not quit, nor did you yield to extortion from the members of the bar with respect to your right to vindicate your rights at any time in a court of law which IS an impartial and co-equal branch of OUR government with respect to the executive, and the legislature!

When matters get to where they are here, where I am writing from, where the act of beginning the process of petitioning for redress of grievance CAUSES one to be incarcerated in a secure mental health facility as an alleged dangerous mental patient, AT THE ORDER OF the very public official that the one incarcerated was going to seek redress from, then things have already gone way beyond the point of losing that right to redress, period!

THE STATE IS NEVER WRONG!

Thus, there is nothing that requires redress!

GET IT!

Get out of my court!

NOW!

There is a saying that "The defendent who pleads his own case has a fool for a client."

But at least I am a fool that I can afford!

This post has been edited by jeffmoskin: Apr 15 2005, 07:58 AM