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

[Livyjr]

As to Philip Lance, his role in this proceeding is kind of murky, actually ....

As to who he was, Lance was a lawyer with Rensselaer County's Department of Social Services ....

And when he sent out NOTICES TO APPEAR, he billed himself as the "eyes and ears" of REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive John L. Buono, who on October 12, 1988, had gone on the Six O'Clock News on TV Channel 13 in Menands, New York, where he told Christine Kapostacey Jansing that this engineer was insane and dangerous ....

So what he needed Lance as his "eyes and ears" for in March of 1989, who really knows .....

And since the press and the media never asked him that question, well .....

EYES-AND EARS: IF I WERE TO FIND THAT THE COUNTY HAS NOT SUSTAINED ITS BURDEN AND THAT ITS RECOMMENDATION OR ITS DISMISSAL IS INAPPROPRIATE .....

"From his past experience as a TOWN JUDGE ......

I know Phil Lance to be scrupulously honest ....."

- REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive John L. Buono, May 25, 1989

[Livyjr]

MARCH 15, 1989

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT A. SMITH, ESQUIRE, BEFORE THE "EYES AND EARS" OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOHN L. BUONO

Q: Let me ask you this .....

Prior to the time the Associate Public Health Engineer was placed on leave ....

WERE YOU CONSULTED REGARDING WHETHER HE SHOULD BE PLACED ON LEAVE?

SMITH: I believe I was .....

NOT WHETHER HE SHOULD BE .....

BUT WHETHER OR NOT HE COULD BE ....

I think was more the tenor of the conversation .....

Q: And with whom did ....

WHO CONSULTED YOU ABOUT THAT?

SMITH: IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN MR. BUONO, I BELIEVE .....

MARCH 15, 1989

CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT A. SMITH, ESQUIRE, BEFORE THE "EYES AND EARS" OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOHN L. BUONO

Q: And so ...

That would be some time between October 11 and the meeting with Mr. Buono on the 13th or 14th?

SMITH: YES.

Whether it was October 12 and 13 and 14 ....

So ...

But some time prior to the 13th and 14th ....

Q: And what was the substance of that conversation, if you can remember?

SMITH: Just basically what I already indicated ....

There was some questions of the Associate Public Health Engineer being placed on leave for some period of time, a kind of "cooling off period" ....

And as I recall ....

An inquiry was made of me of whether or not that could be accomplished within the legal framework we have to deal with .....

AND MY RESPONSE TO MR. BUONO WAS I THOUGHT IT COULD BE DONE WITHIN THE GENERAL POWERS AFFORDED UNDER THE COUNTY CHARTER .....

[Livyjr]

And a reader from somewhere out there says, "WHOA, Livyjr, now you have just lost me again", and you know what, it is just possible, and so, let me back up here and explain the connection between these criminal charges, and the bogus disciplinary hearing, and the FBI, and this decision in Federal District Court in Albany, New York on March 31, 2005, that is the main subject of what we are talking about here, which is crushing a group of citizens who are trying to exercise their collective Constitutional rights to equal protection under the law, and due process of law, with respect to their LIBERTY INTERESTS, and their LIBERTY, itself!

HOW HAVE WE GONE FROM A SPECIAL AGENT OF THE FBI SITTING IN ON A BOGUS "DISCIPLINARY HEARING" IN RENSSELAER COUNTY IN FEBRUARY OF 1989, TO A CRIMINAL COURT PROCEEDING IN THE TOWN OF NORTH GREENBUSH, IN RENSSELAER COUNTY, IN OCTOBER OF 1990", goes the question, and the answer lies in what was to transpire in State Supreme Court on 2/24/89, and for that story, we go to the Troy, New York RECORD, for Wednesday, February 22, 1989, to the story therein entitled "Court delays PLAINTIFF'S disciplinary hearing", which stated in relevant part as follows:

"Environmental Health Director PLAINTIFF'S disciplinary hearing has been delayed until the legal issue of opening the proceedings to the public is resolved."

"State Supreme Court Justice Edward S. Conway signed a Show Cause Order Tuesday filed by attorney Barbara G. Billet, a media attorney with the Albany law firm of O'Connell and Aronowitz of Albany, representing THE RECORD newspapers and Capital Newspapers."

"Both newspapers are fighting Rensselaer County's move to close the hearing."

"Arguments for and against the proposed closing are scheduled to be presented to State Supreme Court Justice Lawrence Kahn Friday!"

"PLAINTIFF has filed a formal waiver of his right to a closed hearing."

"He has repeatedly said he wants the public to know why he took the actions he did."

"We believe there is just cause for closure," Deputy Rensselaer County Attorney Gordon Mayo told Judge Conway Tuesday.

"Not only could PLAINTIFF say things during the hearing that could affect pending litigation, but PLAINTIFF'S behavior is questionable."

"Mayo said PLAINTIFF suffers from a post-combat stress condition that could result in irrational behavior."

"PLAINTIFF is a Vietnam veteran."

And here we have taken a short interlude from the CROSS-EXAMINATION of REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Attorney Robert A. Smith, Esquire, which the miracle of this internet allows us to do, so that I can address a question which just came in as to whether during this initial period of assault on the integrity and professional reputation of the Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer in late-1988 and early-1989, there was any OVERT PUBLIC MENTION of the subject of alleged or supposed mental illness on the part of the PLAINTIFF .....

And in response, I directed that reader back to this post above, where on two separate days running circa February 22, 1989, the Troy, New York RECORD quoted REPUBLICAN Deputy Rensselaer County Attorney Gordon Mayo, the same Gordon Mayo who is representing the County of Rensselaer as his client in this hearing before REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive John L. Buono's "EYES AND EARS" in March of 1989, as saying that PLAINTIFF suffered from a post-combat stress condition that could result in irrational behavior ......

And at that time, February 22, 1989, this was still the official reason that Buono was giving to members of the public in Rensselaer County as his reason for keeping the Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer locked out of his office ....

Despite being in possession of absolutely no evidence whatsoever that PLAINTIFF suffered from anything at all ....

And particularly, any alleged SYNDROME which would make PLAINTIFF irrational ....

While at the same time being in possession of a medical statement in rebuttal of Buono's false charges from a noted area psychiatrist who had examined PLAINTIFF and had found him to be quite rational and sane shortly after Buono had gone onto the Kapostacey-Jansing Show on TV Channel 13 broadcasting out of Menands, New York on October 12, 1988 to make his now-famous statement that he was locking the Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer out of his office in the Rensselaer County Office Building, because in Buono's words, the engineer was mentally ill .......

Medical evidence that Mayo himself was in possession of when he went before New York State Supreme Court Justice Conway in February of 1989 and falsely stated to him, with impunity of course, since in the State of New York, political lawyers are bound by no ethical or legal standards whatsover, that the PLAINTIFF suffers from a post-combat stress condition that could result in irrational behavior .....

Not once was Mayo requested by the Court to back up that very serious and very public charge with any evidence whatsoever ....

To the contrary, the court simply accepted the false charge at face value .....

As did the Troy RECORD newspaper ....

Which printed the false charge not once ....

But twice ...

For effect, of course ......

And so ....

[Livyjr]

"Alito to Senate: Good Judge Has No Agenda"

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito told senators Monday that good judges don't have an agenda, don't look for partisan outcomes and always "do what the law requires" as the Senate opened hearings on President Bush's choice for the high court.

"A judge can't have any agenda."

"A judge can't have a preferred outcome in any particular case," Alito told the Judiciary Committee in a brief statement in which he made a distinction between judges and attorneys working for clients.

"The role of a practicing attorney is to achieve a desirable result for the client in the particular case at hand," Alito said.

"But a judge can't think that way."

"A judge can't have any agenda, a judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case and a judge certainly doesn't have a client."

MARCH 15, 1989

CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT A. SMITH, ESQUIRE, BEFORE THE "EYES AND EARS" OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOHN L. BUONO

Q: And what was the substance of that conversation, if you can remember?

SMITH: Just basically what I already indicated ....

There was some questions of the Associate Public Health Engineer being placed on leave for some period of time, a kind of "cooling off period" ....

And as I recall ....

An inquiry was made of me of whether or not that could be accomplished within the legal framework we have to deal with .....

AND MY RESPONSE TO MR. BUONO WAS I THOUGHT IT COULD BE DONE WITHIN THE GENERAL POWERS AFFORDED UNDER THE COUNTY CHARTER .....

People wonder, of course, and this was brought out during these confirmation hearings before the United States Senate recently, just what it is these government lawyers talk about with their "clients" when they are having these closed-door meetings ....

And here is a glimpse into that world ...

Right above here in the words of REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Attorney Robert A. Smith ....

Where he telling us and all the world just what it was that he and REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive John L. Buono were talking about in the days before Buono went on the Christine Kapostacey-Jansing Show on TV Channel 13 out of Menands, New York on October 12, 1988 to inform the world that he had just locked the Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer out of his office in the Rensselaer County Office Building on the false and specious grounds that the engineer was mentally ill and dangerous ....

CAN GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION EXIST WITHOUT A LAWYER, OR A TEAM OF LAWYERS, TO KEEP IT COVERED UP?

That is one question that emerges from all of this ....

And, IF these lawyers are nothing more than an amoral pack of people without ethics, or standards, totally contemptuous of the law, and those who would have it enforced equally across the board, and judges in OUR America can only come from their ranks, which is the case at the federal level, then how and why is that individual going to change, once he or she dons the robes of a federal judge, here in OUR America?

Especially when that individual is put forth as the CHOICE of the lawyers who will remain lawyers ....

Which is to say, those who will be making their money before that same lawyer from their ranks who is now sitting as a judge in judgment of US, the American people, when we have a grievance against the "CLIENTS" that these amoral lawyers represent ....

CLIENTS who can pay these lawyers BIG BUCKS to make sure that we never even see the inside of a courtroom, let alone get before a jury to state OUR case and present OUR evidence .....

So that as Judge Alito says above, these lawyers, like REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Attorney Robert A. Smith can achieve "a desirable result for the client in the particular case at hand" .....

REGARDLESS OF WHAT RESULT THE LAW AS WRITTEN SHOULD HAVE PRODUCED INSTEAD .....

[Livyjr]

And, IF these lawyers are nothing more than an amoral pack of people without ethics, or standards, totally contemptuous of the law, and those who would have it enforced equally across the board .....

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

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

AMORAL: Being outside or beyond the moral order .....

MORAL: Pertains to character, conduct, intention, social relations, etc.

1) Pertaining or relating to the conscience or moral sense or to the general principles of right conduct;

2) Cognizable or enforceable only by the conscience or by the principles of right conduct, as distinguished from positive law;

3) Depending upon or resulting from probability; raising a belief or conviction in the mind independent of strict or logical proof; or

4) Involving or affecting the moral sense ...

MORAL ACTIONS: Those only in which men have knowledge to guide them, AND A WILL TO CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES ....

And here, a new reader has stopped me to say:

"Livyjr, why are you making such a blanket statement about lawyers being AMORAL ....."

And my reply was that I AM NOT ...

Making a blanket statement, that is ....

Rather ....

What I am doing above here ....

Is acknowledging the power of THE STATEMENT made by the PRESIDENT of the Albany, New York BAR ASSOCIATION right above here back in 2003 that all lawyers, at least in the capital city of the State of New York are AMORAL .....

His choice of words ...

And not mine at all ....

All I am doing in here is not arguing the TRUTH of that statement ....

I mean ....

After all ...

Who should know better than he?

And his knowledgeable statement about his own profession does not at all conflict with my experience of members of the bar ...

And so ....

Give credit where credit is due is my thought, anyway ....

[Livyjr]

And here, a new reader has stopped me to say:

"Livyjr, why are you making such a blanket statement about lawyers being AMORAL ....."

And my reply was that I AM NOT ...

Making a blanket statement, that is ....

Rather ....

What I am doing above here ....

Is acknowledging the power of THE STATEMENT made by the PRESIDENT of the Albany, New York BAR ASSOCIATION right above here back in 2003 that all lawyers, at least in the capital city of the State of New York are AMORAL .....

His choice of words ...

And not mine at all ....

All I am doing in here is not arguing the TRUTH of that statement ....

"Ethics rules target judges' seminars - Senators want tighter regulations in wake of Abramoff scandal"

By JENNIFER A. DLOUHY, Washington bureau, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Sunday, February 5, 2006

WASHINGTON -- In the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal, lawmakers in Congress are rushing to impose tighter limits on the gifts they can accept from lobbyists, and now three Democratic senators want to force tougher ethics rules on federal judges, too.

Sens. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., Russell D. Feingold, D-Wis., and John Kerry, D-Mass., are pushing legislation that would limit what Leahy calls "special interest-funded junkets" for judges.

The trio is taking aim at seminars for judges -- sometimes held at posh resorts -- and funded by private groups they say are trying to influence court rulings.

Even if judges rule fairly on the bench, the all-expense-paid trips create the appearance of impropriety, Leahy said.

"The American people deserve a federal judiciary that is beyond reproach -- in appearance, and otherwise," Leahy said.

Leahy is trying to capitalize on a scramble on Capitol Hill to tighten congressional ethics rules in response to the biggest lobbying corruption investigation in decades -- a dragnet that ultimately could implicate a number of lawmakers and their aides.

At the center of the scandal is Abramoff, a lobbyist who pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe members of Congress with campaign contributions and entertainment.

As Congress cleans house, Feingold said, it makes sense to sweep in tighter rules for the more than 1,200 federal judges, including those serving on the federal district and appeals courts, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the Tax Court.

The Abramoff scandal "reminds us that wherever people are put in a position of public trust, we have to be very careful to avoid the appearance or the reality of conflicts of interest," Feingold said.

"This is especially important when it comes to judges who have life tenure, and over whom we have no power to defeat them in elections, or other forms of accountability."

The effort also comes after criticism was lobbed at Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for skipping out on last year's swearing-in ceremony for newly installed Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., to attend an event by the conservative Federalist Society at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Bachelor Gulch, Colo.

Other conferences for judges -- underwritten by a variety of groups -- have taken place at ranches in Idaho, lodges in Montana and golfing resorts in Arizona.

Under current rules, federal judges already are blocked from accepting any benefits from parties in litigation before them.

And, under federal law, they have to disclose information about gifts they receive.

Under self-imposed guidelines, judges also are supposed to consider who is paying for a seminar -- and whether they are likely to appear before them in court -- before accepting a trip.

Leahy's legislation would go much further.

With some exceptions, the bill would bar federal judges from accepting anything of value -- including travel and attendance fees -- in connection with a judicial seminar sponsored by a private group.

Under Leahy's bill, judges could still attend private seminars -- but the federal government would have to pick up the tab.

Leahy's legislation would create a new pot of cash to pay for judges to attend private seminars that provide "continuing legal education," as long as the events are approved by the Federal Judicial Center, the government agency that conducts continuing education workshops for judges.

Federal judges, who have long defended their right to attend private seminars, bristle at any new restrictions.

The Judicial Conference of the United States, a self-governing group of federal judges, has opposed similar legislation on the ground that it would limit valuable opportunities to study developing areas of the law or technology.

[Livyjr]

"Ethics rules target judges' seminars - Senators want tighter regulations in wake of Abramoff scandal" 
 
By JENNIFER A. DLOUHY, Washington bureau, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Sunday, February 5, 2006

"The American people deserve a federal judiciary that is beyond reproach -- in appearance, and otherwise," Leahy said.

"Whitman, EPA short on truth"

Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Sunday, February 5, 2006

Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christie Todd Whitman is probably not sleeping well these days.

Don't look for any sympathy here.

One particularly nasty bit of business still unresolved from 9/11 concerns what happened after the attacks.

Whitman broadcast dangerous assurances two days after the collapse of the World Trade Center, and continuously after, that the air in lower Manhattan was safe to breathe.

"Don't concern yourselves, citizens, go about your business" was the gist of repeated announcements from Sept. 13, 2001 on.

What made it dangerous -- and plain outrageous -- is that Whitman had no right to offer those assurances.

She had no data to support it.

In fact, more sophisticated testing than the EPA was doing at the time would have shown heavy concentrations of airborne asbestos as fine particulate in the air and in buildings even miles away.

That would be true for years.

In addition, we later learned the EPA wasn't even testing for many common toxins that were hovering in lower Manhattan air at the time.

At the same time, there were scientists and doctors at the scene, particularly from nearby Mount Sinai Hospital, who were leery of the asbestos and toxin-laden air and suggesting it did pose a hazard.

We got wind of who was right when, in 2003, the EPA's own inspector general unexpectedly and pointedly criticized Whitman and her statements of assurance.

The sum of the inspector general's evaluation was that when Whitman made those statements, she didn't really know what she was talking about.

As a result of the inspector general's report, it came out that every statement and news release uttered soothingly by Whitman during those hellacious days had been vetted by the White House, and that warnings of health concerns raised by her own scientists were deleted from news releases and statements.

"We didn't want to scare people," she told Newsweek.

Now the other shoe has dropped on Whitman.

In a little-publicized ruling Thursday, Federal Court Judge Deborah Batts in Manhattan cleared the way for class-action civil suits against Whitman personally and as the administrator of EPA, and against the agency.

Let the floodgates open, and let Whitman and the feds get hammered.

What an unspeakable thing to do to a stunned and helpless citizenry surely not expecting further misery from our own government.

The judge's ruling related to a 2004 class-action suit on behalf of residents and schoolchildren from lower Manhattan and Brooklyn who claim they were subjected to contaminated air in buildings near the World Trade Center -- a situation the EPA either turned its back on or stated was not harmful.

"No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," the judge stated, terming Whitman's cotton-mouthed assurances as "conscience-shocking."

Now this only clears the way for civil trials and settlements.

Those bringing the suits still have to prove they were hurt as a result of Whitman's words.

But there's no question the judge's ruling clearly establishes that as far as the court is concerned, Whitman and the EPA had a legal as well as a moral responsibility to speak the truth.

And that they did not.

Fred LeBrun can be reached at 454-5453 or by e-mail at flebrun@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

MORAL ACTIONS: Those only in which men have knowledge to guide them, AND A WILL TO CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES ....

And here, a new reader has stopped me to say:

"Livyjr, why are you making such a blanket statement about lawyers being AMORAL ....."

And my reply was that I AM NOT ...

Making a blanket statement, that is ....

Rather ....

What I am doing above here ....

Is acknowledging the power of THE STATEMENT made by the PRESIDENT of the Albany, New York BAR ASSOCIATION right above here back in 2003 that all lawyers, at least in the capital city of the State of New York are AMORAL .....

His choice of words ...

And not mine at all ....

And here, a reader has asked me whether this "hearing" before the "EYES AND EARS" back in 1989 was pursuant to any provisions of the New York State Civil Service Law ....

And that answer is yes .....

The HEARING before the "EYES AND EARS" of REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive John L. Buono in 1989 that we are reading from the TRANSCRIPT of in this thread was held pursuant to New York State Civil Service Law section 75-A, which section of state law, according to the "EYES AND EARS" himself, allowed Rensselaer County to skirt "due process" of law provisions, and thereby remove from PLAINTIFF his right AS A DISABLED VETERAN to employment as Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer in the Rensselaer County Health District ........

As well as denying PLAINTIFF medical coverage ....

Or any form of compensation ...

For injuries suffered in a back-hoe assault ....

In the Town of Sand Lake ...

In the County of Rensselaer ...

In the summer of 1988 ....

BECAUSE ....

REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOHN L. BUONO WANTED IT TO BE THAT WAY .....

So ...

"The law requires a hearing?"

"Okay ..."

"We'll give the son-of-a-***** a hearing alright ..."

"We'll throw everything we have at him ..."

"We'll really trash his reputation ..."

"And then ...."

"We'll fire his *** ...."

"And make sure he never works in the State of New York ..."

"As an engineer ..."

"Ever again ..."

Which is as it was to be ...

And it is interesting that originally, when Buono ordered that the Associate Public Health Engineer be locked out of the Rensselaer County Office Building on October 12, 1988, HE, BUONO, was acting pursuant to section 75-B of the New York State Civil Service Law, which section deals with mandatory leaves of absence for psychiatric purposes .....

Which requires a medical certification ..

Which Buono did not have .....

And could not get ....

Because PLAINTIFF had already been to a noted area psychiatrist ....

Who had pronounced PLANTIFF ...

Rational ...

And sane ....

And so ...

Subsequently ...

Buono had to eat the fact that he had no grounds to have acted pursuant to section 75-B ....

At which time he ordered the Associate Public Health Engineer suspended without pay for 30-days pursuant to section 75-A, while the County searched around for something to charge the Associate Public Health Engineer with ...

As a pretext ....

So Buono could then "fire" him ....

Which leads me to this person's next question, which had to do with the Civil Service status of this engineer ....

Whether this person had to take a test to hold this position ...

And whether this engineer had in fact taken such a test if it was required ...

And if the engineer took the test, did he pass ....

And the answers are YES, and YES, and YES ....

Yes ...

There was a Civil Service test for this position ....

YES ...

The engineer in fact took this Civil Service examination ...

And YES ...

The engineer passed that test ...

Which meant at the time of this hearing before the "EYES AND EARS" in 1989, the Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer was supposedly vested with permanent Civil Service status with the Rensselaer County Health District ....

And that turned out to be absolutely no protection, whatsoever .....

In fact ...

It was a FARCE .....

As was made clear to all of us in Rensselaer County in the State of New York .....

During these hearings before the "EYES AND EARS" in 1989 ......

And every moment thereafter ....

Right on up to this very moment in time ....

[Livyjr]

And Good Morning, America.

For those of you who might be stopping by here for the first time, we are discussing a real federal court case that was decided in the Northern District of New York on March 31, 2005 that involves what we are calling in here a "LONG NIGHT OF TERROR" that has been aimed at a disabled Viet Nam veteran in the Town of Poestenkill, in the County of Rensselaer, just east of Albany, New York, in the State of New York, because of his efforts on behalf of the people of Rensselaer County to fight corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health, in this case, and to restore integrity to the public health programs of that department that impact on all of us in Rensselaer County, and ultimately, everywhere on the face of the earth, if you consider that corrupt government in one place generally does not stay there, but spreads instead, especially when that corruption has become "institutionalized" in the state because of the direct actions of one or both political parties to have it be that way!

In this specific case, on 8/22/01, a doctor at a CORPORATE hospital in Troy, New York issued, or simply gave Rensselaer County and State of New York public officials a document bearing his signature that FALSELY and FRAUDULENTLY attested that the PLAINTIFF in this matter was an alleged dangerous person suffering from an alleged mental disease who allegedly required immediate treatment in the secure CORPORATE mental facility where this doctor worked.

Now, at the time this CORPORATE doctor handed this "psychiatric arrest warrant" to these public officials so that they could then have the New York State Police capture this person for transport to this CORPORATE mental facility, or GULAG, as it is known up here, the PLAINTIFF, the one who was to be "taken out" by these people, through the vehicle of this "psychiatric incarceration", was himself a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York who had been investigating corruption in the New York State Department of health and the Rensselaer County Department of Health since at least 1983, and several times, he had been commended by then-New York State Health Commissioner Dr. David Axelrod for his efforts.

Despite that, on 8/22/01, this person was FALSELY BRANDED as a dangerous mental patient by this CORPORATE doctor, which is against the law, and in violation of this person's rights to due process of law under the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT to the United States Constitution.

In a similar case in Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York decided on November 26, 2002, the original federal judge who had this case, Hon. David Hurd, laid out the law on the subject in an extensive and exhaustive 44-page decision that traced the law on the subject in the State of New York back to its roots in the United States Supreme Court in or about 1975.

Those of us up here who have been following this matter now since the late-1970's or early-1980's were cheered and heartened by the language in this November 26, 2002 decision of Judge Hurd, because OUR case involving similar abuses of law was initially before him for determination.

THEN .....

Down came an order from Chief Judge Fred Scullin, and day turned to blackest night, for us, anyway, as Chief Judge Fred Scullin had taken the case from Judge Hurd and had given it instead to a brand new federal court judge who had just been appointed to the bench by George W. Bush!

In his March 31, 2005 decision in this matter, this BUSH judge has reversed or eliminated the last thirty or so years of law on this subject, and has said, in essence, that whenever it chooses, the State of New York, or any of its political subdivisions can use violence, or incite violence against dissenters in the community who are diligent enough and resourceful enough to be able to uncover corruption in the local, or county or state governments, and then document that corruption in a manner sufficient to start a court action against the government.

Further, the "state" can use false testimony to discredit these individuals, and it can then have them locked away as dangerous mental patients, if it so chooses, without any fear of oversight or intervention by the federal courts in the matter, which to us, is a very dangerous state of affairs indeed, ESPECIALLY as that has actually happened up here, to one of OURS, who is the PLAINTIFF in this matter.

"This COURT has attempted to summarize the litany of unintelligible and conclusory allegations in PLAINTIFF's convoluted COMPLAINT and attached exhibits."

- CONSERVATIVE United States District Court Judge Hon. Gary L. Sharpe, March 31, 2005

And here, a reader has asked whether there was any evidence before Federal District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe and the Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City that would tie together what transpired in Rensselaer County in the State of New York in 1988 and 1989 with what took place subsequently in 2001, when REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino, with the aid and assistance of REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Attorney Robert A. Smith, was able to successfully derail a continuing investigation into corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health under REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Public Director Denise Ayers by the use of the PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN ....

And that answer is most certainly ...

Right at page 270 of the voluminous and encyclopedic RECORD that Jimino's ATTORNEY, the MOST HONORABLE Tommy O'Connor, had before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in his successful effort to have that Court "IMMUNIZE" Jimino and her fellow co-defendants in the matter, along with the assailant in this matter, Jeffrey Pelletier of Poestenkill, New York ....

Page 270 of what is being called the "O'CONNOR BIBLE" up here in the State of New York is a document entitled "SAMARITAN HOSPITAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS DEPARTMENT" .....

This Samaritan Hospital form was originally annexed to the Amended Complaint in the District Court before Judge Sharpe as PLAINTIFF's Exhibit D ....

The form is dated 8/22/01 at 0930 in the morning of that day ....

And it states in relevant part as follows:

"Timothy Holt reports that pt. has long psych. history; IS FORMER COUNTY EMPLOYEE ...."

Timothy Holt, of course, is the REPUBLICAN in charge of making sure the trash is taken out of the Rensselaer County Office Building in a timely manner, and so ..

It is no wonder that REPUBLICAN Jimino would select Holt to "get rid of this trash", referring to the PLAINTIFF in this matter, who was about to institute legal proceedings against Rensselaer County and its Health Department ....

And it is interesting also in the light of this statement by REPUBLICAN Federal Court Judge Sharpe in his decision dated March 31, 2005:

"This COURT has attempted to summarize the litany of unintelligible and conclusory allegations in PLAINTIFF's convoluted COMPLAINT and attached exhibits."

We still look at this statement by this man, and we wonder what on earth he can possibly be talking about ...

Since the Exhibits that he was referring to included this very document above here ......

And that was a Samaritan Hospital form ....

Which means that if it was unintelligible to the judge ....

As it apparently was ...

Then he should have requested some further clarification from the ATTORNEY for Samaritan Hospital, THE MOST HONORABLE Donny "BOB" Ford, ESQUIRE, of the Thuillez, Ford & Gold Johnson firm in Albany, New York ....

And yet ...

He did nothing at all ..

Besides throwing out the Amended Complaint ...

Because this evidence prepared by Samaritan Hospital and the Rensselaer County co-defendants ....

Would never stand scrutiny ...

In the clear light of day ...

Especially before a jury .....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

And here, I want to take one more moment ...

And once again ...

I wish to sincerely thank each and every person who has passed through this thread since its inception back in March of 2005 ....

When this federal court decision under discussion in here was rendered ....

I am a real person, myself .....

And I live in a real place ....

And in that place ....

There is and has been a small community of productive people since around 1790 .....

Or before .....

I have been where I am since 1949 ....

Out walking on my road on nice days, you will see an older woman with her dog ....

She is up in her eighties ...

And she has been on her place since 1957 ....

Down through the woods ...

Her land borders mine ...

And in all that time ...

We have never had need for any confrontations ....

And to me ...

That is a prime element of what makes a real community ...

Here in OUR America ...

Which is peace ...

And stability ...

And sadly ...

That is what has been stripped from us ...

By these federal court decisions ...

Under discussion in here ...

Especially the callous disregard these federal court judges displayed towards this assault on a disabled veteran here in OUR America by Jeffrey Pelletier of Poestenkill ...

Who represents the "NEW GENERATION" in town ....

That is anxious to have us older folks ...

Off OUR land ...

So that people like him can take it over ...

And make their killing in the real estate market ....

While the market is still hot ....

This morning ...

Thanks to all of you who have stopped by here ...

This thread went over 10,000 visits ....

Which in the big scheme of things ....

May not be much at all ...

But to us ...

A handful of old folks with a vested interest in the ultimate outcome of this struggle ....

That number 10,000 is a positive psychological factor ....

FOR US ....

And that is what matters .....

For without this thread ...

Our story would never have been told ...

OUR voices would never have been heard ...

And so ....

[Livyjr]

And in reply to an inquiry as to what we thought this waiving of oral arguments by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, along with Donald P. Ford, Jr., Esq. and Hon. Thomas O'Connor meant, we really spend no time even thinking on that, to be truthful ......

Ask no question that you do not know the answer to ....

Rule 34(e) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, entitled Nonappearance of a Party provides in clear and unambiguous language that "If the appellee fails to appear for argument, THE COURT MUST HEAR APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT!"

In this case, where oral arguments have already been scheduled, as is attested to individually by Spitzer, Ford and O'Connor on behalf of their various clients, it is our position pursuant to Rule 34(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that the Court has already determined that:

a) the appeal is NOT frivolous;

b) the dispositive issue or issues have not yet been authoritatively decided; and

c) the facts and legal arguments are not yet adequately presented in appellees' briefs and record, so that the decisional process would be significantly aided by oral argument; and so .....

And here, I have a question as to whether the PLAINTIFF ever saw a federal district court judge once this matter was filed with the federal court in Albany, New York ...

And that answer is NO .....

And this is despite the express provisions of GENERAL ORDER #25 ....

Which is supposed to apply evenly, and uniformly in the Northern District of New York ...

Across the board ..

Regardless ....

GENERAL ORDER #25 states as it PURPOSE as follows:

"It is the POLICY of this court to help litigants resolve their civil disputes in a JUST, TIMELY and COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER."

"To that end, this court has adopted an EXPENSE and DELAY REDUCTION PLAN in accordance with the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990."

"This will tailor the level of individualized case management needs to such criteria as case complexity, and the amount of time reasonably needed to prepare the case for trial."

With respect to the applicability of GENERAL ORDER #25 to this case, GENERAL ORDER #25 states as follows:

"WHEN SERVING a Complaint or Notice of Removal, the FILING PARTY SHALL SERVE on all other parties a copy of this General order and the attached materials."

"Service of process should be completed within Sixty (60) days from the initial filing date."

"This expedited service IS NECESSARY TO FULFILL THE DICTATES of the Civil Justice Reform Act Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court and to ENSURE adequate time for pretrial discovery and motion practice."

The gist of GENERAL ORDER #25 is that in as short a time as possible after filing a COMPLAINT, the parties are to meet with a Federal Magistrate Judge in what is called a Settlement Conference ....

Which in this case ....

NEVER HAPPENED ....

The PLAINTIFF was never allowed in ....

And the lawyers were ...

For the purpose of having the case thrown out ...

Before there was ever any chance for discovery ..

By the PLAINTIFF .....

For the pro se PLAINTIFF, which is to say, a common American citizen, who is trying on their own to vindicate their civil rights, at least up here in the Northern District of New York, the courts across the board can be and have proven themselves to be a very openly hostile environment ...

And that was definitely the case here, in this matter ....

As though someone had let a dog into the august setting ....

And the sole purpose of the courtroom personnel ..

Was to get that dog back out on the street again ....

And that, I would say ...

Is a "lawyer thing" ......

The court rooms in OUR America, or at least up here, where I am, have become what appears to be an "EXCLUSIVE PROVINCE" for lawyers ...

So that to get through the door ....

You are going to have to stuff some money down their pockets ....

Or you will never see the inside of the room ....

[Livyjr]

And I guess what I find the most interesting about any of this is that in a nation that alleges to the rest of the world that it is a "nation of laws", we need a FORUM like this one to talk about HOW IT IS NOT one at all, at least up here where I am!

In fact, judging by what has gone on up here over the last twenty years that I can personally document, this concept of the "rule is law" in America is a farce, a complete and total farce!

And here, all I need do to support that statement is go back to the exhibits annexed to the original complaint in this matter, and take a look at, say, Exhibit E, which is an October 9, 1990 letter from an Assistant Rensselaer County District Attorney to the Court of the Town of North Greenbush, here in Rensselaer County in the State of New York, concerning the PLAINTIFF in this matter, in the days, weeks and months following this FBI Report that we have been reading from above, here.

This October 9, 1990 letter reads in relevant part as follows:

"Enclosed herewith, please find a copy of the People's Notice of Appeal from a dismissal in the North Greenbush Town Court on Tuesday, October 2, 1990."

"Mr. Gerald Jones contacted this office and requested this course of action."

"By way of judicial economy, I hereby move to reargue the Motion to Dismiss in order to afford the People an opportunity to be heard on this matter."

"The complainant in this case feels that there has been an injustice, and has sought the assistance of this office."

"We have agreed to accept the responsibility to represent the People in this case."

"My understanding of the events which took place in your court on October 2, 1990 clearly demonstrate that Mr. Jones is not familiar with the criminal justice system!"

"Mrs. Jones, while her actions were, without a doubt, inappropriate and arguably contemptuous, I do not believe such actions warrant or give rise to a dismissal."

"Furthermore, as PLAINTIFF'S familiarity with the law has been demonstrated in another action pending in your court, I sincerely believe adequate representation of the People's position should be provided by this office!"

end quotes

Well!

What a mouthfull of twaddle!

"Mrs. Jones, while her actions were, without a doubt, inappropriate and arguably contemptuous, I do not believe such actions warrant or give rise to a dismissal."

I was physically present in North Greenbush Town Court that night in question, as were many other MUTE WITNESSES to this on-going charade, and what we all saw was Mrs. Jones standing up in court like a wild woman, and then shrieking at the judge in a most incredible manner, while she approached the bench in a very threatening manner that scared a lot of the older folks present, and the most surprising thing of all was that this judge cowered down and let this woman continue to shriek at him about how incompetent he was, without making any effort to have this woman arrested and removed from the court as some kind of maniac!

BUT ....

That is what comes of having CLOUT in a place like Rensselaer County, where the "law" you get is based upon the size and weight of the billfold that you own, or possess!

In Rensselaer County, a wild woman who can twine the Rensselaer County District Attorney's Office around her little finger in front of all the candid world outranks a mere local town justice, in the "pecking order" up here in the corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York, and that is just a fact, as this October 9, 1990 letter to North Greenbush Town Court from the Office of the Rensselaer County District Attorney clearly demonstrates.

What further demonstrates the CLOUT these Jones had was that the Rensselaer County District Attorney, on their behalf, AS THEIR PERSONAL LAWYER, was going to argue that the PLAINTIFF in this matter should be re-arrested and tried again, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, in other words, AFTER having clearly demonstrated in court once already that the Smith/Jones charges were as bogus as a thirty-two and a half dollar bill, and had been brought for political purposes against this individual, as part of this on-going "campaign of terror" against this individual that was being waged by Rensselaer County.

BUT ....

That is for later!

SO!

Please stay tuned!

Updated regularly!

Thank you for your continuing interest.

"Furthermore, as PLAINTIFF'S familiarity with the law has been demonstrated in another action pending in your court, I sincerely believe adequate representation of the People's position should be provided by this office!"

Yes, indeed ....

The LAWYER thing .....

A citizen who knows the law is dangerous ...

To the lawyer ....

Who views the law as his or her exclusive possession ....

Especially when that citizen can beat a "full-grown lawyer" in a court of law ...

Where all the candid world can see ....

And with respect to that ....

Back in early-2004, the Albany, New York Times Union newspaper contacted the PLAINTIFF in this matter ...

And in that telephone call ....

The Times Union informed the PLAINTIFF that it was going to do a story on litigants who were going to court without lawyers ....

And would the PLAINTIFF consent to being a part of that story ....

Which he did ....

And that story by Michelle Morgan Bolton ran on the front page of the local section on Sunday, February 8, 2004 with a picture of the PLAINTIFF sitting behind a stack of law books, and the caption "PLAINTIFF of Poestenkill uses his own legal knowledge to successfully fight zoning and other issues in court" ...

And a second picture at page 4 with the caption "PLAINTIFF looks through his legal books at his home in Poestenkill. PLAINTIFF has not used an attorney in 15 years."

All of which caused the local BAR ASSOCIATION to get quite surly and snippy .....

"WE DON'T LIKE SEEING PICTURES OF YOU IN THE NEWSPAPER WITH YOUR LEGAL BOOKS ....

The story ran in relevant part as follows:

Everyone has a right to legal representation.

But a growing number of civil and criminal litigants are choosing to defend themselves, citing a shortage of cash, mistrust of lawyers or a misplaced belief - based on popular courtroom drama - that they can swing it on their own.

A 1999 survey from the National Center for the State Courts in Virginia found that 58 percent of Americans believe they could represent themselves in court if necessary.

Such pro se representation - Latin for "on one's own behalf" - is most often seen on the civil side, involving marital or tenant/landlord disputes and traffic violations.

Statistics show, for example, that 85 percent of all tenant/landlord cases are unrepresented in New York.

That number is attracting attention by lawyers, state officials and advocates who worry that justice can't be served when inexperienced people navigate the legal system on their own, especially in criminal cases.

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

"In most criminal cases, the individual is told he will held to the standard as an attorney."

"But that is like putting someone who has never seen a football game on the field and saying, 'O.K., now play by the rules'."

It's a process set up by lawyers for lawyers, she said.

New York is working on a number of initiatives to even the playing field for pro se defendants, she said.

And it's also pondering the relatively new concept of allowing attorneys to offer a la carte services, a philosophy described as "unbundling".

"I WOULD NOT GO TO COURT WITHOUT A LAWYER," added state Deputy Administrative Judge Juanita Bing Newton, who heads up Justice Initiatives for the Unified Court System.

"AND I AM CERTAINLY NOT AN ADVOCATE OF PEOPLE REPRESENTING THEMSELVES."

Yet because more and more of the "working poor" are opting to do just that, New York has a responsibility to make sure they get help, she said.

"When you tell a litigant he will be held to the rules of evidence, you may as well be saying 'blah, blah, blah, blah'," Newton said.

"We need to give them tools in a system that is very complex."

A click on the Court Help Link of the Unified Court System's Web Site is a good place to start, Newton said.

"We can provide information, even though we can't provide legal advice."

Every county also has in-house training programs and resource centers, so unified court employees can better help pro se litigants, Newton said.

The pilot Office for the Self-Represented in Manhatten, which sees 1,500 clients a month, may expand upstate if a survey shows the level of self-representation warrants it.

As another way to help cash-strapped litigants, a number of states are re-writing their ethics laws to allow for "unbundling".

That means a client could pay for the partial services of a lawyer without committing to the entire case.

She could commission a ghostwritten brief, by agreement, for example, but not require a personal court appearance.

Lawyers, however, are cautious about the idea.

"As an attorney, I would be very hesitant to take on one part of a case and not have responsibility for all of it," Shanks said.

"It's very unusual that a case could be drawn and quartered."

"Then how can you be held accountable?"

As a judge, Newton said she also finds "ghost representation" troubling, but New York offers "quasi-unbundling" already.

Take the woman who goes to a non-profit law center and attends a volunteer lawyer's clinic on uncontested divorce, she said: "They don't sign an agreement, but they do offer advice."

A 2002 State Bar Association report said unbundling could work in non-litigation situations, but the 72,000 member group has yet to take an official position.

Poestenkill resident PLAINTIFF apparently hasn't needed the full or partial services of a lawyer during the seven civil cases he has successfully won over the past 15 years in state Supreme and federal court.

PLAINTIFF, a former Rensselaer County engineer, has taken it upon himself to reverse the illegal permitting of local gravel mining and waste hauling facilities and the alleged backroom commercial rezoning of his rural community.

He has gone up against town planning and zoning boards; Rensselaer County government; Waste Management; Showers Enterprises and R.J. Valente gravel, Inc.; the state Department of Environmental Conservation; and the Attorney General's office, among others.

The 59-year-old disabled Vietnam veteran is also a vocal activist, who is trying to prove federal court that county social services, veterans and Samaritan Hospital officials tried to forcibly commit him to a mental health facility in 2001.

"THE LAW IS FAR TOO PRECIOUS A THING TO BE LEFT IN THE HANDS OF LAWYERS," said PLAINTIFF, who has been called every name in the book.

"I did an Abe Lincoln."

"If he could stretch out on the dirt floor and learn the law, so could I."

Cognizant of the old adage that says those who represent themselves have a fool for a client, PLAINTIFF confided:

"I'D RATHER HAVE A FOOL FOR A CLIENT THAN A FOOL FOR A LAWYER."

Half the lawyers who go to court every day lose, PLAINTIFF said:

"With those odds, for me it was no worse than a 50-50 proposition."

"I work hard at what I do, and since I don't have to take outright stupid cases, the odds in my case are actually somewhat better than what a lawyer faces."

[Livyjr]

"Furthermore, as PLAINTIFF'S familiarity with the law has been demonstrated in another action pending in your court, I sincerely believe adequate representation of the People's position should be provided by this office!"

Yes, indeed ....

The LAWYER thing .....

A citizen who knows the law is dangerous ...

To the lawyer ....

Who views the law as his or her exclusive possession ....

Especially when that citizen can beat a "full-grown lawyer" in a court of law ...

Where all the candid world can see ....

And there we kind of are in here ....

For the moment, anyway ....

I have been asked if we would appeal this up to the United States Supreme Court ...

And the answer to that is that for us, it would be a waste of time and money ....

When there are much more pressing matters at hand ....

Such as life itself ....

Up here in the cold country ....

Is this matter over?

Who can really tell .....

For were things really over when the United States Supreme Court sent Dred Scott back to the slave pens?

Or were they just beginning to begin?

[Livyjr]

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

It's a process set up by lawyers for lawyers, she said.

And when you come right down to it ....

Professor Shanks of the Albany Law School is saying quite a mouthful here ....

When she says that someone with access to a lawyer ....

Can make it IMPOSSIBLE ....

For the other side ...

To ever make it in to a courtroom ....

Let alone ever see justice .....

And here ....

Ms. Shanks is referring to what is known as the "FIXER" ......

The COURTHOUSE fixture that can get things "made gone away" ....

If only one knows how to find and engage the FIXER's services ....

And that was part of the game here ....

And Professor Shank's statements in that regard about access to FIXERS by one side of a dispute making it impossible for the other side "TO BE IN THE GAME" is interesting from the perspective that when the PLAINTIFF first filed this COMPLAINT in federal district court, Albany Law School was one of the places that he appealed to for aid and assistance in connection with developing all of the constitutional issues involved in this matter ....

And Albany Law School turned a deaf ear ....

[Livyjr]

"Lies hid asbestos scandal - Ex-Schenectady man admits perjury to shield former bosses during Salvagnos' fraud trial" 
 
By CAROL DeMARE, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Tuesday, June 21, 2005

SYRACUSE -- A former Schenectady man, who worked for contractors convicted in the largest asbestos case in the nation's history, admitted Monday in federal court he lied at trial to protect his former bosses.

Kevin Pilgrim, 38, pleaded guilty to perjuring himself during last year's trial of Raul and Alexander Salvagno, who were found guilty of racketeering and conspiracy to violate the federal Clean Air Act and Toxic Substances Control Act.

The father and son, now serving lengthy prison terms, conducted illegal asbestos removal in up to 1,555 structures -- including colleges, schools and government buildings, most of them in the Capital Region -- and falsified up to 75,000 laboratory results, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found.

Pilgrim's guilty plea brings to a close the longest criminal environmental case in U.S. history.

Pilgrim held several positions at the Salvagno companies, including director of training at the laboratories, the prosecutor said.

"So, he best knew what the laws were because he had to teach people how to follow the law," Benedict said.

Pilgrim was also out in the field as a supervisor and at AAR as a project manager.

"He assisted in falsifying results and knew about it," Benedict said.

The five-month trial of Alex Salvagno and his 71-year-old father was the longest criminal environmental trial in U.S. history.

"THE LAW IS FAR TOO PRECIOUS A THING TO BE LEFT IN THE HANDS OF LAWYERS," said PLAINTIFF, who has been called every name in the book.

"Sentencings on hold in asbestos case"

Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Thursday, February 9, 2006

The asbestos cleanup fraud case that landed a local father and son the longest prison terms ever for environmental crimes continues.

Last week, Raul and Alex Salvagno were in federal court in Syracuse for resentencing, but that didn't happen.

Instead, the judge said he will assign them a third set of lawyers.

Raul, 72, and Alex, 39, were handed 19 and 25 years, respectively, in 2004.

Last April, they reported to the medium-security Federal Correctional Institute in Otisville, Orange County.

The two men and the younger Salvagno's company, AAR Contractor of Latham, were also ordered to pay $25 million in fines and restitution.

After a five-month trial, they were convicted of racketeering and conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act and Toxic Substances Control Act for some 1,555 instances of illegal asbestos removal in schools, government buildings and other sites, as well as falsifying about 75,000 laboratory results.

Asbestos, once a common fire-retardant and insulator, can cause breathing problems and cancer with exposure.

Just after they got their prison terms, the U.S. Supreme Court changed federal sentencing guidelines from mandatory to advisory, compelling the resentencings, though not necessarily any reduction in their penalties.

The defendants have raised concerns that in light of the huge fines they owe the government, lawyers may not be vigilant in fighting for reduced sentences for fear they won't be paid.

Last week, the Salvagnos' first set of lawyers were in the courtroom on Thursday and taken off the case at the defendants' request.

A new team of attorneys was also on hand, but because their clients had not spoken with them in months, they could not participate in the proceedings before U.S. District Judge Howard G. Munson.

Munson, the trial judge, appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge George H. Lowe to look into the matter.

On Friday, Lowe decided that despite attorneys' pledges to represent clients to the best of their ability, the Salvagnos had a reasonable argument.

Lowe will assign a government-appointed lawyer to both Salvagnos to help them decide whether to proceed with the second set of lawyers or find new ones.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig A. Benedict, the prosecutor, contends that the defense had asked for extensions at almost every turn, but "We understand that the court is trying to do everything it can to ensure the defendants' rights are protected, and its judgment will stand up on appeal."

[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:

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.

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

"Bar association looks to stem misleading legal ads"

Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Thursday, February 2, 2006

In a continuing campaign by the president of the New York State Bar Association to improve the public image and understanding of the legal system and the role of lawyers, the focus has now turned to legal advertising.

The bar association's House of Delegates, at the annual meeting last month in New York City, recommended major changes in the way ads placed by lawyers are reviewed.

"We need to fight back against the unfair attacks that have damaged the reputation of the legal profession, and we need to inform the public about our outstanding legal system and the valuable role lawyers play in preserving it,'' bar President A. Vincent Buzard said.

When Buzard of Rochester took over as president last June, he appointed a task force to examine advertising and how to prevent inappropriate or misleading ads.

The task force issued a report, adopted by the House of Delegates, which calls for the creation of a new entity under the Administrative Board of the state court system to review ads and refer inappropriate ones to grievance committees for review.

The Administrative Board is made up of Judith Kaye, the state's chief judge, and the presiding justices of the state's four appellate divisions.

The bar association is forwarding the proposal to the Administrative Board, asking it to create a committee to review the ads, bar spokesman Frank Ciervo said.

The reviewing group "would examine randomly selected advertisements for compliance with the rules related to lawyer advertising,'' Buzard said.

"It would put in place a much-needed formal mechanism to methodically review advertising and ensure effective enforcement of advertising rules.''

Other recommendations include a prohibition on advertising directed to an accident victim or victim's family for 15 days after the accident if the state Insurance Department adopts a similar restriction for insurance carriers and their adjusters; a requirement that direct mail or e-mail advertising be labeled as "attorney advertisement;'' and a requirement that ads include a disclosure if a non-employee spokesman or actor is used.

Contributing were Tim O'Brien and Michele Morgan Bolton.

[Livyjr]

"THE LAW IS FAR TOO PRECIOUS A THING TO BE LEFT IN THE HANDS OF LAWYERS," said PLAINTIFF, who has been called every name in the book.

"We need to fight back against the unfair attacks that have damaged the reputation of the legal profession, and we need to inform the public about our outstanding legal system and the valuable role lawyers play in preserving it,'' bar President A. Vincent Buzard said.

Does anyone really think lawyering involves ethical behavior?

Some people do!

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

"Grand jury to probe box case - Case involves files removed from North Greenbush Town Hall"

By KATE PERRY, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Friday, February 10, 2006

NORTH GREENBUSH -- It's up to a county grand jury to decide if two town planning board members and some acquaintances broke the law when they hauled 17 boxes of records out of Town Hall on New Year's Eve.

The town's police commission requested Monday that the district attorney call a grand jury together to review the case.

Steve Dworsky, the commission's consultant, said the panel wanted a body outside the town to review the case because town officials were involved.

"They didn't want to leave anything to doubt," Dworsky said.

Potential charges include tampering with public records and obstruction of governmental administration, Dworsky said.

On Dec. 31, 2005, Town Clerk Kathryn Connolly claims she saw four individuals -- planning board member and former town attorney Linda Mandel-Clemente; Evelyn Kohler, the confidential assistant to outgoing Town Supervisor Paul Tazbir; planning board member Jim Reid and an unidentified woman -- removing boxes from Town Hall.

Town police followed the group to Mandel-Clemente's office and seized the boxes of files.

Mandel-Clemente had more files in her office.

Her attorney, Ray Kelly, said she kept the files after resigning in December because the town's new attorney, Josh Sabo, represented an entity that took legal action against the town.

Town police investigated the case and Chief Rocco Fragomeni agreed calling a grand jury is the best idea.

"We concur with the request and we would have made that request three weeks ago, but we were told we had to make a report to the (police) commission," he said.

The commission was reinstituted when the town's new administration took over in January.

Neither Sabo nor town Supervisor Mark Evers had any comment on the decision.

Rensselaer County District Attorney Patricia DeAngelis recused herself from the case.

Eric Wohlleber, her spokesman, said DeAngelis stepped aside because she is a Republican and the town administration has Democratic roots, and she wanted to avoid any appearance of partiality.

County Court Judge Patrick McGrath appointed Tom O'Hern, an Albany attorney, to the case, Wohlleber said.

Kate Perry can be reached at 454-5420 or by e-mail at kperry@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

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 ....."

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

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

February 8, 2004

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

"In most criminal cases, the individual is told he will held to the standard as an attorney."

"I WOULD NOT GO TO COURT WITHOUT A LAWYER," added state Deputy Administrative Judge Juanita Bing Newton, who heads up Justice Initiatives for the Unified Court System.

"When you tell a litigant he will be held to the rules of evidence, you may as well be saying 'blah, blah, blah, blah'," Newton said.

The other day, on FOX NEWS FAIR AND BALANCED, I heard that the American Bar Association was launching a big advertising campaign ....

That had as its objective ....

An attempt to convince the American public ....

That lawyers are not sleazy ....

And I had to think to myself ....

That just buying some "good press" is not going to change any perceptions ....

That are formed in the minds of the American people ....

By their own contacts with lawyers ....

And by what they see the lawyers getting away with ....

Week after week after week ...

In their own town board meetings ....

And planning board meetings ...

And zoning board meetings ...

Not to mention all of what has been discussed in here, to date ....

This farce of a disciplinary hearing, for example, that was held in Rensselaer County in the State of New York in 1989 ....

There were no standards of evidence in place at that proceeding ...

As was made clear over and over again by the LAWYER in charge, the "EYES AND EARS" of REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive John L. Buono, the Honorable Phil Lance himself ....

Witness on March 16, 1989, for example, when Lance was responding to an objection by the PLAINTIFF over REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Public Health Director Kenneth Van Praag's right to step in and censure the content of PLAINTIFF's communications as a New York State licensed professional engineer when corresponding with other engineers practicing in the Rensselaer County Health District in alleged accordance with the New York State Public Health Law and Sanitary Code:

EYES-AND-EARS: I'll note your objection ....

And as with ....

As I stated previously ....

IN THIS PROCEEDING ....

THE EVIDENTIARY RULES ....

DO NOT APPLY!

SO .....

Professor Shanks ....

EXACTLY WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE MAKING REFERENCE TO ....

When you talk about being held to the same standards as a lawyer?

Especially in light of Albany County Bar Association President Michael P. Friedman's statement above in March of 2003 that:

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 ....."

There is the standard that a lawyer is held to ....

At least in New York State ...

AND IT IS NOTHING AT ALL ....

A SHAM ....

A RUSE ....

A SNOW-JOB ....

As this entire episode from 1988, at least, until this very day has demonstrated ....

And the genesis of this story in here starts with REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Attorney Robert Smith, ESQUIRE, and his DEPUTY, REPUBLICAN Gordon Mayo, ESQUIRE, trying to force the low ethical standards of the lawyer's profession over onto the practice of professional engineering in the State of New York as well ....

And the engineer refused ......

And that was unacceptable ...

And so .....

This post has been edited by Livyjr: Feb 10 2006, 05:21 PM

[Livyjr]

And here a reader has asked whether Kenneth Van Praag really did utter these words, and in what context, and could this person independently read these words somewhere other than this thread, and taking the last and making it first, most certainly one could find and read these words elsewhere than this thread ...

These words are sworn statements from a transcript of a proceeding that was recorded by a court stenographer ....

Copies of that transcript, which is well over 1,000 pages if I recall correctly, are located in the files of the Rensselaer County Clerk in the Courthouse Annex in Troy, New York, as official public records, where there is actually quite a treasure trove consisting not only of this transcript, but of video tapes and audio tapes as well ......

Along with pages and pages of exhibits as evidence .... 

One of those videotapes is a prime example of what is called a "splice job" by the media up this way ....

Where they take snippets of footage and splice them together in a certain way to paint a picture or tell a story that is a complete and total fabrication, a "splice job" ...

This one was done by Christine Kapostacey Jansing at TV Channel 13 in Menands, New York, and it is probably state-of-the-art, I would say ....

Or a real fine example of the "art", anyway ....

Character assassination by "splice job" ......

A real slick job .......

Unless you know what really transpired ...

And then the true nature of the "splice job" stands out for what it is ...

FAKE NEWS ....

But who really cares ....

Date: September 27, 1994

Certified Transcript of Examination of REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive John L. Buono, by order of Federal District Court for Northern District of New York

Q: Now, on October 13, 1988, do you recall being interviewed by Chris Kapostacy for the Capital Region Report that was subsequently broadcast over Channel 13 television?

BUONO: I remember being interviewed by a number of people.

I have a vague recollection of being interviewed by Chris Kapostacy.

Q: Do you remember telling Ms. Kapostacy that there was a number of developers who were developing a large pool of money to use to run against you?

BUONO: I don't remember saying that to Ms. Kapostacy, no.

REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Attorney Robert A. Smith, ESQUIRE: NOTE MY OBJECTION to the record to this procedure.

I don't know what we're going to do here!

Presumably, we're listening to some type of tape that's not been identified.

SO!

Just note my objection for the record.

Q: This is an excerpt from a tape recording of a Channel 13 news broadcast, and we'll provide you with a copy of the tape.

SMITH: I just placed my objection on the record as there being no proper foundation for this.

Nor is it proper procedure at a deposition.

But go right ahead and do it!

(Whereupon a portion of the tape was played)

Q: Do you recognize the voice?

BUONO: I recognize the voice, yes!

Chris!

I don't know who the other guy was, though.

Yes!

I do!

Yes!

Q: And that is you?

SMITH: Object to the form.

You can answer.

BUONO: It was tough to hear, but it sounds like my melodic voice, yes!

Q: Do you remember telling Chris Kapostacy about developers who were getting a fund of money up to run against you?

SMITH: Object to the form of the question.

I think it's already been asked and answered.

If your question is, does the tape recording refresh his recollection, I'll pemit him to answer that.

Q: Okay.

Having heard this excerpt of the tape recording, does that refresh your recollection with respect to whether you told Ms. Kapostacy that there were developers who were saving a large amount of money to run against you?

SMITH: Object to the form.

You can answer.

BUONO: I remember -- well, that obviously refreshes my memory!

I didn't know I said it to her or not.

There was some general information like that from the developer's side.

And then there was the other side, which indicated they weren't too pleased with me, either.

Q: And what was the source of YOUR INFORMATION that the developers had a fund of $80,000 to run against you, or run somebody against you?

SMITH: Note my objection to the form!

I don't know where that amount came from!

BUONO: I don't know that, either!

SMITH: But you can answer the question, GENERALLY!

BUONO: To the best of my recollection, I think it came out of some of the public hearings and legislative hearings and just general rumor floating around.

I don't put much stock in that stuff!

Q: Did the fact that the developers were allegedly saving up a fund to run somebody against you have anything to do with YOUR DECISION to place PLAINTIFF on leave of absence?

BUONO: OH, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

[Livyjr]

SO .....

Professor Shanks ....

EXACTLY WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE MAKING REFERENCE TO ....

When you talk about being held to the same standards as a lawyer?

Especially in light of Albany County Bar Association President Michael P. Friedman's statement above in March of 2003 that:

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 ....."

There is the standard that a lawyer is held to ....

At least in New York State ...

AND IT IS NOTHING AT ALL ....

A SHAM ....

A RUSE ....

A SNOW-JOB ....

And here, a reader has stopped me and asked me to clarify this statement right above here ...

About "standards" ....

And let us say ....

The difference in "standards" that a licensed professional engineer would be held to ...

Versus those the lawyer is allegedly held to ....

And this is confusing ..

Which is why it is a good idea to stop right here and address this issue ....

If one were to come to the State of New York, and look for any "legal justifications" for the profession of engineering ...

Versus that of "lawyering" .....

One could go right to the volume of law in the State of New York entitled Education Law ....

And in that volume of law ...

One would come across specific legislation creating the profession of engineering in the State of New York ....

What licensed professional engineers are licensed by the state to do ...

And when their services are required ....

And further ...

One would then find the Rules of the New York State Board of Regents which also govern the practice of the profession of engineering in the State of New York ...

And if one wanted to "audit" the practice of the profession of engineering in the State of New York, that would form the baseline ....

And if one wished to bring on a complaint of unprofessional practice against a licensed professional engineer, the basis of that complaint would come from the law and the rules ....

If one then went around and tried to find out why we have lawyers here in New York, one would have a much harder time finding that basis ...

And it is not codified in any laws that I have ever found ....

SO ...

How have lawyers come to hold such power over our lives ....

And .....

How then does one bring on a disciplinary action against a lawyer?

That has been a question that has plagued us up here for years ...

Going back to at least 1983 ......

And in the course of seeking that answer ....

One is drawn to the headquarters of the New York State Bar Association down in Albany ...

Where one would be handed this little book entitled The Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility .....

Except as Albany County Bar Association President Michael Friedman made incandescently clear to everyone in this area back in March of 2003 ....

IT IS NOT A CODE, AT ALL .....

To the lawyers, that is ....

Instead, it is just a bunch of suggestions ...

Intended to gull the unsuspecting public ...

Into believing that lawyers are bound by any ethics at all ....

There is the sham ....

And it is perpetrated on us ...

By the "legal profession", itself ....

Which is these BAR ASSOCIATIONS .....

The "CRIMINAL BAR", as they call it up here ...

And this same reader also wanted to know if this statement above in March of 2003 was a public statement ...

And that answer is yes ...

It was ...

The "FINALLY COMING OUT OF THE CLOSET STATEMENT" some wags up here called it ....

WHOOPTY-DOO .....

We can just picture in our minds a copy of this Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility flying through the air towards the trash bin as this Friedman made his statements above ....

And if you can open that link, which is Adobe, and if you scroll down to the second page after Friedman's statement, there you will see in the same edition pictures of the highest judges in the State of New York ....

And if you scroll further down to page 6, on the right hand side, in BENCH AND BAR IN THE NEWS, there you will see the name of Randolph Treece in that same edition ....

And Randolph Treece was the federal Magistrate Judge in this matter under discussion in here who was responsible for denying PLAINTIFF a GENERAL ORDER #25 CONFERENCE in this matter, as well as discovery ....

When he was told to do so by Donny "BOB" Ford, ESQUIRE, of the Albany-based Thuillez, Ford & Gold Johnson law firm ...

Who were representing the hospital and doctor who had violated New York State law by certifying PLAINTIFF for direct admission to the secure mental health facility of the Albany, New York Stratton VA Hospital ...

When PLAINTIFF had never been to Samaritan Hospital ...

Or was ever seen or examined ...

By John Christian Braaten, the CORPORATE DOCTOR for Northeast Health, Inc. ...

Who had certified the direct admission ...

Completely sight unseen ...

Because REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino wanted it done that way ....

In violation of PLAINTIFF's rights to due process of law ...

Here in OUR America ....

This post has been edited by Livyjr: Feb 11 2006, 07:19 AM