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

[Livyjr]

For a long time, I was one of those who took OUR United States Constitution for granted .....

Which is to say ....

That regardless of our other differences as human beings ....

It was my thought ...

That we all shared a common understanding of OUR United States Constitution ....

How we came to have it ....

For what purposes it was enacted ....

What it provided for us, the common citizens of OUR America ....

And since then ...

I have learned exactly how naive I really am ...

For OUR Constitution is pretty much worthless ...

To us up here, anyway ....

And DUE PROCESS OF LAW is an absolute JOKE ....

Right now, to us common citizens up here in the federal Northern District of New York, the United States Constitution is little more than the OPIATE OF THE MASSES ....

Which is to say ...

Just confusing smoke ....

And my question ...

As a veteran who took an oath to protect and defend that Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic ...

Is how did it come to be that way ....

And a part of that answer, of course ...

Is that people take the Constitution for granted ...

It is there ...

The ones in power have sworn an oath to the Constitution ...

And so ..

EXCEPT ....

It is not ...

In fact ...

Despite all these sworn oaths ...

I have yet to meet a politician who even knows what the Constitution is supposed to provide for ...

On paper, at least ....

And the interpretation that I always get goes along the lines of the Constitution gives them immunity from the law, which means that they can do whatever they want, while in office, with impunity ...

And so it goes .....

IN REALITY ....

BUT IS IT REALLY SUPPOSED TO BE THAT WAY?

Were we sold a BILL OF GOODS way back when?

Back in 1787, when the Constitutional Convention was in session?

Was the Constitutional Convention nothing more than one great big SHAM, intended to gull the ignorant masses?

One school of thought says YES to that .....

And I say no ....

And so ....

Since I am but a pipsqueak here, myself, in OUR America, does that make me wrong?

Does the faction with the lawyers, guns and money get to call the tune, regardless?

I don't think so .....

BUT ....

That is not enough ....

And so .....

Section 1 of Article I of OUR United States Constitution:

All legislative Powers .....

HEREIN GRANTED .....

Shall be vested ......

In a Congress of the United States .....

Which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives ....

"Herein granted" .....

How many ways can those two words be interpreted?

The question of the morning .....

[Livyjr]

And so .....

Section 1 of Article I of OUR United States Constitution:

All legislative Powers .....

HEREIN GRANTED .....

Shall be vested ......

In a Congress of the United States .....

Which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives ....

"Herein granted" .....

How many ways can those two words be interpreted?

The question of the morning .....

"Herein granted" means exactly what it says, of course ....

It is what WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States gave to OUR government .....

And there is something that seems to have gone by the wayside, here in OUR America these days ...

This idea of exactly who answers to whom ...

Here in OUR America ....

Which is why I have this thread running ...

So as to have a format in which to discuss this matter ...

Since we, the people, are largely frozen out everywhere else .....

And to be truthful ....

If it were not for this format, where I am able to kind of "squeeze" this subject out like toothpaste ......

I don't think it would be possible to develop this topic ...

And so ...

As I said above, I am one of those people in OUR America who did take OUR Constitution for granted ...

Because of that oath that I took upon voluntarily entering the United States Army in 1968 ....

An oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution ...

Which meant to me ...

That I ought to know what I was swearing to do ...

And so ....

The mistake that I made was in believing that the oath means the same thing to all who swear it ...

Which includes politicians ...

And judges .....

But that is a digression .....

For here is where I wish to take this discussion right now ....

To Section 9 of Article I of OUR United States Constitution .....

Where WE, THE PEOPLE stated in clear and unambiguous language that:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed ......

And then ....

To Section 10 of OUR United States Constitution ....

Where again, WE, THE PEOPLE stated in clear and unambiguous language that:.

No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder .....

And here I shall pause for a moment ....

To let this sink in ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

For here is where I wish to take this discussion right now ....

To Section 9 of Article I of OUR United States Constitution .....

Where WE, THE PEOPLE stated in clear and unambiguous language that:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed ......

And then ....

To Section 10 of OUR United States Constitution ....

Where once again, WE, THE PEOPLE stated in clear and unambiguous language that:.

No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder .....

And here I shall pause for a moment ....

To let this sink in ....

And so ....

Attainder .....

Attainted ....

Proscribed .....

These somewhat archaic sounding words probably mean exactly nothing to most Americans today ...

And so be that .....

HOWEVER .....

If you were to go a find a copy of the United States Constitution right now today, and if you did open that copy of the United States Constitution up to Section 9 of Article I, entitled LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT, those words that I have posted above would be in there ...

And so .....

What is attainder ...

And why don't we have it here?

OR ...

WHY WEREN'T WE SUPPOSED TO HAVE IT HERE?

Since the practice did not die, simply because of some words on a worthless piece of paper called the United States Constitution ...

Which is largely worthless ...

Because OUR politicians and judges have made it be so ...

The politicians, because they do not wish to be limited in their excesses in any way ...

And the judges ...

Because they are the creatures of the politicians ...

Rather than the law ....

Which as lawyers ...

They are supposed to be the guardians of ....

As for me, I am older now ...

And in that time, I have had a lot of chats and conversations with various people about this subject, or topic, to include lawyers and judges ...

And so ...

I am not just drawing from empty space in here when I make that statement ...

CONVERSELY ....

My conversations with these various individuals has of necessity been limited in size and scope to certain geographical areas of OUR America ...

And so ....

I cannot and will not say that all lawyers and judges everywhere in OUR America feel the same ...

And I would hope, as an American, that they would not ..

And so ...

But again ....

That is a digression .....

Over in another thread, a while back, I was accused of having something called "regional arrogance", because in a discussion, I was talking about being born and raised in the shadow of the Saratoga Revolutionary War battlefield in the State of New York ....

And how that history affected my views of the law and the Constitution .....

And after a lot of further thought on the matter, I come back and say that where we all are from in this America of OURS affects our point of view on these matters ...

BECAUSE HISTORY proceeded across this country from east to west .....

Wars ...

Skirmishes ....

Death ...

Destruction ...

Expansion ...

More death ...

More destruction .....

So that someone in Illinois, or Iowa, or Minnesota, studying their state history will be starting at some further point in time, and so ....

UNLESS THEY FOLLOW THAT HISTORY BACKWARDS, there will be gaps in their "records" ...

So that this subject of attainder likely would mean nothing to them, at all ....

Since those states came after the United States Constitution ......

And so ....

When they were "formed", and then admitted to the union, they had no experience of attainder .....

As by then, supposedly, the "DEVICE" was gone from OUR "usages", here in OUR America .....

BUT NOT BACK HERE IN THE EAST .....

Or specifically, the State of New York ....

And more specifically, the County of Rensselaer in the State of New York ...

Where "feudalism" persisted up into the 1800's .....

With more bloodshed and strife associated with the eventual demise of that "concept" .....

And that is what these "things" really are ...

Things like "due process of law" ...

They are "concepts" ...

And not actualities at all ..

Especially when a judge is hostile to the concept ...

Or to the individual that happens to be appearing before the bar at that moment ....

All of which enters into why the thirteen individual colonies back then eventually severed their ties with England and its peoples, and then fought a bloody war for independence from England ......

Which revolution then gave us OUR United States Constitution ...

Wherein WE, THE PEOPLE told OUR federal government what it could and could not do ...

TO US, ITS CITIZENS .....

And that includes ATTAINDER ....

Which despite its Constitutional prohibition back in 1787 ...

Still lurks around today ....

As the facts in this case under discussion in here on this thread might just well demonstrate ...

And so .....

WHAT IS ATTAINDER?

AND WHY DID OUR FOREFATHERS IN LIBERTY TAKE PAINS TO BANISH THAT PRACTICE FROM OUR LAND AT THAT TIME, BY INSERTING POSITIVE LANGUAGE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION THAT PROHIBITED NOT ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM CONTINUING THAT PRACTICE, BUT THE STATES THEMSELVES?

The question for the morning ...

And so ....

[Livyjr]

I have had the good fortune to have been able to travel some, here in OUR America ...

And so ...

I have experienced life in a few different places other than in New York State ...

And out of that experience, I have observed that life does not appear to be the same for all of us everywhere here in OUR America ...

And so ...

Which is to say that government does not appear to be totally corrupt everywhere we have government in OUR America ...

BUT ....

Whether or not that is true, I have no way of knowing or proving ...

And so ...

And in any event, if life in some other place than this is "good", what does that benefit me here, if I am faced with a corrupt government in the place where I live and reside?

I could move, of course, as that FBI Special Agent "recommended" all those years ago ....

That is always an option ....

Or I could accept the corruption ...

And become a part of it ....

Which is another option ....

OR .....

And here is the real question, is it not?

WHAT IS THE THIRD OPTION?

Or isn't there one?

[Livyjr]

And here is the real question, is it not?

WHAT IS THE THIRD OPTION?

Or isn't there one?

And while I have that thought hanging out there this morning, I want to go back to this subject of "attainder" ......

Because it most definitely is tied into this question of "options" available to us as American citizens .....

IF YOU HAVE BEEN "ATTAINTED", HOWEVER UNCONSTITUTIONAL IT IN FACT MAY BE, WHERE CAN YOU THEN GO, WHERE THAT WILL NOT FOLLOW YOU, TO YOUR DETRIMENT, ESPECIALLY IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF COMPUTER FILES THAT SPREAD THIS WORD OF YOUR BEING "ATTAINTED" FASTER THAN YOU WILL EVER BE ABLE TO TRAVEL YOURSELF?

Especially in today's world, where in a news article above on these "government lists" of who is being PROSCRIBED today, and who was yesterday, Vice Adm. John Scott Redd, the center's director, said in a statement that "We work on the basis that information reported to us has been collected in accordance with those guidelines" ......

Now, according to Attorney General Gonzales in that same article, those "guidelines" are a secret ....

So that neither OUR Congress nor ourselves can hope to know what they are ....

Which means that neither OUR Congress nor ourselves can challenge them ....

Which leaves us with the simple translation that has been born out in this specific case under discussion in here, which is that once the false charges are made and entered into a computer, YOU ARE LEFT WITH NO RECOURSE ....

And regardless of where you go ...

Those false charges are there ahead of you ...

And they will affect every aspect of your life ...

And so ....

You end up being NOT QUITE HUMAN .....

Which takes us back to ATTAINDER ...

AND WHY WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE IT HERE ....

BILLS OF ATTAINDER

(from the Annotations to the United States Constitution)

"Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings."

"If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties . . . ."

"In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not."

"In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.''

J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: 1833), 1338.

AND SO ....

A beginning ....

To "understanding" ....

And so ...

[Livyjr]

BILLS OF ATTAINDER

(from the Annotations to the United States Constitution)

"Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings."

"If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties . . . ."

"In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not."

"In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.''

J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: 1833), 1338.

AND SO ....

A beginning ....

To "understanding" ....

And so ...

First of all, I want to thank all of you who have had the patience to follow this thread along ....

And it is something that does require patience .....

And fortitude ....

For this thing of "citizenship" here in OUR America can be a daunting thing, indeed ....

As we can certainly testify to up here, anyway ....

BUT WHAT REALLY ARE THE ALTERNATIVES?

For us, I mean?

[Livyjr]

"In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not."

"In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.''

J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: 1833), 1338.

And of course, ATTAINDER as a weapon never dies ......

Nor does PROSCRIPTION ....

"Yet another big lie Bush won't admit"

Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Thursday, February 23, 2006

There is no use wasting words to urge the Bush administration to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

No amount of international embarrassment, no pleas from the United Nations or from European governments -- not even a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court -- changes the way the United States conducts itself there.

We must assume that the shame of Guantanamo is with us for as long as the shameless George W. Bush is president.

So who is being held at this camp, where detainees have no real hope of release, or of being formally charged, or even of seeing what evidence there may be against them?

Who are these men in such despair that many resort to hunger strikes, but are force-fed by tube -- strapped into restraining chairs, if necessary -- lest the United States suffer the additional humiliation of creating Muslim martyrs?

Our government tells us the prisoners at Guantanamo are "the worst of the worst," to use Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's phrase.

"They're terrorists."

"They're bomb-makers, they're facilitators of terror."

"They're members of al-Qaida and the Taliban" is the description from the ever-reliable lips of Vice President Dick Cheney.

"They were there to kill," the President has asserted.

That is what our political leaders say.

But it is not what officials who are actually in charge of holding the prisoners say.

The government produced documents on 517 Guantanamo detainees for Combatant Status Review Tribunals -- military reviews of detainees' cases that were prompted by the Supreme Court's order that they be afforded some sort of legal process.

The documents became publicly available because of separate litigation.

The findings were analyzed by Seton Hall University law school students, led by Mark Denbeaux and Joshua Denbeaux, lawyers who represent two Tunisian detainees.

What do the official findings of the U.S. military show?

More than half of the so-called enemy combatants at Guantanamo were determined to have committed no hostile act against U.S. or coalition forces.

This was so even though the definition of a "hostile act" was loose enough to include fleeing a camp that had been bombed, or being picked up in an area of Pakistan where others believed to be fighters had fled.

Evidence the government used as proof that someone was an "enemy combatant" included associating with unnamed individuals or groups purported to have terrorist ties -- or possessing a rifle, using a guest house, possessing a Casio watch or wearing olive-drab clothing.

"These are the government's words," Joshua Denbeaux said.

"These are the government's proofs."

Only 7 percent of detainees actually were captured by U.S. and coalition forces.

The rest were rounded up by Pakistani authorities, by the Afghan Northern Alliance or by other militias and armed groups -- some of whom were paid bounties for handing over men alleged to be terrorists.

Most detainees are being held not for fighting, but because they were found to have some "association" with a group suspected of terrorist ties.

No definition of association is supplied.

It could be, Joshua Denbeaux said, that "you once passed him on the street."

"Or you could be Osama bin Laden's cousin."

"You can't tell."

Pentagon spokesman Maj. Michael Shavers said the Seton Hall report is flawed because its authors didn't have access to classified evidence.

But the report doesn't claim to be based on evidence.

It analyzes the government's official findings -- determinations made by military authorities after they themselves reviewed all available evidence, classified or unclassified.

"We're holding them responsible for what they found," said Mark Denbeaux.

The portrait that emerges from the Seton Hall study is strikingly similar to the picture developed in a separate analysis of government documents by Corine Hegland of National Journal.

Hegland reviewed files on 132 men and review-board transcripts for 314 Guantanamo detainees.

She, too, found that relatively few were judged to have committed hostile acts.

She even uncovered "a few men whose most direct link to hostilities appears to be getting wounded by one of the thousands of American bombs dropped on Afghanistan."

No doubt there are dangerous men being held at Guantanamo.

But we do not, and cannot, know how many.

We know that government officials often lie, and that official documents can reveal a tale more true.

The essential truth about Guantanamo is now being revealed as tragic farce.

The Bush administration cannot and will not change course, because to do so would expose another gross error, and another big lie.

Marie Cocco's e-mail address is mariecocco@washpost.com.

[Livyjr]

Due process of law!

And equal protection .....

How long have these concepts been in existence?

And from whence came they?

Were we, the people, given "due process" by a wise and benevolent monarch somewhere along the line?

Did OUR United States Constitution "create" due process of law for us here in OUR America?

Or is the concept of due process much, much older than we, as a nation?

[Livyjr]

"Property rights at stake - Lawmakers consider limiting government's use of eminent domain" 
 
By ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Wednesday, October 19, 2005

ALBANY -- A U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld governments' right to seize private property in the name of economic development has prompted New York to take a closer look at its eminent domain laws.

Various bills in the state Legislature range from requiring governments to pay property owners more than the current standard of "fair market value" to proposing a ban on taking property for anything other than public uses like roads, bridges and schools.

Municipalities argue that without eminent domain, their ability to grow would be severely curtailed.

And while we are pondering this question of due process of law in here .....

"A man's home isn't a castle - Bills seek to curb public seizure of private property in wake of ruling"

By RICK KARLIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Saturday, February 25, 2006

ALBANY -- More than two dozen bills to limit the government's right to seize property are on the table in New York this year, following last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the city of New London, Conn., to condemn a group of homes for economic development.

The landmark 5-4 decision, which upheld the government's right to take property from one private owner and give it to another, prompted states nationwide to look at the issue.

Proposals are emerging in New York to set new parameters on the use of eminent domain.

Condemning property for commercial use is not as rare as some might think.

One group that opposes eminent domain says it found 146 cases in New York state between 1998 and 2002 in which the process was at least threatened.

"New York was one of the biggest abusers," said Steve Anderson, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group that has defended homeowners in the New London case.

That case, he said, has served as a wake-up call to legislatures nationwide that the use of eminent domain is becoming a controversial issue.

It's not yet clear which, if any, of the ideas floating in New York may ultimately become law.

But the high court's decision, along with a spate of high-profile and controversial eminent domain fights across the state, including one looming in Albany's Park South neighborhood, have put this issue front and center.

Among the proposals:

Allowing only an elected body like a city council, rather than an industrial development agency, to take private property through eminent domain.

Forcing the condemning agency to pay 25 percent to 50 percent above market value for property it acquires by eminent domain.

Creating a commission to study the use of eminent domain.

Another proposal calls for an eminent domain ombudsman.

Increasing the public reporting and public review requirements for eminent domain proposals.

Requiring public referenda before eminent domain can be used.

Permitting eminent domain only to be used for public facilities such as hospitals or roads, but not for housing, retail or office projets.

"There's been a lot of activity and interest in this."

"I haven't seen every bill but I do know this: A lot of members have shown interest in becoming a co-sponsor," said Assemblyman Kenneth Zebrowski, D-New City, who is sponsoring one of the bills, which would make the use of eminent domain subject to local referenda if enough residents sign a petition.

In Zebrowski's own district, the village of Haverstraw wanted to take land and a building and give it to a group to build a condominium project and health care center.

"I think the (New London) decision got everyone's attention," added Assemblyman Paul Tokasz, D-Buffalo.

In his district, the town of Cheektowaga has proposed using eminent domain to buy homes in a neighborhood to be replaced with what Tokasz described as a "gated community."

Locally, the city of Albany plans to raze up to 89 homes and buy others in the troubled nine-block Park South neighborhood.

Boston-based Winn Development then wants to rehabilitate more than 200 homes and build over 400 new dwellings in the area.

Winn and the city want to negotiate home purchases, but haven't ruled out eminent domain.

While conservative groups generally oppose eminent domain, Sherry Appel, spokeswoman for the National League of Cities, cautions legislatures against enacting sweeping restrictions on the power.

It can be a useful tool to revitalize troubled urban areas, says Appel's group.

So does Peter Baynes, executive director of the state Conference of Mayors.

"It's really a tool of last resort," Baynes said, adding that only rarely is a condemnation completed and people are forced to sell their property.

Eminent domain, added Appel, should be decided on a local, case-by-case issue.

In some ways, the eminent domain debate has made for curious alignments in which groups normally thought of as liberal are advocating more local control, while conservatives such as the Institute for Justice, want state laws.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, D-Elmsford, who has a bill to study eminent domain, noted the issue has led to "a very strange political alliance between the left and the very hard right."

Karlin can be reached at 454-5758 or by e-mail at rkarlin@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

Due process of law!

And equal protection .....

How long have these concepts been in existence?

And from whence came they?

Due process of law was a topic of some discussion way back in the Republic of Rome ......

Back in the days of SULLA, actually ...

Which is over 2,000 years ago, as we reckon time ...

Here in OUR America .....

And for the next thirty years .....

Until Rome dissolved in civil war ....

And the REPUBLIC for them was gone .....

For good ....

SENATUS CONSULTUM ULTIMUM .....

The Senate of Rome would decide that some citizen or other needed killing ....

For political reasons ....

And so ....

It would happen ....

IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS OF ROME ....

Which Cicero, the great orator and Consul of Rome at that time, admitted when he went into voluntary exile rather than face trial under the lex Clodia for crimes against the citizens of Rome after ordering the execution of the Catiline conspirators without providing them with the benefit of a trial .....

And the point of this is that regardless of whether or not we know this, OUR forefathers in liberty certainly did ...

And so ...

DUE PROCESS OF LAW was one of OUR most elemental of rights .....

AT THE MOMENT OF THIS NATION'S BIRTH ....

And if that is the case ...

WHO TODAY CAN THEN TAKE IT AWAY, AS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE UNDER DISCUSSION IN HERE?

[Livyjr]

Over in my veteran's thread, I am "deriving" some American history ....

Sort of as a parallel exercise to this one perhaps, although the subjects are not the same .....

That one being more general in nature ...

While this one is specific to this business that occurred in Rensselaer County in the State of New York which then led to these federal court decisions under discussion in here ...

Where the concepts of "rule of law", and "rules of evidence" went right out the window .....

Along with OUR rights as citizens of the State of New York pursuant to OUR New York State Constitution .....

And specifically, Section 6 of Article I of the New York State Constitution, its BILL OF RIGHTS, wherein is stated in clear and unambiguous language that:

"The power of grand juries (in the State of New York) to inquire into the wilful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments or to direct the filing of informations in connection with such inquiries, SHALL NEVER BE SUSPENDED OR IMPAIRED BY LAW ...

EXCEPT ...

Of course, without witnesses and evidence ....

And that is what this discussion is really all about ....

WHAT IS INTELLIGENT DISSENT, HERE IN OUR AMERICA?

AND WHAT IS "REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE"?

And without access to independent courts, and independent Grand Juries of OUR peers, HOW CAN THESE EVER BE ACCOMPLISHED?

And that answer springing forth full form from this case is that THEY CANNOT BE .......

OUR attempt to get facts and evidence of wilful misconduct in office of public officers in Rensselaer County before a Grand Jury here in the county in connection with this on-going pattern of corrupt activity in the County has been thwarted very successfully by New York State Attorney General Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer and the federal courts in this matter .......

All of whom have simply looked askance at the violation of laws the evidence demonstrates .....

While focusing their venom on us ...

Who would have this provision of OUR state Constitution remain inviolate ..

Except that then threatens these politicians ...

And so ...

And the point which comes out of all of this is how ignorant we have become here in OUR America of not only our own heritage .......

But how that heritage came into being ...

And how that then affects OUR rights as human beings here in OUR America ....

Because much of what is being touted as "civil rights" here in OUR America really are the "RIGHTS OF MAN" that have existed now for thousands and thousands of years, regardless of nationality ...

Although I am sure that many people would argue to the contrary ....

And many of those right here in OUR own government ...

Despite the evidence .....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

And specifically, Section 6 of Article I of the New York State Constitution, its BILL OF RIGHTS, wherein is stated in clear and unambiguous language that:

"The power ......"

"Of grand juries (in the State of New York) ....."

"To inquire ....."

"Into the wilful misconduct in office of public officers ...."

"And to find indictments or to direct the filing of informations in connection with such inquiries ...."

SHALL NEVER BE SUSPENDED OR IMPAIRED BY LAW ..."

EXCEPT ...

Of course, without witnesses and evidence ....

And that is what this discussion is really all about ....

OUR attempt to get facts and evidence of wilful misconduct in office of public officers in Rensselaer County before a Grand Jury here in the county in connection with this on-going pattern of corrupt activity in the County has been thwarted very successfully by New York State Attorney General Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer and the federal courts in this matter .......

All of whom have simply looked askance at the violation of laws the evidence demonstrates .....

While focusing their venom on us ...

Who would have this provision of OUR state Constitution remain inviolate ..

Except that then threatens these politicians ...

And so ...

And finally ...

After all this time ....

I have got to where I was going ...

And so .....

Of course, I must apologize for going so slow in here ...

But that is just how it ended up being, is my thought .....

Things had to go the way they would go ...

And that all took time, of course ...

Time which we common citizens up here certainly had no control over .....

TO OUR DETRIMENT ......

Because these lawyers, guns and money all managed to "BURN UP" the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ...

So that all the alleged perpetrators in this matter ...

CAN GO FREE ......

And so .....

[Livyjr]

And finally ...

After all this time ....

I have got to where I was going ...

And so .....

I am not a great orator like Cicero .....

Or Hortensius .....

And so ....

Sometimes for me, it is a hunt for the right words, at the right time, to get my point across in here ....

And that is just how it goes ....

Out here in real life ......

Where we common citizens involved in this matter all reside .....

But not being a great orator does not mean or imply that we do not know the "law" up here .....

Or at least, what purports to be the "law" ...

Which is really nothing more than some empty words on a piece of paper, in actuality up here ....

Where when you do go to court, the words on that piece of paper are absolutely meaningless to the judge that you have been assigned to ...

Who himself might be nothing more than some political hack who was put in there in the first place because of his previously demonstrated lack of intelligence and integrity in some prior position, such as being a government lawyer, which then got him "noticed" as potential "judgeship" material ....

Here in OUR America .....

And that brings me to my thought for the morning, which is what good are laws and constitutions if they are meaningless, here in OUR America?

[Livyjr]

"The power of grand juries (in the State of New York) to inquire into the wilful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments or to direct the filing of informations in connection with such inquiries, SHALL NEVER BE SUSPENDED OR IMPAIRED BY LAW" ...

EXCEPT ...

Of course, without witnesses and evidence ....

"LOOK WHAT HE IS TRYING TO DO, YOUR HONORS!"

"LOOK AT ALL OF THIS!"

"LOOK WHAT HARM HE DID TO US BEFORE!"

"LOOK WHAT HE IS TRYING TO UNCOVER ALL OVER AGAIN, AFTER WE HAVE GONE TO SUCH LENGTHS TO BURY IT!"

"MAKE THIS MAN MENTALLY ILL AND DANGEROUS FOR US, YOUR HONORS, AND WE WILL BE INDEBTED TO YOU FOR THAT!"

And LE VOILA!

There it was to be ...

And this is right out in plain sight ...

Of everyone ....

The power game ...

And the power of lies ...

Here in OUR America ....

There can be no doubt in this case that the public officials involved simply SAID NO ......

"NO, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ..."

Which is what the FBI Special Agent was saying way back when, in 1989, when he was getting his *** back out of Rensselaer County and its "politics", or "operations", as he had been told to do by his "higher-ups" over there in Albany, New York .....

NO GRAND JURY, either in Rensselaer County, or the State of New York, or a federal grand jury for that matter, was going to inquire into the alleged wilful misconduct in office of these particular public officers ....

And there was no way in Hell that any GRAND JURY in Rensselaer County was going to find indictments or to direct the filing of informations in connection with such inquiries .....

BECAUSE THERE WAS GOING TO BE NO WITNESS ...

AND THERE WAS GOING TO BE NO EVIDENCE ...

And so ....

They won ....

Just as everyone predicted they would ....

And upon reflection in here .....

HOW COULD THEY NOT?

Win, that is ...

Since they now hold ALL the cards ....

Despite some words in the New York State Constitution to the effect that this ALLEGED POWER of GRAND JURIES in the State of New York to inquire into the wilful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments or to direct the filing of informations in connection with such inquiries, SHALL NEVER BE SUSPENDED OR IMPAIRED BY LAW, the fact is that it has been .....

In spades, for us, at least .....

And this goes to show exactly how weak constitutions really are, in the face of a concerted effort by those who wish to combine to defeat them, as has been the case here in the State of New York in this matter ...

Which spans well over twenty years now ....

And involves not only the New York State Attorney General opposing the rights of citizen GRAND JURIES to conduct these types of inquiries, but courts of the State of New York and the federal government as well, and the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the New York State Police, and the Office of the Rensselaer County District Attorney, all aligned with the Office of the Rensselaer County Executive ...

To prevent citizen GRAND JURIES in the State of New York from being able to conduct these constitutional inquiries into wilful misconduct in office of the very same public officers who have the POWER OF RETALIATION given to them by the "LAW" ....

Which right now ...

Is Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer, the present Attorney General of the State of New York, and likely its next governor, thanks to this Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in his favor in this matter .....

As a result of his big win, in some part, "Big EL" now has powerful politicians and LOBBYISTS in the State of New York lining up to put some cash in "Big EL's" pocket to help him along his way to the GOVERNOR's MANSION in Albany, New York .....

And so .....

CONSTITUTIONS BE DAMNED ...

And so ...

They were ....

And nobody cared ....

And so .....

[Livyjr]

There can be no doubt in this case that the public officials involved simply SAID NO ......

"NO, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ..."

Which is what the FBI Special Agent was saying way back when, in 1989, when he was getting his *** back out of Rensselaer County and its "politics", or "operations", as he had been told to do by his "higher-ups" over there in Albany, New York .....

NO GRAND JURY, either in Rensselaer County, or the State of New York, or a federal grand jury for that matter, was going to inquire into the alleged wilful misconduct in office of these particular public officers ....

And there was no way in Hell that any GRAND JURY in Rensselaer County was going to find indictments or to direct the filing of informations in connection with such inquiries .....

BECAUSE THERE WAS GOING TO BE NO WITNESS ...

AND THERE WAS GOING TO BE NO EVIDENCE ...

And so ....

They won ....

Just as everyone predicted they would ....

And upon reflection in here .....

HOW COULD THEY NOT?

Win, that is ...

Since they now hold ALL the cards ....

Despite some words in the New York State Constitution to the effect that this ALLEGED POWER of GRAND JURIES in the State of New York to inquire into the wilful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments or to direct the filing of informations in connection with such inquiries, SHALL NEVER BE SUSPENDED OR IMPAIRED BY LAW, the fact is that it has been .....

In spades, for us, at least .....

And this goes to show exactly how weak constitutions really are, in the face of a concerted effort by those who wish to combine to defeat them, as has been the case here in the State of New York in this matter ...

Which spans well over twenty years now ....

Constitutional government .....

Checks and balances .....

Rule of LAW, and not of man .....

We hear of these things, of course .....

Especially at the national level, now that we are purporting to be the world's only real "RULE OF LAW" nation .....

As well as being the purveyor of "democracy", which we claim to have some kind of monopoly on ......

But as this one case clearly demonstrates ...

That is a bunch of hot air and blather .....

As was proven to us here in Rensselaer County by one of George W. Bush's own judges newly appointed to the federal bench up here in the Northern District of New York right around the same time that this matter was being filed with the Clerk of that court up here where we are .....

There was a hope, of course, on OUR part as American citizens that by bringing this matter out of the courts of the State of New York, where a citizen cannot get before a jury, and where public corruption and white collar crime are accepted as a matter of course by the judges that get put on the bench in the State of New York all too frequently, that we would in fact be able to get the facts in this matter before a JURY at the federal level ....

But that was naive thinking on OUR part .....

And many people told us so ....

Beginning with the opposing lawyers in this matter ...

And New York State Attorney General Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer, who is now the "COCK -O-THE-WALK" in the State of New York these days in part because of his very public "crushing" of what is perceived as this "CITIZEN REVOLT" in Rensselaer County in the State of New York ...

Where we have a list of evidence and names of public officers here in OUR town, county and state that we wish a GRAND JURY to investigate ....

And where we, the people, are damn sick and tired of being told by alleged corrupt public officials and their mouthy lawyers that OUR law and Constitution are nothing but a bunch of empty words on worthless pieces of paper ....

Which Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer has just proved once again to the world at large, and this means LOBBYISTS and their CLIENTS, IS A TRUE STATEMENT .....

OUR LAWS AND CONSTITUTION ARE WORTHLESS .....

And that gets a lot of money shoved right down the pockets of "Big EL" .....

Because a MAN OF ACTION like that, in the eyes of these LOBBYISTS, is the MAN WHO SHOULD BE THE NEXT GOVERNOR of the State of New York ....

And not surprisingly ...

The corrupt politicans who now have nothing to fear from GRAND JURIES in the State of New York just love "Big EL" as well ...

And why wouldn't they?

He is their LORD PROTECTOR, after all ...

And so ....

And here, with that said, I want to go back to Section 6 of Article I, BILL OF RIGHTS, of the New York State Constitution, for another moment, to emphasize that this section of OUR BILL OF RIGHTS in the State CONSTITUTION of the State of New York was intended as what I will call the ULTIMATE CHECK AND BALANCE on CORRUPT GOVERNMENT here in OUR America, which is the RIGHT of citizens themselves to investigate and report upon to their PEERS incidents of alleged public corruption in the State of New York ......

To wit:

"NO person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, PROVIDING, THAT ANY PUBLIC OFFICER WHO, UPON BEING CALLED BEFORE A GRAND JURY TO TESTIFY CONCERNING THE CONDUCT OF HIS PRESENT OFFICE OR OF ANY PUBLIC OFFICE HELD BY HIM WITHIN FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO SUCH GRAND JURY CALL TO TESTIFY, OR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES IN ANY SUCH PRESENT OR PRIOR OFFICES, REFUSES TO SIGN A WAIVER OF IMMUNITY AGAINST SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, OR TO ANSWER ANY RELEVANT QUESTION CONCERNING SUCH MATTERS BEFORE SUCH GRAND JURY, SHALL BY VIRTUE OF SUCH REFUSAL, BE DISQUALIFIED FROM HOLDING ANY OTHER PUBLIC OFFICE OR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH REFUSAL TO SIGN A WAIVER OF IMMUNITY AGAINST SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION, OR TO ANSWER ANY RELEVANT QUESTION CONCERNING SUCH MATTERS BEFORE SUCH GRAND JURY, AND SHALL BE REMOVED FROM HIS PRESENT OFFICE BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY OR SHALL FORFEIT HIS PRESENT OFFICE AT SUIT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

And of course, that never happens .....

At least so far as we can see here in OUR area of the State of New York ....

Corrupt public officials here in OUR area have no fear of any kind of CHALLENGE to their "corruptness" .....

Not when they hold the POWER OF IMMEDIATE RETALIATION in their hands through the vehicle of the immediate PSYCHIATRIC TAKEDOWN of any potential WITNESSES against them that these two federal court decisions in this matter have handed them .......

And despite the literal reams of evidence in this case, which features the PERPETRATORS themselves incriminating themselves, UNDER THE BELIEF THAT NO ONE, and here I mean ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, can or will lay a "glove" on them in a court of law, that did not happen in this case .....

Because ...

Well, you know ...

At the last minute, it turned out that the CHIEF WITNESS against these alleged PERPETRATORS holding public office in the State of New York was found to be MENTALLY ILL AND DANGEROUS ....

By a doctor who never saw or examined him, of course .....

Which although being completely and totally "UNLAWFUL" in the State of New York ....

Is still an "alright practice" in the State of New York .....

According to the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York .....

And the Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City .....

When it is necessary to CRUSH DISSENT, especially intelligent dissent which is accompanied by evidence .....

So that common citizens in the State of New York can do absolutely NOTHING to relieve themselves of this burden of corruption in OUR government up here ......

Corruption which has become the STAPLE FOOD of American politics today ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

"NO person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, PROVIDING, THAT ANY PUBLIC OFFICER WHO, UPON BEING CALLED BEFORE A GRAND JURY TO TESTIFY CONCERNING THE CONDUCT OF HIS PRESENT OFFICE OR OF ANY PUBLIC OFFICE HELD BY HIM WITHIN FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO SUCH GRAND JURY CALL TO TESTIFY, OR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES IN ANY SUCH PRESENT OR PRIOR OFFICES, REFUSES TO SIGN A WAIVER OF IMMUNITY AGAINST SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, OR TO ANSWER ANY RELEVANT QUESTION CONCERNING SUCH MATTERS BEFORE SUCH GRAND JURY, SHALL BY VIRTUE OF SUCH REFUSAL, BE DISQUALIFIED FROM HOLDING ANY OTHER PUBLIC OFFICE OR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH REFUSAL TO SIGN A WAIVER OF IMMUNITY AGAINST SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION, OR TO ANSWER ANY RELEVANT QUESTION CONCERNING SUCH MATTERS BEFORE SUCH GRAND JURY, AND SHALL BE REMOVED FROM HIS PRESENT OFFICE BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY OR SHALL FORFEIT HIS PRESENT OFFICE AT SUIT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

- Section 6 of Article I of the New York State Constitution

October 9, 1990

Hon. Raymond J. Elliott, III
North Greenbush Town Court
2 Douglas St.
Wynantskill, N.Y. 12198

Dear Judge Elliott,

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. Jones (one of the defendants in the Federal Civil Rights lawsuit) 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!"

By copy of this letter to PLAINTIFF, I am making this motion returnable on October 30, 1990, the same date that PLAINTIFF has another motion returnable.

Respectfully submitted, Richard J. McNally, Jr.
Assistant Rensselaer County District Attorney

- O'CONNOR "BIBLE" SUBMITTED TO THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON BEHALF OF THE RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS, pp. 118-119

And of course, when you begin to look at this matter in the context of Section 6 of Article I of the New York State Constitution above, it begins to take on a whole new "simplicity", or character, as it were ....

Because from the standpoint of corrupt politicians here in the State of New York, this provision of OUR BILL OF RIGHTS up here in the State of New York represents a "death blow" to them ...

And their sources of "income" .....

Which is really what they are fighting so hard to protect ...

There is a vested interest among the politicians here in the State of New York to have Section 6 of Article I of the New York State Constitution REMAIN INOPERATIVE ......

And so it is ....

Or maybe "HELD HOSTAGE" by them would be a more appropriate expression of "political reality" up here where we are ....

Which is in close proximity to the capital city of Albany, New York ....

Where the life of an ordinary citizen of the state is not worth two cents ....

As New York State Attorney General and GUBERNATORIAL HOPEFUL Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer has just proved to all the candid world who are watching this GUBERNATORIAL CONTEST up here in the State of New York shake out .....

And so .....

Which brings us back around, then, to this October 9, 1990 letter from then-Assistant Rensselaer County District Attorney Richard J. McNally, Jr. to Town of North Greenbush Judge Raymond J. Elliott, III, which was put in evidence before the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City by the "silver-tongued" Tommy O'Connor on behalf of REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino and her co-defendants in this matter ....

And here it must be noted that "Judge" Raymond J. Elliott's "day job", when not serving as a "judge" in Rensselaer County, was being a lawyer representing land developers in Rensselaer County .....

Which "occupation" put the lawyer Raymond J. Elliott, III at odds with the PLAINTIFF in this matter when the PLAINTIFF was serving as Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer between 1986 and October of 1988 ....

When REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive John L. Buono, acting on the advice of REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Attorney Robert A. "Big Bob" Smith, had the PLAINTIFF locked out of his office in the Rensselaer County Office Building so that Buono could systematically destroy the contents of PLAINTIFF's office, in the vain hopes of destroying ALL of the evidence of WILFUL MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE of various public officers in Rensselaer County ......

In the October 9, 1990 letter to Judge Elliott, the land developer's lawyer, Assistant Rensselaer County District Attorney McNally was in fact arguing against the first part of Section 6 of Article I of the New York State Constitution, the part that says in clear and unambiguous CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE that "NO person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense" .......

So that he could in fact "DEFEAT" the rest of that section of OUR Constitution up here, that part which discusses what happens to hinky public officers up here IF they get called before a GRAND JURY to answer as to their conduct while in office ....

To prevent the PLAINTIFF in this matter from getting before a GRAND JURY as an expert witness, which he was by virtue of his position as a certified associate level public health engineer in the State of New York, the Office of the Rensselaer County District Attorney was itself PROSECUTING the PLAINTIFF on a number of false criminal charges stemming out of a failed attempt by Town of Poestenkill "political enforcer" Gary James "Jimmy Dawg" Horton to run down the PLAINTIFF on Liberty Lane in the Town of Poestenkill on December 29, 1989 .....

And because the PLAINTIFF did in fact "know" the "law", to include the Criminal Procedure Law in the State of New York, as well as the Rules of Evidence, the PLAINTIFF was filing lengthy motions wherein the PLAINTIFF was painstakingly taking back apart, piece by piece, thread by thread, all of the best efforts of the New York State Police and the Office of the Rensselaer County District Attorney to "frame" PLAINTIFF, and to get him convicted based on fabricated events and perjured testimony ....

Which is what this "DOUBLE-JEOPARDY MOTION" by McNally above is all about .....

And so .....

[Livyjr]

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: 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.

REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROBERT A. "Big BOB" 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!

SPRING 1989 .....

NEAR THE CONCLUSION OF THE "TRIAL OF THE CENTURY" IN RENSSELAER COUNTY IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

THE "EYES AND EARS" OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOHN L. BUONO PUTS FORTH A "COUPLE OF SHORT QUESTIONS" TO THE RENSSELAER COUNTY ASSOCIATE PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEER ....

WHO HAS BEEN LOCKED OUT OF HIS OFFICE IN THE RENSSELAER COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING SINCE OCTOBER 12, 1988 BY DECREE OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOHN L. BUONO .....

EYES-AND EARS: Hypothetically, since we've used a few hypotheticals here, IF I WERE TO FIND THAT THE COUNTY HAS NOT SUSTAINED ITS BURDEN AND THAT ITS RECOMMENDATION OR ITS DISMISSAL IS INAPPROPRIATE, would you based upon the County's ascertation that Mr. Van Praag is your immediate supervisor follow his LAWFUL COMMANDS, HIS REQUESTS, HIS .......

REPUBLICAN RENSSEALER COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY GORDON MAYO: DIRECTIONS!

EYES-AND EARS: Thank you!

ENGINEER: Only those, Mr. Hearing Officer, which would be truly lawful!

Lawful meaning laws that apply to all of us!

Mr. Van Praag is not an engineer.

Mr. Van Praag cannot review the work of an engineer.

AND ....

IF Mr. Van Praag will persist in believing that he has got some right to interfere in the lawful duties of an engineer, then what I would do is make charges and specifications against Mr. Van Praag, WHICH I HAD STARTED TO DO, and I would present those charges and specifications for review FIRST TO THE STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ....

Then I would present those charges and specifications to the EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ....

And ask that they conduct a HEARING into Mr. Van Praag's dealing as regards practicing engineering without a license ....

EYES-AND-EARS: And would you be the person who would determine whether or not they were lawful?

ENGINEER: NO.

NO.

NO, Mr. Hearing Officer .....

I have stated that I am not a JUDGE ....

Or JURY ....

However ....

I HAVE GOT RIGHTS ....

RESPONSIBILITIES .....

I would present to an appropriate authority .....

EYES-AND-EARS: AGAIN ....

LET ME STOP YOU ....

APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY WOULD BE WHO?

ENGINEER: To include the County Executive, to include the District Attorney, to include the State Health Department, to include the Education Department ...

And it is conceivable that each of one of those august bodies or individuals in the case of the executive say there is no finding here.

It's possible that the Education Department would come back and say that the man has been doing engineering without a license, and the District Attorney would say that's not a violation of law, and the COUNTY ATTORNEY would say it's not a violation of the Charter ....

AND ....

The County Executive could say it's also a violation of work rules .....

You have many combinations and permutations, Mr. Hearing Officer .....

And Phil Lance already knew, when he asked that question of the PLAINTIFF herein back in 1989 what the answer would be ......

The PLAINTIFF was on his way to a GRAND JURY with a box full of evidence of alleged wilful misconduct in office of a number of public officers in Rensselaer County pursuant to section 6 of Article I of the New York State Constitution ....

And he was not going to be deterred .....

And so .....

He had to be destroyed, instead .....

For matters had gone too far .....

Buono was right there on videotape .....

The words "EIGHTY THOUSAND BIG ONES" came from him .....

On television .....

On the Six O'clock News .....

And so .....

To bury that story ...

It was necessary to bury the PLAINTIFF .....

And so ....

It was done ....

Just like that ....

But that is not the story right now where we are talking about citizens in the State of New York being denied access to GRAND JURIES ......

The story is how did Chris Kapostacey-Jansing get REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive John L. Buono to openly discuss what was in reality a BRIBE offered to him by a group of land developers in Rensselaer County in early-1988 .....

And that answer brings us to one of the more interesting documents in the lengthy FBI file concerning this matter back in 1989 .....

And that document is a transcript of the MINUTES of a CONFERENCE between the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL and the NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, held at the offices of the Department, 2 University Place, Albany, New York, on Tuesday, March 1, 1988, commencing at 1 PM and stenographically reported by Mary Lomonoco, Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of New York.

In attendance at this meeting, according to this document in the FBI files, were as follows:

Dr. Leo Hetling, Director, and James "Mr. Jimmy D." Decker of the Division of Environmental Protection of the New York State Department of Health; Steven Anderson and Fred Nero of Mountain Meadow Properties; Rod Michael of the Eastern New York Society of Land Surveyors; Kevin Brady of the Rensselaer County Regional Chamber of Commerce; Douglas Clark of Clark Engineering; George Duggan of Best Building; Richard Melius of the Rensselaer County Development Council, and Victor Gush and Jack Leonard, land developers.

And how this TRANSCRIPT came to be in the possession of the FBI is as follows:

This TRANSCRIPT was "made public" in a matter of speaking by this RENSSELAER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL at a "closed door meeting" on the fifth floor of the Rensselaer County Office Building shortly after that CONFERENCE was held, and an "AGREEMENT OF SORTS" was reached with the New York State Department of Health concerning "OVERSIGHT" of the Rensselaer County Department of Health .....

And that agreement was that the New York State Department of Health would turn its back ...

IF the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL could get Buono to "GET RID OF" the Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer ......

So as to "unplug" their "pipeline" into the Rensselaer County Department of Health for rapid "approvals" of their "subdivisions" so they could then sell lots as "HEALTH-DEPARTMENT APPROVED" ...

When in fact, that was anything but the case .....

A FRAUD, in fact, that was being perpetrated on the public in Rensselaer County on a regular basis ......

But who cares about them, eh?

CAVEAT EMPTOR ......

As the lawyers like "Big BOB" Smith like to say ...

And so .....

The "State Health Department" agreed to turn its back ....

BUT ...

"Big BOB"" Smith, the REPUBLICAN lawyer for Rensselaer County ...

HE WANTED PROOF ......

IF, in his words as I recall them, Rensselaer County was going to be putting itself out on a limb with respect to violating the law, it wanted proof positive that the STATE was not going to come back around afterwards and chop it off ......

And so .....

The TRANSCRIPT ......

Signed by a NOTARY PUBLIC and certified as accurate ......

Placed in "Big BOB's" hands .....

By the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL .....

As PROOF that the CONFERENCE with the State Health Department had in fact taken place ...

And so ....

The State Health Department was "in their pocket" .....

And as proof of that besides the TRANSCRIPT .....

They also had at that meeting with Buono and Smith, "Mr. Jimmy D." himself .....

Representing the "interests" of the New York State Department of Health at that meeting between the developers and Buono and Smith .....

Where the $80,000 BRIBE was openly offered to Buono .....

If he would "get rid of" the Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer .....

And it was just a matter of logistics, after that .....

And that is how the TRANSCRIPT became "public" ......

On October 11, 1988, when Kapostacey-Jansing was preparing her "splice job" in her assigned role of "political assassin" on behalf of Buono, the PLAINTIFF presented her with a copy of the TRANSCRIPT, along with the full story of how and why the TRANSCRIPT had come into being, along with the $80,000 BRIBE offer to Buono .....

And upon hearing that news, and becoming possessed of a copy of the TRANSCRIPT herself, KAPOSTACEY-JANSING went back and confronted Buono about the BRIBE offer ....

AND NOTHING MORE WAS EVER HEARD OF THE MATTER AFTER THAT .....

Subsequently, when the FBI brought PLAINTIFF into their already on-going HOBBS ACT investigation of Public Corruption in Rensselaer County, the PLAINTIFF gave them a copy of the TRANSCRIPT along with the full story of how and why the TRANSCRIPT had come into being, along with the $80,000 BRIBE offer to Buono .....

AND AGAIN, NOTHING MORE WAS EVER HEARD OF THE MATTER AFTER THAT .....

Probably because some CORPORATE DOCTOR who had never ever seen or examined PLAINTIFF suddenly realized that PLAINTIFF must be dangerous and mentally ill ....

And so ....

That was convenient, wasn't it?

Sure did save the "state" the expense of all those trials .....

That never happened ...

BECAUSE ....

The doors to justice have been closed in the faces of common citizens up here in the State of New York ...

And so .....

[Livyjr]

Today, we also received Appellee's briefs from the Rensselaer County defendants, to include REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino, and the Northeast Health defendants, to include John Christian Braaten.

Defendant Jimino is represented by Thomas J. O'Connor, who is the brother of REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Governor Mary O'Connor Donohue.

"Watchdogs bark over campaign contributions"
By: James V. Franco, The Record 04/22/2003

ALBANY - Government watchdog groups reported Monday that corporations are exceeding the $5,000 legal limit on campaign contributions by making several small payments to county and local political parties and officials throughout the course of the year.

On its face, however, a number of local corporations were found to have violated the law during 2002, including:

Hedley Park Place of Troy gave a total of $5,499 to the Rensselaer County Republican Committee, Friends of Mary Donohue, the Committee to Re-elect Senator Bruno and to Gov. George E. Pataki.

Campito Plumbing of Latham gave $11,725 to officials and parties in Albany County and statewide, including $3,500 to Lt. Gov. Donohue.

Menands Management Corp. of Menands gave $11,000 to officials in Albany County and statewide, including $4,900 each to Pataki and Donohue.

If you live in a city, which I don't, or near a large metropolitan area, then you have a larger and wider selection available to you of choices, and availability of professional services, such as non-corrupt lawyers of sufficient reputation to BE ABLE TO stand up in a court of law and go head to head, in the eyes of the judge, with the likes of the politically powerful New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, or the Gold Johnsons, who are personal friends of REPUBLICAN New York State Governor and Bush ally, George Pataki, or Tommy O'Connor, who is the brother to REPUBLICAN Mary Donohue O'Connor, who is the Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York.

The "PROTECTION GAME" ......

How politicians protect themselves from scrutiny ...

By the clever device of putting their friends on the bench as judges .....

"A gavel for Donohue? - Lieutenant governor confirms her name has been submitted by Gov. Pataki for federal district judge"

By ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Friday, March 3, 2006

ALBANY -- Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue is up for an appointment to a federal judgeship after Gov. George Pataki submitted her name to the Bush administration.

The Troy native and former Rensselaer County district attorney confirmed Thursday the White House is considering her for a lifetime seat on the U.S. District Court bench in the Northern District.

A vacancy is being created by Chief Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. who attains senior status on March 13.

Donohue is not up for the chief judge's job, only the vacant judgeship.

"I'm very honored to be considered for this position," Donohue, a former state Supreme Court justice, said.

"I've always had the highest regard for the Northern District, and I've had extensive experience there."

The post pays $165,200 a year.

She makes $151,500 as lieutenant governor.

The timing was unexpected, particularly since there has been a heightened focus on Donohue as Pataki remains in a New York City hospital recovering from two surgeries after his appendix ruptured.

But such a move has long been speculated by Capitol insiders.

It has typically been assumed that if Donohue was given a judgeship, it would be a sign Pataki was about to leave office and wanted to pass New York into the care of Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, rather than to the lieutenant governor, who -- like most of her predecessors -- has had little involvement in the day-to-day running of the state.

Pataki is not seeking a fourth term while he considers a 2008 presidential run, and was traveling frequently outside New York before his Feb. 16 hospitalization.

But Pataki spokesman Kevin Quinn insisted the governor has no intention of leaving before his term ends in December.

"The governor has made clear that his focus is completely on running the state and being the best governor he can," Quinn said.

Quinn said Donohue has been "an outstanding prosecutor, state Supreme Court justice and lieutenant governor," adding: "She would certainly make an outstanding federal jurist."

It could take months for Donohue's nomination to wend its way through what she described as a "complicated process," which ultimately ends in confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

Nevertheless, Donohue herself acknowledged the leak of her potential departure was "not well-timed," given the fact that Pataki is in the hospital and she has twice automatically become the state's acting governor -- albeit for just over an hour on both occasions -- when he was under anesthesia.

"My focus for two weeks has been concern for the governor," Donohue said.

"We've been in close touch."

"My focus is definitely on my position here and what I'm doing as lieutenant governor."

"This cannot be a distraction right now, and we're not permitting it to be."

Donohue, 58, took office as lieutenant governor in January 1999.

She replaced Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey Ross as the No. 2 on Pataki's fall 1998 ticket after he unceremoniously dumped Ross, with whom he had a contentious relationship, from his re-election plans.

Ross, who has since divorced and now uses only her maiden name, then became a Democrat and unsuccessfully sought to oust Pataki in the 1998 election.

At the time, Donohue was a state Supreme Court justice who had risen through the ranks of Rensselaer County GOP politics and was allied with both Bruno, for whom she once worked, and then-U.S. Sen. Alfonse D'Amato.

In 1992, Donohue, a former teacher and Albany Law School graduate who had scant experience in both politics and prosecutions, was elected as the region's first female district attorney over the incumbent Rensselaer County prosecutor.

She easily won re-election, and in 1996 was elected to state Supreme Court, garnering more votes than any of the other five candidates vying for three open seats.

Despite her success at the polls, Donohue has generally been dismissed as a political lightweight while in the lieutenant governor's office.

In 2002, however, she skillfully managed to hold onto her post amid widespread speculation that Pataki was thinking of replacing her in his run for a third term.

Ultimately, Pataki kept Donohue, some said out of fear that pushing a second woman out of the lieutenant governor's spot would hurt him with female voters.

The two Republicans easily defeated their Democratic opponents -- former state Comptroller H. Carl McCall and his running mate, Westchester County businessman Dennis Mehiel.

The lieutenant governor's office has never been a powerful post in Albany.

It's seen as a cheerleading role with very little responsibility.

Donohue has embraced that role without complaint.

She attends ribbon cuttings, lectures at schools, heads task forces and never forgets to credit Pataki for everything.

She has generally managed to keep a low profile during her time in office, with more attention paid to her ever-changing hairstyle than her public pronouncements.

One major exception was in 1999 when police were summoned to the Brunswick home she shared with her then-second husband, attorney Brian Donohue, after receiving a complaint of a domestic incident.

Donohue has since divorced and remarried a third time to fellow Troy native Anthony J. Ricci in November 2002.

Donohue kept up her pro-Pataki persona during a brief telephone interview Thursday night even though the point of the conversation was to discuss her own future.

"It's the last year of our term together and the governor has shown great magnanimity in recommending me at this time," Donohue said.

When asked about her responsibilities since Pataki has been in the hospital, Donohue replied:

"My appropriate role is to make sure everything is perking along for him."

"He is certainly in charge, and wants that to be the image, and I respect that."

end quotes

And so the game is played ....

To OUR Detriment, of course ...

But who cares about us?

When the name of the game is PROTECTION ....

[Livyjr]

And because the PLAINTIFF did in fact "know" the "law", to include the Criminal Procedure Law in the State of New York, as well as the Rules of Evidence, the PLAINTIFF was filing lengthy motions wherein the PLAINTIFF was painstakingly taking back apart, piece by piece, thread by thread, all of the best efforts of the New York State Police and the Office of the Rensselaer County District Attorney to "frame" PLAINTIFF, and to get him convicted based on fabricated events and perjured testimony ....

The "PROTECTION GAME" in the corrupt State of New York ....

It comes from on high ....

And why not?

What common person up here has the power to make this state be corrupt ...

If those already in positions of responsibility ...

Did not want it to be so?

"Ruling permits trooper challenge of order - Traffic court issue pits power of court against State Police policy"

By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Friday, March 3, 2006

ALBANY -- A lawsuit questioning a State Police directive for troopers to ignore "unlawful" subpoenas to testify in traffic court can move forward, an appeals court has ruled.

It's the fourth recent development in an ongoing battle where the union for 3,500 troopers claims management routinely operates above the law.

State Supreme Court Justice Bernard Malone originally dismissed the claim brought by four troopers in 2004 who said they faced reprimands whether or not they appeared in court when summoned.

The troopers claimed that if they testified when called by a judge, they faced sanctions from their bosses who told them to ignore the judge's order.

They also claimed they faced punishment by judges if they failed to show up in court.

Although none of the four plaintiffs had been held in contempt, they had received judicial warnings and expected sanctions, court papers said.

Malone rejected the complaint, saying troopers had no standing in the case because they hadn't suffered injury.

But in a unanimous decision, Appellate Justice Robert Rose wrote that troopers are right to expect discipline "since court orders must be obeyed as a matter of public policy."

Rose also said the law does not require that the harm expected to be suffered must already have occurred.

"Troopers reasonably expect to be either held in contempt or disciplined for their choices," Rose wrote.

They "have alleged circumstances in which actual harm is imminent and reasonably certain."

Justices Edward O. Spain, Anthony J. Carpinello, Carl J. Mugglin and John A. Lahtinen agreed.

"These troopers are in a tough spot," said Mark Walsh, the union's attorney.

"They are given an order from a court that says show up."

"Then they take it to their supervisor, who says, don't."

"We're saying in this case that if the court issues an order, they're troopers, and they're bound to uphold the law."

A State Police spokesman described the crux of the case differently.

"It's all about collecting unneeded overtime at the taxpayers' expense," Lt. Glenn Miner said.

He said State Police policy holds that troopers should appear in court for Vehicle and Traffic Law cases when needed:

"The real issue in this case is whether troopers should appear in court to plea bargain or stand around the courtroom with no role, contrary to State Police policy."

Thursday's decision comes weeks after state Supreme Court Justice Joseph C. Teresi ruled that State Police can order troopers to open their confidential medical records, despite a federal and constitutional right to privacy.

Teresi's ruling followed a January decision in which the same appeals panel said officials were wrong to ban troopers from wearing union pins in court while off-duty.

Also pending is a lawsuit troopers filed in January that claims their superiors routinely violate their rights by denying them access to lawyers or union representation when they are involved in serious incidents such as shootings or fatal crashes.

Michele Morgan Bolton can be reached at 434-2403 or by e-mail at mbolton@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

And that's what it's all about .....

The HOKEY-POKEY, I mean .....

It is about "ACCESS" .....

Access to blank government permits ....

Fraudulent instruments ....

Or false instruments ...

Which you then immediately turn around and sell ...

So someone new can come in and make an immediate amendment request ...

And thereby "launder" the bogus permit back through the very "system" that issued it in the first place to "legitimize" it .....

So that no citizen can then challenge that permit ...

Because the record becomes so confused ....

On purpose ....

So that the NYSDEC can then claim a defense of STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS to get the case thrown right out of court in the case of a challenge ....

And everyone is "home free" .....

EXCEPT ....

It was done to us in OUR town ...

And the PLAINTIFF called them out on it in court ...

And he won ...

Which then caused a ****-storm ....

Because of what had been exposed ...

And what had to be admitted to by the New York State Attorney General while under oath before New York State Supreme Court Justice Williams in that hearing that DEC LAWYER Ostrov makes mention of, right above here, in his October 22, 1993 memorandum to his "CREW" ....

And here a reader has asked me how this Ostrov can be so open, as he is, about these things, especially this allegation of bias on the part of the judge when it is clear from his own admissions that the DEC and his "CREW" had violated the law in the State of New York when they handed Benson a NYSDEC Solid Waste Management Facility permit for a garbage dumping station in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County that he wanted to build and then sell to trash giant Waste Management out of Texas as an alleged "approved" REGIONAL FACILITY ....

All based on a DEC permit that was as bogus as a thirty-two-and-a-half-dollar bill .....

And the answer to that is that up here in the State of New York ...

These lawyers like Ostrov are immune from prosecution ...

They can openly advocate that DEC employees violate the law ...

And if the employees then do so ....

As the evidence shows Clarke and Henningson did so in this matter ....

Then Ostrov's alleged immunity wraps around his "CREW", and so ....

The New York State Attorney General steps in and protects the lot of them ....

And so ....

What does Ostrov have to fear?

And that answer is nothing ...

Absolutely nothing at all ....

Despite something called the law ...

And so ....

"State DEC undermines home rule"

Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Friday, March 3, 2006

On Monday, the southern Rensselaer County town of Nassau learned that Callanan Industries of Schenectady had filed with the state for another mining permit, Callanan's second in the town.

The most recent application, filed with the Department of Environmental Conservation, proposes an eventual 39-acre open hard-rock mine on a 45-acre property Callanan recently acquired along Route 66.

What's notable about this is that the town's zoning prohibits mines over five acres.

Even more significantly, most of the property Callanan acquired lies inside the village of East Nassau, which has a total ban on mines.

East Nassau was created just a few years ago out of a community of interest: opponents who defeated another hard-rock mine proposal.

Now, a group in Dunham Hollow is trying to do the same thing.

New York prides itself as a home-rule state.

It's in our constitution.

Effectively that means that when a state law or governmental action is going to affect a locality, a home-rule message of support is sought from the grass-roots entity, usually a town or city.

Not that this has done Nassau, or East Nassau, any good at all.

Nobody's asked them if they want another mine in town, or any mine at all.

Worse, the DEC has relied for years on a self-generated technical memo from the early 1990s that states the DEC will process mining applications regardless of local zoning objections.

That memo needs to be discarded, and the conservation law rewritten.

We aren't a frontier society anymore, and if a town decides it doesn't want mining that should be the end of it.

Currently, townships within counties with populations over 1 million have that power when a sole water source is imperiled.

Every town in the state should be able to deny mining if it wants, whether an aquifer is involved or not.

East Nassau and Nassau have their legal rights, of course.

They can participate in the DEC's lengthy adjudicatory process, offer their own expert witnesses and even file for relief in regular courts.

Great.

And who will pay for it?

Legal expenses are staggering.

Callanan Industries, meanwhile, is a subsidiary of a global mining-construction colossus based in Dublin, with so many deep pockets they've lost count.

Callanan, and all the others, smell a fortune in graywacke hard rock to be mined out of Nassau.

So what's a million or two to get at it?

All made possible because the DEC outrageously creates an unlevel playing field.

"At the moment," says Nassau's new Supervisor Ray Seney, "we're looking at five different permit applications."

"Five."

So Seney and his new town board have created a natural resource committee to painstakingly quantify potential impacts to town aquifers and other resources.

They hope to strengthen their zoning law, and prepared the town to deal with each permit.

"We need evidence," says Seney.

"It's not enough to be against mining."

But he adds, so far he hasn't seen a single advantage to the town for any applicant's mine.

Meanwhile, Bob Hendrickson, the only mayor East Nassau has ever had, is fighting despair.

He's in the process of creating East Nassau's tiny annual budget.

"I have to decide whether we should offer money to the library, or service a road."

"All the while keeping in mind that fighting the mine application may consume everything we have, and still might destroy us."

"Believe me, this is painful to watch."

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

end quotes

And of course, what Fred LeBrun does not say is that the WITNESS that these same people relied upon several years ago to defeat another major open-pit mine that was going to consume a goodly portion of the Village of East Nassau is the Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer who REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino had branded as a dangerous mental patient on August 22, 2001 .....

With the assistance of the State of New York .....

And its Attorney General ...

The Honorable Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer, ESQUIRE ......

Who likely will be New York State's next GOVERNOR ...

As well as being the LAWYER who provides cover for this scam the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has been running for some years now ...

Where they simply ignore, with impunity, the Constitution and the laws of the State of New York .....

And "get" judges who are biased towards them ....

And have witnesses who are hostile to them removed as witnesses .....

And so ....

UNLEVEL PLAYING FIELD, INDEED .....

And so .....