THE "PORK" IN NEW YORK, Thoughts of an older American on Constitutional Government in the USA Options

[Livyjr]

"Senate GOP strikes back at Spitzer's illegal immigrant plan"

By VALERIE BAUMAN, Associated Press

Last updated: 5:42 p.m., Monday, October 22, 2007

ALBANY -- The Senate's Republican majority moved Monday to try to block Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to make it easier for illegal immigrants to receive driver's licenses.

The Senate's license bill would require applicants for a driver's license to be in the country legally.

Spitzer's plan will end that requirement in December, by no longer requiring a Social Security number to get or renew a license.

Spitzer has said he can start the new policy in December without the Legislature's approval.

"We will change those rules," Spitzer said.

"If somebody will challenge it, we'll see what the courts will do."

THE ALBANY, NEW YORK TIMES UNION CAPITAL CONFIDENTIAL BLOG:

Say, SmokinJoe ….

Hey!

Out here in the countryside, they say you are the dude in the know down there in Albany ….

And so …

Consider this for a moment, if you would, dude …

When one looks at what Eliot “BIG DAWG” Spitzer is trying to pull off here in NYS with his “PLAN” to RULE NYS WITHOUT the state legislature having a role in OUR state government here in NYS ….

It is incandescently clear that “BAD DAWG” Spitzer is trying to CIRCUMVENT OUR laws …

And he is trying to subvert the RULE OF LAW here in NYS by improperly using REGULATIONS as a means of gutting or eviscerating OUR state laws ….

As a means of NULLIFYING the lawful acts of OUR state legislature ….

Which makes laws in NYS IN OUR NAME ….

Not in Eliot Spitzer’s name …

And so …

REGULATIONS: Such are issued by various governmental departments to carry out the intent of the law.

Agencies issue regulations to guide the the activity of those regulated by the agency and of their own employees AND TO ENSURE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE LAW.

Regulations are not the work of the legislature and do not have the effect of law in theory.

In practice, however, because of the intricacies of judicial review of administrative action, regulations can have an important effect in determining the outcome of cases involving regulatory activity.

- Black’s Law Dictionary

What’s your read on this, dude?

Help out us countryfolks if you would ….

And so …

Comment by John Galt — October 23, 2007 @ 8:27 am

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=5666#comments

[Livyjr]

THE NEW YORK SUN

"Spitzer Vows To Carry Out License Policy"

By JACOB GERSHMAN, Staff Reporter of the Sun

October 19, 2007

Governor Spitzer said he has no intention of retreating from his contentious effort to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, insisting that the new policy would be more widely embraced if New Yorkers had a better understanding of its benefits.

In an interview with The New York Sun, Mr. Spitzer said he is satisfied with the way his administration rolled out the license policy, saying his staff had prepared for the hostile response to his plan from lawmakers, county officials, and the majority of New Yorkers.

Republicans, as well as a smaller number of Democrats in Albany, say they are strongly opposed to issuing licenses and state identification cards to residents who cannot demonstrate their legal presence in the country.

Many have also questioned the governor's decision to change the rules starting next year without first convening a public hearing or other forum for debate, and without seeking the support of the Legislature.

In recent weeks, a high-volume debate has erupted over Mr. Spitzer's license policy, with Republican lawmakers vowing to overturn the rules either by legislation or by lawsuit and with at least a dozen county clerks threatening to defy orders handed down by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

On the national scene, the issue has become a rallying cry for anti-immigration activists, who accuse the governor of encouraging law-breakers and jeopardizing public safety.

Among the most persistent critics has been a CNN news anchor, Lou Dobbs, who in a Wednesday evening broadcast called Mr. Spitzer a "spoiled, rich kid brat" for carrying out the policy in the face of heavy public disapproval.

Nearly three-quarters of New Yorkers say they oppose issuing licenses to undocumented residents, according to a Siena College poll released on Monday.

"I'm not sure that the number accurately reflects the true public sentiment if it were presented in questions that reflected the underlying facts," Mr. Spitzer told the Sun.

"Because when I explain to people that it would require a valid foreign passport and other documentation that could be verified and validated and we will have fewer accidents, lower insurance premiums, and safer streets, people say they support it."

The administration is increasingly trying to make that case to more people.

In early October, the governor devoted a speech to defending the policy.

His office has also sought endorsements from terrorism safety experts to try to counter the claim that giving licenses to illegal immigrants presents a security threat.

Some speculate that Mr. Spitzer may also turn to television advertisements to further steer public opinion in his favor.

Mr. Spitzer, who in August delivered a lecture on the importance of tempering passion with humility in politics, said the source of his electoral success has been his refusal to be guided by poll results.

"I stand and govern based upon principle, not poll numbers."

"Humility has nothing to do with caving to poll numbers," he said.

"Principle is what I've stood for, for nine years, and that's why I was elected by the largest margin by any governor in history."

The immigrant license issue is just the latest source of tension between the executive chamber and lawmakers, who are scheduled to return to Albany next week for a special legislative session.

The gathering of lawmakers will test Mr. Spitzer's ability to overcome months of deepening political strife and secure agreements on major pieces of his agenda.

Despite the bad blood between Senate Republicans and the executive chamber, the two sides yesterday were negotiating with Assembly Democrats agreements on a range of issues, including a $1 billion capital spending bill, the passage of new campaign finance restrictions, and pay raises for legislators, judges, and statewide officials.

In mid-July, lawmakers and the governor came to a tentative agreement on those issues.

It immediately collapsed after the Senate majority leader, Joseph Bruno, claimed that the governor had backed away from a promise to grant the conference $300 million in capital aid and to approve a $200 million property tax rebate package for elderly New Yorkers.

Brokering the negotiations between the warring parties has been the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, whose aides said he was engaged in "shuttle diplomacy."

Sources said Mr. Silver is circulating a new pay raise bill that would grant lawmakers their first salary increase since 1999.

Next week's session could be the last time that lawmakers meet until they reconvene in January, the start of a legislative election year with the potential for more conflict between the governor and Senate Republicans, who are trying to preserve their two-seat majority.

"I said to New Yorkers all through the campaign that moving a status quo that had led to the decline in the state would be noisy and would be bruising."

"That is exactly what it has been," Mr. Spitzer said.

"That is exactly what I will continue to do, so that I can transform a state that has been on a downward descent," he said.

"As I said during the campaign, you don't change the world by whispering."

http://www.nysun.com/article/64866?page_no=1

[Livyjr]

THE NEW YORK SUN

"City Immigrants Are Wary of Governor's Plan on IDs"

By MARUXA TENNENT, Special to the Sun

October 19, 2007

Far from the political debate on Governor Spitzer's plan to give undocumented immigrants valid driver's licenses, discussions are under way in New York City's immigrant-heavy neighborhoods about whether undocumented New Yorkers would even be willing to share their identities with the government.

"People here are scared," Abbas Razvi, 63, an owner of a grocery store in Midwood, Brooklyn, the heart of Little Pakistan, said.

"People in this community have gotten stabbed and refused to report it."

"People here are going to have to think not twice about it, but 20 times."

"Policies can be good today, but turn bad tomorrow."

Mr. Spitzer's plan was launched in part to improve safety on the roads and to improve employment prospects for more than 1 million undocumented immigrants statewide.

There is, however, fear among some immigrant groups that federal immigration authorities might get access to the Department of Motor Vehicles's records and use the information to deport them.

Immigrants who spoke to The New York Sun said some may not be willing to risk providing authorities with their personal information despite assurances from Mr. Spitzer and DMV officials that records would not be released to federal officials without a subpoena or court order.

"I'm thinking a lot of people won't go to get their licenses," the president of the Pakistani American Federation of New York, Asghar Choudri, said.

His organization is based in Little Pakistan, one of the communities that has come under increased scrutiny and has seen deportations and arrests since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

"Some will come forward, but others will remain in the shadows," Mr. Choudri said.

A manager of a deli, Kamer Aledtha, 38, said most neighbors he has spoken with about Mr. Spitzer's plan have expressed ambivalence.

"If you are illegal, you are going to be both happy and worried," he said.

In Chinatown, the fear of federal authorities could be strong enough to deter many immigrants from heading to the nearest DMV and signing up for a road test.

"I've been receiving a lot of calls in the past weeks from people who are recent immigrants," a representative of an Asian immigrant umbrella group, Eddie Chiu, said.

"They say they are very happy with this new program, but they are not coming here today because they are very scared."

The group, the Lin Sing Association, hosted officials from the governor's office at its Chinatown headquarters yesterday to answer questions about the plan.

"A few days ago the press said that most people in the state are against this program, so now people think they don't stand a chance."

"People don't understand," Mr. Chiu, 60, said.

Several dozen residents filed in to yesterday's meeting, some with questions about the complex point system needed to qualify for a license, some seemingly in disbelief.

Holding her expired license with the words "Temporary Visitor" stamped in red across the top, Danxieng Luo asked if she would indeed be eligible to renew it soon.

"They said everything is okay," she said.

Others embraced the idea of Mr. Spitzer's plan, under the hope that to allow immigrants to obtain a driver's license by presenting a valid passport rather than a Social Security number will bring more work prospects and a newfound ease in fulfilling everyday obligations.

"This is what we have been fighting for," the executive director of the Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights, Raquel Batista, said.

When Joel Magallan, the executive director of Tepeyac, a Mexican immigrant rights nonprofit, asked undocumented students who would want to obtain a driver's license when Mr. Spitzer's plan is implemented, hands immediately went up.

One of the students, Florencio Alonso, a pizza maker with two young daughters, said he would opt-in and eventually buy a second-hand car.

"When the opportunity comes, I will take it."

"It is a very good decision," Mr. Alonso, 34, said.

"I will be able to get out of the city more easily."

"In the summer, I would like to take my family to Bear Mountain State Park, or even to the Great Lakes."

Mr. Alonso said he isn't worried about giving up his information, reasoning that it's already available through his tax documents and bank records.

"There isn't fear."

"There is joy and happiness that people are going to get licenses."

"Many immigrants have even begun saving more and sending less money home because they want to buy a car," Mr. Magallan said.

"For the taxi drivers and the people who distributed construction material or clothing, and in the past years have had to find other jobs because they didn't have a Social Security number, this is great news," he added.

Republicans have vowed to block the governor's plan, saying it could make it easier for potential terrorists to obtain legal documentation and that it will make New York State a haven for illegal immigrants.

Many immigrants say their sights are already set far beyond gaining legal access to New York's roads.

"Instead of giving driver's licenses, they should give green cards to people."

"That is what people are interested in," a part-time car insurer, Hashim Choudhry, 59, said.

http://www.nysun.com/article/64867?page_no=1

[Livyjr]

THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DAILY POLITICS BLOG:

Comment by JohnS: I wonder what police chiefs across the state think about the Spitzer legislation.

I wonder too about what they think about the alternative: turning their departments into wings of the Federal Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

Cops locking up illegal immigrants.

I can think of a lot of resons why the NY cops would not want that.

JOHN GALT RESPONDS: You really ought to check out your essential background facts before you make statements in public, dude, about the duties of the police in NYS with respect to immigration law violations in NYS ....

I. Inherent Authority for Local Enforcement of Immigration Law

It is frequently asserted that being an illegal alien is "not a crime" because the detention and removal of most illegal aliens by the federal government is a civil matter.

This claim is based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between federal criminal and immigration law, and the enforcement role given to local government by the Constitution and the Congress.

Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime.

Congress has firmly established that there is a significant public interest in the effective enforcement of immigration law.

The authority of state and local police to make arrests for violation of federal law is not limited to cases in which they are exercising delegated federal power.

Local or state law enforcement departments and personnel may not interpret or enforce state law so as to obstruct federal law.

Federal law encourages state and local enforcement of immigration law.

To turn an official blind eye to violations of federal immigration law in such circumstances is not an exercise of state sovereignty, but rather impermissible passive resistance to federal law.

University of the District of Columbia Law Review, Fall, 2004

8 D.C. L. Rev. 83 (32098 words)

IN THE AFTERMATH OF SEPTEMBER 11: DEFENDING CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL: The Treatment of Immigrants: THE CHIMERA AND THE COP: LOCAL ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW

Michael M. Hethmon, Staff Attorney, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). J.D., University of Maryland School of Law, M.I.M., Thunderbird Graduate School of International Management, B.A., UCLA.

Posted by: John Galt | October 24, 2007 7:26 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypoli...d_ends_113.html

[Livyjr]

THE ALBANY, NEW YORK TIMES UNION CAPITAL CONFIDENTIAL BLOG:

Comment by JohnS: I wonder what police chiefs across the state think about the Spitzer legislation.

I wonder too about what they think about the alternative: turning their departments into wings of the Federal Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

Cops locking up illegal immigrants.

I can think of a lot of resons why the NY cops would not want that.

Comment by kirbydog: And, as John S says, I too wonder what police chiefs and local sherrifs across the state think about the Spitzer legislation–turning their departments into wing of the federal Department of Immigration.

Comment by 11thWardDem: THE WORLD IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.

“Illegal is illegal” is nonsense, this change isn’t primarily about illegal aliens - it’s about legal residents of this great country.

JOHN GALT CONSIDERS ALL OF THIS CAREFULLY: When I read these above comments, especially the one by 11thWardDem that “THE WORLD IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE” with respect to this illegal immigrant issue, I really have to wonder at what is going on in this country with respect to RESPECT FOR RULE OF LAW, which is where the concept of LAW & ORDER is supposed to stem from ….

Reading these comments above here makes me think the USA and NYS must have been invented about 2 and 1/2 seconds ago ….

Reading these comments makes me think that:

A) We have no history …

B) We have no laws …

BUT …

That is not at all true …

We do have a history here in America ….

Or we used to, anyway, before DAY ONE descended on us like a black cloud of misery up from hell bringing Eliot Spitzer with it …

And we do have laws, rules and regulations, whether or not anyone in here is cognizant of them …

Or likes them …

Or believes in them …

And with respect to FOREIGN NATIONALS in this country ILLEGALLY, the LAW IS VERY BLACK AND WHITE, to wit:

I. Inherent Authority for Local Enforcement of Immigration Law

It is frequently asserted that being an illegal alien is “not a crime” because the detention and removal of most illegal aliens by the federal government is a civil matter.

This claim is based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between federal criminal and immigration law, and the enforcement role given to local government by the Constitution and the Congress.

Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime.

Congress has firmly established that there is a significant public interest in the effective enforcement of immigration law.

The authority of state and local police to make arrests for violation of federal law is not limited to cases in which they are exercising delegated federal power.

Local or state law enforcement departments and personnel may not interpret or enforce state law so as to obstruct federal law.

Federal law encourages state and local enforcement of immigration law.

To turn an official blind eye to violations of federal immigration law in such circumstances is not an exercise of state sovereignty, but rather impermissible passive resistance to federal law.

University of the District of Columbia Law Review, Fall, 2004

8 D.C. L. Rev. 83 (32098 words)

IN THE AFTERMATH OF SEPTEMBER 11: DEFENDING CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE NATION’S CAPITAL: The Treatment of Immigrants: THE CHIMERA AND THE COP: LOCAL ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW

Michael M. Hethmon, Staff Attorney, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). J.D., University of Maryland School of Law, M.I.M., Thunderbird Graduate School of International Management, B.A., UCLA.

end quotes

OR HAVE WE SECEDED FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RECENTLY?

That is what I am beginning to believe, anyway …

The “BULL DAWG” Spitzer and his crowd have unilaterally seceded NYS from the rest of the United States of America, so that we are now longer American citizens ….

So that now, United States law doesn’t mean DOODLY-SQUAT here in NY-anmar …

Where the “BULL DAWG” Spitzer is OUR RULER …

And whatever he says at any given moment of time is the “LAW” that we must adhere to …

And abide by …

So aiding and abetting foreign nationals in this country unlawfully is no longer any kind of criminal offense here in NY-anmar, despite some empty words on a piece of paper called federal law saying that it is …

The “BULL DAWG” Spitzer has ruled federal law to be inapplicable here in NY-anmar …

We no longer have RULE OF LAW here in NYS …

WE HAVE THE RULE OF ELIOT, INSTEAD …

And so …

Comment by John Galt — October 25, 2007 @ 8:04 am

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=5687

[Livyjr]

THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DAILY POLITICS BLOG:

Comment by JohnS: Under federal law (the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act), local police departments that wish to be involved in immigration enforcement must go through a training process that allows them to become “deputies” of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

JOHN GALT RESPONDS: Congress could have chosen to limit local enforcement pursuant to its plenary power over immigration, but it has not done so.

In the absence of a limitation on local enforcement powers, the states are bound by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution to enforce violations of the federal immigration laws.

"The statutory law of the United States is part of the law of each state just as if it were written into state statutory law."

People v. Barajas, 81 Cal. App. 3d 999, 1006 (1978) (citing Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U.S. 483, 490 (1880), People ex rel. Happell v. Sichos, 23 Cal. 2d 478, 491(1943), and 150 A.L.R. 1431).

See also Dep't Public Safety v. Berg, 674 A.2d 515, 519 (Md. 1994) (stating that an act of Congress establishes a policy for "all the people and all the states," as if it "emanated from [a state's] own legislature."

This principle is "underscored by [Art. 2 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights]").

State and local police officers are generally permitted to enforce federal statutes where such enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests.

State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as state law does not restrict such general power.

"A state trooper has general investigative authority to inquire into possible immigration violations."

U.S. v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984) (citing U.S. v. Saldana, 453 F.2d 352 (10th Cir. 1972)).

The United States has a "compelling interest" in the criminal prosecution of immigration law violators, which is part of a comprehensive, essential sovereign policy of uniform immigration law enforcement.

Congress has specifically included local law enforcement officials among those who could arrest for violation of the federal illegal presence misdemeanor.

Section 1324© of Title 8 of the United States Code now reads:

No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrest for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

Sections 1324, 1325, and 1326 of Title 8 were all enacted on June 27, 1952, as sections 274, 275, and 276 respectively of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

As originally drafted, none of these sections contained any language of limitation or exclusion regarding the power of arrest.

Section 1324 was then amended to add, "No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrest for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service ... and all other officers of the United States whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws."

The intention of Congress at that juncture cannot be misunderstood.

Arrests for violation of section 1324 were to be made only by federal personnel, while by clear implication section 1325 and section 1326 arrests were to be made by state and local officers as well.

However, later in the legislative process the words "of the United States" were stricken from section 1324 by further amendment.

In People v. Baraja, a California court concluded, "that change can only mean that the scope of the arrest power under section 1324 was enlarged; in no way can it mean that the scope of arrest under the other two sections was restricted. Such an acute non sequitur would attribute to the Congress both serious inconsistency and profound lack of logic."

In 1996, Congress further clarified that a formal agreement is not necessary for "any officer or employee" of a State or local agency "to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States," or "to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States."

University of the District of Columbia Law Review, Fall, 2004

8 D.C. L. Rev. 83 (32098 words)

IN THE AFTERMATH OF SEPTEMBER 11: DEFENDING CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE NATION’S CAPITAL: The Treatment of Immigrants: THE CHIMERA AND THE COP: LOCAL ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW

Michael M. Hethmon, Staff Attorney, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). J.D., University of Maryland School of Law, M.I.M., Thunderbird Graduate School of International Management, B.A., UCLA.

Posted by: John Galt | October 25, 2007 4:16 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypoli...he_day_132.html

This post has been edited by Livyjr: Oct 25 2007, 03:53 PM

[Livyjr]

THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DAILY POLITICS BLOG:

Comment by 11thWardDem: John Galt ....

I would like you to notice something Mr. Galt.

Take a look at your posts, while usually well-founded in legal “fact” or legislative authority - you clearly don’t have an applicable understanding of how institutions work amongst one another in real life.

Of course it would be nice to just pull out the rule book or constitution whenever a conflict arises - but the institutions (both official and unofficial) we have built up in this country don’t correspond to all of that mumbo jumbo.

Yes, the rule of law is relevant and important, but doesn’t come close to satisfying the populous in its ability to solve important social problems.

New and innovative discussion on how things work on the ground, and how we would like to see them work, applied in a practical manner is the path to resolving social inequities.

Having a sound understanding of the constitution, law, history, and regulations are vital to the goal of advancing society - but they alone do not promote positive change.

No, I would argue they are designed to uphold the agreed upon status quo - even when said status quo may have been illegitimately implemented in the first place.

Three men in a room does not representation make…

JOHN GALT RESPONDS: Criminal Enforcement of Alien Registration Laws

All aliens fourteen years of age or older who are in the United States for thirty days or more by statute must be registered and fingerprinted.

Parents or legal guardians must register alien children who are younger than fourteen.

The Department of Homeland Security issues a certificate of registration or a permanent resident card to every alien who registers.

Nonimmigrants must also report address changes every three months on Form AR-11, available at post offices.

Every alien who has been issued a registration document is required to carry the document on his or her person.

Federal regulations specify the immigration documents that are evidence of alien registration.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the unregistered presence of an alien in the United States is in itself a crime.

The United States has an express public policy against the presence of an unregistered alien in this country.

University of the District of Columbia Law Review, Fall, 2004

8 D.C. L. Rev. 83 (32098 words)

IN THE AFTERMATH OF SEPTEMBER 11: DEFENDING CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE NATION’S CAPITAL: The Treatment of Immigrants: THE CHIMERA AND THE COP: LOCAL ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW

Michael M. Hethmon, Staff Attorney, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). J.D., University of Maryland School of Law, M.I.M., Thunderbird Graduate School of International Management, B.A., UCLA.

end quotes

The law is the law, until the law is lawfully changed ....

Posted by: John Galt | October 25, 2007 4:37 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypoli...he_day_132.html

[Livyjr]

THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DAILY POLITICS BLOG:

Comment by 11thWardDem: Yes, the rule of law is relevant and important, but doesn’t come close to satisfying the populous in its ability to solve important social problems.

New and innovative discussion on how things work on the ground, and how we would like to see them work, applied in a practical manner is the path to resolving social inequities.

Having a sound understanding of the constitution, law, history, and regulations are vital to the goal of advancing society - but they alone do not promote positive change.

No, I would argue they are designed to uphold the agreed upon status quo - even when said status quo may have been illegitimately implemented in the first place.

Three men in a room does not representation make…

JOHN GALT CONTINUES: Until the law is changed in a lawful manner, 11thWardDem, it remains the law ...

Whether you or the populous like it ....

Or not ....

It does not matter ....

Yes, there can be rational discussion on this issue ...

AND THERE IS ...

But while that discussion is taking place, the law remains the law, and we are bound by it ...

OR AREN'T WE NOW?

HAS ELIOT SPITZER SUSPENDED THE OPERATION OF FEDERAL LAW IN NYS IN AID AND SUPPORT OF FOREIGN NATIONALS NOT LAWFULLY IN THIS COUNTRY FINDING EMPLOYMENT?

Because if he hasn't, then he is putting every motor vehicles clerk in some type of legal jeopardy if they are handing out NYS driver's licenses to people not here lawfully ....

AND THEY HAVE TO BE THE WORLD'S BIGGEST DAMN FOOLS TO LET A PRETENTIOUS FOP LIKE ELIOT SPITZER PUT THEM IN THAT POSITION ....

And so ....

Read the law, 11thWardDem, and tell me that I am wrong, dude:

D. Alien Smuggling Felonies under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 274(a)

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 274 (Bringing in and Harboring Illegal Aliens) encompasses a range of crimes associated with illegal immigration under the rubric of "alien smuggling."

The four major crimes under section 274(a) of INA ('bringing in,' transporting, harboring, and 'inducing' illegal aliens) are described separately below.

Together they form a comprehensive definition of the federal crime of alien smuggling that prosecutors and police can use to attack the economic basis of illegal alien settlement in local jurisdictions, as well as related support activities, from the conspiracy and preparation stages in the sending country to illegal operations within the United States.

An alien convicted under this statute is deemed to be an "aggravated felon" subject to mandatory federal detention and removal.

It is well established that "any person" is subject to criminal liability for section 274 felonies and that the term is to be construed broadly.

Section 274 clearly reaches public officials and government employees.

The courts have rejected claims that section 274 felonies apply only to professional smugglers or operators of sweatshops.

The crime typically thought of as alien smuggling, "bringing" illegal aliens to the United States, makes it a felony for any person to (i) knowingly bring to or attempt to bring (ii) an alien, regardless of immigration status, (iii) to the United States "in any manner whatsoever" (iv) at any place other than a designated port of entry.

A separate misdemeanor offense criminalizes bringing or attempting to bring an alien to the United States "knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior official authorization to come to enter or reside in the United States" regardless of where or how the alien entered U.S. territory.

Law enforcement officers in jurisdictions away from the international borders make arrests leading to "bringing to" convictions infrequently, because the offense is considered complete once the alien reaches an "immediate destination" in the United States.

In contrast, the other related felony offenses under section 274 of INA are a powerful enforcement tool for local and state police.

First, section 274(a)(1)(A)(iii) of INA makes it a felony for any person to (i) "conceal, harbor, or shelter from detection" (ii) any alien (iii) in any place, including any building or means of transportation, (iv) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the alien has come to, entered, or remained in the U.S. in violation of law."

"Harboring" includes any conduct that tends to substantially help an alien to remain in the United States unlawfully.

There is no requirement that the felonious conduct be part of a process of smuggling aliens into United States or directly connected with an alien's illegal entry.

Providing housing for illegal aliens, assistance in obtaining employment, coaching aliens to claim legal status or to use a false name, and attempts to prevent detection by the authorities have all been held to constitute harboring.

Harboring can occur outdoors as well as in a building.

"Shielding from detection" does not need to be clandestine.

The government does not need to show intent to evade federal immigration enforcement officials, but only that the defendant's conduct "tended directly or substantially to facilitate an alien's remaining in the United States in violation of law."

Taking actions that "facilitate" an alien's employment have been held to constitute acting "in reckless disregard" of a worker's illegal status.

Criminal liability for harboring or sheltering could arise from acceptance of a Mexican matricula consular - which, presented without proper immigration documents, is prima facie evidence of illegal alien status - by a local government agency that, for example, provided housing or utility assistance, made referrals to a public or private job assistance program, or detained matricula presenters for violation of city ordinances and released them without verifying their immigration status with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Second, section 274(a)(1)(A)(ii) of INA makes it a felony for any person to (i) transport, move, or attempt to move (ii) an alien (iii) within the U.S. (iv) by means of transportation or otherwise (v) knowingly or recklessly disregarding the fact that the alien has come to, entered, or remains in violation of law and (vi) "in furtherance of such violation."

Intent to further the alien's presence in the U.S. is a required element, but may be established by indirect evidence.

An offer of employment plus voluntary transportation, or payment for transportation plus lodging or other arrangements, assistance in loading aliens into vehicles driven by other defendants, or providing one leg of an illegal alien's travel within the U.S. will satisfy the furtherance element.

Third, section 274(a)(1)(A)(iv) of INA makes it a felony for any person to (i) encourage or induce(ii) an alien (iii) to come to, enter or reside in the U.S. (iv) knowing or recklessly disregarding the fact that the alien's entry or residence is in violation of law.

This statute is intended to criminalize a broad range of activities that assist illegal aliens in the United States.

"Encourage" means to knowingly instigate, help, or advise.

"Induce" means to knowingly bring on or about, to effect, cause, or influence an act or course of conduct.

"Encouraging" includes actions that permit illegal aliens "to be more confident that they could continue to reside with impunity in the United States," or actions that offer illegal aliens "a chance to stand equally with all other American citizens."

To prove that an official or employee of a Georgia state or local government "encouraged or induced" illegal Mexican aliens, all that a prosecuting party needs to establish is that such persons knowingly helped or advised the aliens.

U.S. v. He, 245 F.3d 954, at 957-59 (7th Cir. 2001).

Specific actions found to constitute encouraging include counseling illegal aliens to continue working in the U.S. or assisting them to complete applications with false statements or obvious errors or omissions.

The fact that the illegal alien may be a refugee fleeing persecution is not a defense to this felony, since U.S. law and the United Nations Protocol on Refugees both require that an alien claiming asylum must report to immigration authorities "without delay" upon entry to the U.S.

Fourth, it is a felony to conspire to commit any of the bringing in, harboring, sheltering, transporting, or encouraging felonies under section 274(a)(1)(A) of INA.

Indictments for section 274(a) of INA smuggling crimes can include conspiracy as a separate offense.

The three elements of criminal conspiracy are (i) an agreement by two or more persons to engage in illegal activity, (ii) an overt act by at least one person taken in furtherance of the agreement, and (iii) intent to commit the illegal activity.

Even if the conspiracy fails to achieve its aim, it is often punished separately and as severely as the single offender crime, because a group having some illegal purpose is more dangerous than an individual who has the same purpose.

The distinction between principals and accessories in alien smuggling crimes has been eliminated by the section 274(a)(1) of INA aiding and abetting statute.

Aiding and abetting an alien smuggling offense may apply to conduct before or after the alien has entered the U.S.

The statute allows conviction for an alien smuggling felony even if not all of the elements of the alien smuggling crime are proven.

Indictments for both an alien smuggling crime and for aiding and abetting that crime are permissible.

Defendants convicted of aiding and abetting or conspiracy to commit section 274(a)(1) of INA alien smuggling felonies are subject to the same fines and prison sentences imposed for the primary offenses.

Persons indicted for section 274(a) of INA criminal alien smuggling offenses may also be indicted under the generic federal aiding and abetting 124 or accessory after the fact statutes.

Generic aiding and abetting is not a lesser-included offense for a conviction under section 274(a)of INA, but is implicit in all alien smuggling indictments.

No policy or humanitarian argument has been identified by the courts that would negate the criminal mens rea of reckless disregard for the fact that aliens are present in the United States in violation of law.

Neither sanctuary nor humanitarian concern is a valid defense to either civil or criminal violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

It is illegal for non-profit, religious, or civic organizations to knowingly assist in the commission of an alien smuggling felony, regardless of claims that their members' convictions may require them to assist aliens.

The First Amendment does not protect actions that aid illegal aliens to remain in the United States.

Illegal aliens are not a suspect class entitled to Fourteenth Amendment-based strict scrutiny of any discriminatory classification based on that status, nor are they defined by an immutable characteristic, since their status is the product of conscious unlawful action.

Identity is not a constitutionally protected privacy right, and an illegal alien has no expectation of privacy from another person's knowledge of his or her immigration status.

University of the District of Columbia Law Review, Fall, 2004

8 D.C. L. Rev. 83 (32098 words)

IN THE AFTERMATH OF SEPTEMBER 11: DEFENDING CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE NATION’S CAPITAL: The Treatment of Immigrants: THE CHIMERA AND THE COP: LOCAL ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW

Michael M. Hethmon, Staff Attorney, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). J.D., University of Maryland School of Law, M.I.M., Thunderbird Graduate School of International Management, B.A., UCLA.

Posted by: John Galt | October 25, 2007 5:09 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypoli...he_day_132.html

[Livyjr]

THE NEW YORK POST

"'ALIEN' LICENSE PLAN HITS A NEW POTHOLE"

By KENNETH LOVETT Post Correspondent

October 25, 2007 -- ALBANY - Problems with scanners to be used to verify documents from illegal aliens applying for driver's licenses threaten to undermine Gov. Spitzer's controversial plan.

Recent testing by the Department of Motor Vehicles found bogus documents were undetected by special scanning machines that are supposed to weed out counterfeit passports, foreign birth certificates and other key documents that illegal aliens would be able to use to obtain licenses, the Times Union of Albany reported yesterday.

According to the newspaper, the equipment has regularly failed to recognize counterfeit U.S.-issued resident-alien cards and fake state driver's licenses, including documents deliberately designed to look like forgeries.

The problems with the scanners arose just weeks before the state is due to begin offering licenses to illegal aliens on Dec. 1.

A press conference scheduled for yesterday to demonstrate the new technology was said to be abruptly canceled, although a Spitzer spokeswoman denied the date had been set in stone.

Critics - from county clerks to state lawmakers - said the testing problems prove their arguments that Spitzer's plan was ill-timed, not properly prepared, and threatens state and national security.

"This alarming news should send a chill down the spines of those 72 percent of New Yorkers . . . who believe that Gov. Spitzer's proposal would lessen our safety and our security," said Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco, citing the results of a recent poll.

Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno said the Senate will hold a hearing to look into the technology issue and warned that his Republican majority will not support state funding in next year's budget for the equipment or staff to implement the plan.

He noted that Spitzer "arrogantly" moved ahead with the plan despite the DMV's assessment that there was no known independent analysis of the equipment's performance.

Spitzer, with little advance warning, announced last month his plan to no longer require driver's-license applicants to provide Social Security numbers or letters from the Social Security Administration proving a person is not eligible for such a number, instead allowing the use of other identification documents like passports and birth certificates.

Spitzer argued the move would make the roads safer and improve national security by creating public records on people currently living in "the shadows."

He has staunchly defended his plan against a torrent of criticism by touting the new anti-fraud technology he said would improve security.

The state entered into a nearly $1.5 million contract with Viisage, an electronic security company, on Sept. 11 - a little more than a week before he made his plan public - in which the firm would develop, install and maintain 100 of the document-verification machines across the state.

Spitzer aides, noting the technology is used in 21 other states, yesterday downplayed the testing problems, saying they have heard of no major glitches and that they are still on deadline to implement the plan on time.

But at a New York City appearance Spitzer insisted the state will not move forward until everything is working properly.

"We are not setting arbitrary deadlines," Spitzer said.

"What I have said is when the technology is tested, implemented, ready to go, then we will begin this."

An official with Viisage parent L-1 Identity Solutions referred calls to an outside spokeswoman, who promised to return a call but did not.

Additional reporting by Dan Kadison

kenneth.lovett@nypost.com

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10252007/news/...hits_a_new_.htm

[Livyjr]

THE NEW YORK POST

"ELIOT'S MIRACLE MACHINES"

October 25, 2007 -- Just last Friday, Gov. Spitzer hung a plea for his dubious drivers-licenses-for-terrorists plan on the claim that it would impose "the strictest set of security measures" in America.

Oops.

A news report yesterday said that, when tested, fake IDs routinely slipped past Spitzer's supposedly super-smart "state-of-the-art document-authentication machines," as the gov calls them.

"The machines are supposed to work," the newspaper quoted a source as saying.

"They don't."

Well, that's not very reassuring.

Nor did Spitzer deny it.

Rather, his aides canceled a press conference meant to show off the new gadgets.

And the governor said only that "when the technology is tested, implemented, ready to go, then we will begin" the program.

The state won't roll out the devices, Spitzer promised, until they've been "tested and verified from every possible perspective."

Now there's an odd notion story: Eliot Spitzer - Mr. Flexible.

It's about time.

Now, if he'd only step back and see just how dangerous his plan is and why 72 percent of New Yorkers oppose it, rather than pooh-poohing the "fear-mongering" of the "rabid right."

But then, how is it that Spitzer can be so confident that his "technology" will ever address the concerns about the plan - in which applicants would get licenses regardless of their immigration status?

"With the new anti-fraud security measures . . . our ability to prove a person is who they say they are will increase, not decrease," Spitzer boasted.

He talked of "document-scanning and -authentication machines," "radio-frequency identification chips," an "enhanced identification verification unit" and his "highly effective . . . facial recognition technology."

"Each of these security measures," he claimed, has "proven out on their own."

Apparently not.

And if Spitzer was unaware of the devices' failures, how can New Yorkers trust him when he says his program will boost security?

They can't.

Indeed, even if the gadgets work flawlessly (let alone, at all), the fact is that his plan is to let illegal immigrants get licenses that will help give them access to a range of activities - driving, boarding planes, renting apartments or Ryder vans - that could prove deadly if they're terrorists.

If Spitzer thinks fixing a few bugs in some newfangled machines will make his plan less dangerous, he's mistaken.

He needs to scrap it altogether.

It's as simple as that.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10252007/posto...le_machines.htm

[Livyjr]

THE ALBANY, NEW YORK TIMES UNION CAPITAL CONFIDENTIAL BLOG:

ITEM: A pair of western NY county clerks, first noted in the Buffalo News, say they will report illegal immigrants seeking licenses to law enforcement.

JOHN GALT RESPONDS: As well they should …

SINCE THAT IS WHAT THE EXISTING LAW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REQUIRES THEM TO DO, DICTATOR ELIOT SPITZER’S VIEWS THAT HE CAN SET ASIDE FEDERAL LAW HERE IN NYS, NOTWITHSTANDING …

And with that said, as an American citizen residing in NYS, I would like to call on Hillary Clinton to be a lot more forthcoming about her own position in this matter of giving NYS driver’s licenses to foreign nationals not in this country lawfully, in light of Hillary Clinton’s present position as an elected federal official here in NYS …

In a prior statement, Hillary Clinton is alleged to have said Spitzer’s plan made sense ….

But she never indicated how that might be ….

AND IN LIGHT OF EXISTING FEDERAL LAW, WHICH HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD BE AN EXPERT AT, GIVEN THAT SHE IS A LAWYER, A U.S. SENATOR AND A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, CAN SPITZER’S PLAN TO GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO FOREIGN NATIONALS NOT IN THIS COUNTRY LAWFULLY REALLY BE SAID TO MAKE SENSE?

OR DOES IT ENCOURAGE CONTEMPT FOR THE LAW, HERE IN NYS?

AND DOES IT PLACE NYS MOTOR VEHICLES CLERKS IN JEOPARDY OF VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW WITH RESPECT TO HARBORING OR INDUCING ILLEGAL ALIENS?

Let’s take a look, and YOU be the judge, based on the law as it is presently written, and not as Eliot Spitzer thinks it should be:

D. Alien Smuggling Felonies under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 274(a)

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 274 (Bringing in and Harboring Illegal Aliens) encompasses a range of crimes associated with illegal immigration under the rubric of “alien smuggling.”

The four major crimes under section 274(a) of INA (’bringing in,’ transporting, harboring, and ‘inducing’ illegal aliens) are described separately below.

Together they form a comprehensive definition of the federal crime of alien smuggling that prosecutors and police can use to attack the economic basis of illegal alien settlement in local jurisdictions, as well as related support activities, from the conspiracy and preparation stages in the sending country to illegal operations within the United States.

It is well established that “any person” is subject to criminal liability for section 274 felonies and that the term is to be construed broadly.

Section 274 clearly reaches public officials and government employees.

First, section 274(a)(1)(A)(iii) of INA makes it a felony for any person to (i) “conceal, harbor, or shelter from detection” (ii) any alien (iii) in any place, including any building or means of transportation, (iv) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the alien has come to, entered, or remained in the U.S. in violation of law.”

“Harboring” includes any conduct that tends to substantially help an alien to remain in the United States unlawfully.

There is no requirement that the felonious conduct be part of a process of smuggling aliens into United States or directly connected with an alien’s illegal entry.

Providing housing for illegal aliens, assistance in obtaining employment, coaching aliens to claim legal status or to use a false name, and attempts to prevent detection by the authorities have all been held to constitute harboring.

The government does not need to show intent to evade federal immigration enforcement officials, but only that the defendant’s conduct “tended directly or substantially to facilitate an alien’s remaining in the United States in violation of law.”

Taking actions that “facilitate” an alien’s employment have been held to constitute acting “in reckless disregard” of a worker’s illegal status.

Criminal liability for harboring or sheltering could arise from acceptance of a Mexican matricula consular - which, presented without proper immigration documents, is prima facie evidence of illegal alien status - by a local government agency that, for example, provided housing or utility assistance, made referrals to a public or private job assistance program, or detained matricula presenters for violation of city ordinances and released them without verifying their immigration status with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

An offer of employment plus voluntary transportation, or payment for transportation plus lodging or other arrangements, assistance in loading aliens into vehicles driven by other defendants, or providing one leg of an illegal alien’s travel within the U.S. will satisfy the furtherance element.

Third, section 274(a)(1)(A)(iv) of INA makes it a felony for any person to (i) encourage or induce(ii) an alien (iii) to come to, enter or reside in the U.S. (iv) knowing or recklessly disregarding the fact that the alien’s entry or residence is in violation of law.

This statute is intended to criminalize a broad range of activities that assist illegal aliens in the United States.

“Encourage” means to knowingly instigate, help, or advise.

“Induce” means to knowingly bring on or about, to effect, cause, or influence an act or course of conduct.

“Encouraging” includes actions that permit illegal aliens “to be more confident that they could continue to reside with impunity in the United States,” or actions that offer illegal aliens “a chance to stand equally with all other American citizens.”

To prove that an official or employee of a Georgia state or local government “encouraged or induced” illegal Mexican aliens, all that a prosecuting party needs to establish is that such persons knowingly helped or advised the aliens.

U.S. v. He, 245 F.3d 954, at 957-59 (7th Cir. 2001).

Specific actions found to constitute encouraging include counseling illegal aliens to continue working in the U.S. or assisting them to complete applications with false statements or obvious errors or omissions.

The fact that the illegal alien may be a refugee fleeing persecution is not a defense to this felony, since U.S. law and the United Nations Protocol on Refugees both require that an alien claiming asylum must report to immigration authorities “without delay” upon entry to the U.S.

Fourth, it is a felony to conspire to commit any of the bringing in, harboring, sheltering, transporting, or encouraging felonies under section 274(a)(1)(A) of INA.

Indictments for section 274(a) of INA smuggling crimes can include conspiracy as a separate offense.

The three elements of criminal conspiracy are (i) an agreement by two or more persons to engage in illegal activity, (ii) an overt act by at least one person taken in furtherance of the agreement, and (iii) intent to commit the illegal activity.

Even if the conspiracy fails to achieve its aim, it is often punished separately and as severely as the single offender crime, because a group having some illegal purpose is more dangerous than an individual who has the same purpose.

Aiding and abetting an alien smuggling offense may apply to conduct before or after the alien has entered the U.S.

The statute allows conviction for an alien smuggling felony even if not all of the elements of the alien smuggling crime are proven.

Indictments for both an alien smuggling crime and for aiding and abetting that crime are permissible.

Defendants convicted of aiding and abetting or conspiracy to commit section 274(a)(1) of INA alien smuggling felonies are subject to the same fines and prison sentences imposed for the primary offenses.

No policy or humanitarian argument has been identified by the courts that would negate the criminal mens rea of reckless disregard for the fact that aliens are present in the United States in violation of law.

Neither sanctuary nor humanitarian concern is a valid defense to either civil or criminal violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

It is illegal for non-profit, religious, or civic organizations to knowingly assist in the commission of an alien smuggling felony, regardless of claims that their members’ convictions may require them to assist aliens.

The First Amendment does not protect actions that aid illegal aliens to remain in the United States.

Illegal aliens are not a suspect class entitled to Fourteenth Amendment-based strict scrutiny of any discriminatory classification based on that status, nor are they defined by an immutable characteristic, since their status is the product of conscious unlawful action.

Identity is not a constitutionally protected privacy right, and an illegal alien has no expectation of privacy from another person’s knowledge of his or her immigration status.

University of the District of Columbia Law Review, Fall, 2004

8 D.C. L. Rev. 83 (32098 words)

IN THE AFTERMATH OF SEPTEMBER 11: DEFENDING CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE NATION’S CAPITAL: The Treatment of Immigrants: THE CHIMERA AND THE COP: LOCAL ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW

Michael M. Hethmon, Staff Attorney, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). J.D., University of Maryland School of Law, M.I.M., Thunderbird Graduate School of International Management, B.A., UCLA.

Comment by John Galt — October 26, 2007 @ 7:13 am

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=5698#comments

[Livyjr]

THE ALBANY, NEW YORK TIMES UNION CAPITAL CONFIDENTIAL BLOG:

Comment by 11thWardDem: John Galt ….

I would like you to notice something Mr. Galt.

Take a look at your posts, while usually well-founded in legal “fact” or legislative authority - you clearly don’t have an applicable understanding of how institutions work amongst one another in real life.

Of course it would be nice to just pull out the rule book or constitution whenever a conflict arises - but the institutions (both official and unofficial) we have built up in this country don’t correspond to all of that mumbo jumbo.

Yes, the rule of law is relevant and important, but doesn’t come close to satisfying the populous in its ability to solve important social problems.

New and innovative discussion on how things work on the ground, and how we would like to see them work, applied in a practical manner is the path to resolving social inequities.

Having a sound understanding of the constitution, law, history, and regulations are vital to the goal of advancing society - but they alone do not promote positive change.

No, I would argue they are designed to uphold the agreed upon status quo - even when said status quo may have been illegitimately implemented in the first place.

Three men in a room does not representation make …

JOHN GALT RESPONDS: First of all, dude, I want to thank you for your candor ….

POSITIVE FEEDBACK in here is always a good thing, afterall, and I certainly appreciate it, when I can get some, as is the case right above here with your recent post ….

And yes, it is by design and with intent that my posts are as well-founded in legal “fact” or legislative authority as I can have them be, even though I really do know that here in NYS, the law and the state Constitution are really nothing but a bunch of **** or putty in the hands of the politicians and “institutions” who work amongst one another in real life here in NYS ….

Even though the law and the state Constitution are TOTALLY WORTHLESS here in NYS, still, I am an old-fashioned dude, and so I still cleave to them, much like the Romans who pined for their lost republic after Octavian became Caesar Augustus, and turned their world upside down by becoming their DICTATOR and doing away with the RULE OF LAW, just as Eliot Spitzer is doing here in NYS, right now today …

I have been at this game of politics for some time now, 11thWardDem …

Since the mid-1960’s, actually …

And I am not really naive as to HOW things really do work out there in public here in NYS …

Where the “LAW” you get depends on how much you have to give, as compared to the other person that you wish to screw over …

And if you have no coin here in NYS, the “LAW” you get is absolutely nothing at all ….

PROTECTION, 11thWardDem ….

If you are well-to-do and politically-connected here in NYS ….

You can hook up with a politically-connected lawyer …

And for a sum, you can “PROCURE” for yourself PROTECTION FROM THE LAW …

Or IMMUNITY ….

Not the same as a “get-out-of-jail-free” card …

But better …

A “never-have-to-worry-about-going-there-in-the-first-place” card, instead …

And a SUPERSTAR in that game just happens to be running for District Attorney in Rensselaer County right now as a fellow Democrat of yours, as well as an ANNOITED ONE of Congressman Mike McNulty, Assemblyman Ron Canestrari, and the Working Families Party of Eliot Spitzer and P. David Soares fame, that being Rich McNally, the former Chief Deputy Rensselaer County District Attorney who maliciously prosecuted former Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer Paul R. Plante, P.E. back in 1990-1992 to PROTECT a political GOON out here who ran Plante down in a hit-and-run assault on Liberty Lane in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County on December 20, 1989 …

Rich McNally IS POLITICAL REALITY here in NYS, as you would see it, I think, 11thWardDem, and here I would have to agree with you …

The POLITICAL REALITY represented by Rich McNally and expressed by yourself so eloquently in here is that the “LAW” in NYS is on the side of those who can afford to buy the “LAW” …

And we countryfolks out here in Rensselaer County personally had that point made to us in spades by a federal court judge here in Albany in 2005, who ruled that “PROTECTED PEOPLE” in NYS, which is to say, those who could afford to “purchase” PROTECTION from the law in NYS, really were immune from prosecution for violating the law, IF THAT POLITICAL PROTECTION AFFORDED TO THEM BY POWERFUL PEOPLE SUCH AS ELIOT SPITZER WERE TO HAVE ANY REAL LASTING AND IMMUTABLE VALUE AS A MARKETABLE COMMODITY HERE IN NYS …

Here’s the facts supporting that federal decision, 11thWardDem …

Read them and you will see what I mean, and why, in reality, I really do agree with you, that in NYS, the law and the Constitution really are nothing but a bunch of pure BULL ****, despite the fact that I still do post the law in here, as it was written ….

And so …

III. FACTS:

On May 22, 2001, Jeffey Pelletier was issued a sewage system construction permit by the County of Rensselaer.

On July 7 (2001), PLAINTIFF (Paul R. Plante, P.E.) conducted an investigation of defendants Aiken (engineer) and McGrath’s “deliberate falsification of inspection data and fraudulent submissions” resulting in the issuance of the Pelletier permit.

During PLAINTIFF’S investigation, Pelletier assaulted him.

On August 9 (2001), defendant Reiter (Rensselaer County Director of Veterans’ Services) warned PLAINTIFF (Plante) to “back off” the Pelletier investigation because he (Pelletier) was a “protected person” in the county.

On August 17 (2001), defendant Jimino (Rensselaer County Executive) allegedly phoned PLAINTIFF (Plante) threatening to harm him if he did not stop his investigation.

Thereafter, he claims that Jimino conspired with Cybulski (County Director of Community Services) to obtain a fraudulent involuntary commitment order and a medical certification from Samaritan Hospital.

end quotes

Jeffrey Pelletier was in fact a PROTECTED PERSON in Rensselaer County ….

And WHO guaranteed that FACT was none other than your man, Eliot Spitzer ….

Back when he was still “making his bones” as NYS AG …

And so …

YOU WIN THE POINT, dude …

I must defer to your superior knowledge of how REALITY really does function here in NYS ….

Despite any laws to the contrary ….

And despite OUR Constitution …

And so …

Comment by John Galt — October 26, 2007 @ 7:50 am

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=5699#comments

[Livyjr]

THE ALBANY, NEW YORK TIMES UNION CAPITAL CONFIDENTIAL BLOG:

ITEM: Two upstate county clerks - including a Democrat appointed to the post by Spitzer - say they’ll follow the governor’s new license policy but also report any illegal immigrants who apply for the ID to federal authorities.

JOHN GALT CONSIDERS THIS: IF these clerks follow Spitzer’s PLAN and do not report these illegals, it would seem that on paper, anyway, they would be in violation of federal criminal statutes regarding harboring illegal immigrants in this country ….

And there is where this issue really does seem to lie, here, with respect to this on-going discussion about handing out NYS driver’s licenses to foreign nationals in this country illegally …

IS FEDERAL LAW STILL FEDERAL LAW, HERE IN NYS, NOW THAT ELIOT SPITZER IS GOVERNOR?

DOES ELIOT SPITZER AS NYS GOVERNOR HAVE THE AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION AND DISCRETION TO SET ASIDE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION STATUTES HERE IN NYS AND GRANT IMMUNITY TO THOSE IN NYS WHO AID AND ABET ENCOURAGING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO COME TO NYS FOR EMPLOYMENT, BECAUSE SPITZER AND HIS CROWD WANT THEM HERE TO EXPLOIT FOR THEIR CHEAP LABOR?

Spitzer says he does, of course …

While established case law on the issue seems to contradict him on that issue ….

And in the meantime, the SPITZER-ITES have had their PROPAGANDA MILL CHURNING here, trying to paint those in NYS who still believe in the LAW as “RIGHT-WINGERS” and “RACISTS” and all the other PEJORATIVES that the SPITZER-ITES can SPEW in a vain attempt to crush opposition to their PLAN to turn NYS into a destination and haven for foreign nationals not in this country legally ….

And so …

The sooner this gets to court, the better …

And WHO should be in the docket in Eliot Spitzer ….

The federal government should make a TEST CASE out of this by charging Eliot Spitzer with felony violation of federal immigration statutes ….

That would give Eliot and his team of high-powered lawyers here in NYS a real chance to “MAKE THEIR CASE” to the public …

If they do, why then, Eliot would get to go free …

If they fail, Eliot would go to federal prison …

Where he could become a jailhouse lawyer ….

Who would be loved immensely by his fellow cellmates ….

For his legal acumen …

On their behalf ….

Get them out of jail for free ….

And so …

Comment by John Galt — October 26, 2007 @ 8:12 am

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=5698#comments

[Livyjr]

THE ALBANY, NEW YORK TIMES UNION CAPITAL CONFIDENTIAL BLOG:

"New Drivers Licenses Announced (Updated)"

October 27, 2007 at 12:27 pm by Rick Karlin

Gov. Eliot Spitzer, as expected, and US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, has announced what is essentially a compromise in the governor’s mushrooming illegal alien drivers license debate.

Basically, the plan calls for a two, or really a three-track drivers license program in New York: one for illegal immigrants or others who simply don’t want the other licenses which will cost a bit more; and another that will let citizens cross the Canadian border without a passport (that will soon be a requirement).

Thirdly drivers can choose to get a federally-approved Real ID license that will let them board airplanes and enter federal buildings without presenting a passport or other proof of citizenship.

At first blush, Spitzer’s move is both a defeat and a smart tactical move.

He’s backing down on the concept to give illegal immigrants equal status; but is also defusing what has been the biggest controversy of his 10-month tenure.

Additionally he’s acknowledging members of his own party who’ve been in open revolt.

The decision comes three days 11 days before local and county elections, in which Republicans have been hammering Democrats on the issue and local Dems have in turn been distancing themselves from the governor.

In light of this decision, local Republicans have lost a big part of their anti-Spitzer hammer.

The move also comes as the Erie County Clerk Kathleen Hochul, herself a Spitzer appointee who is serving in a Democratic stronghold, had said she’d carry out the governor’s edict but would also work to have illegals arrested and deported — one of the strongest repudiations yet of the governor’s policy.

Republicans aren’t convinced, however, Sen Majority Leader Joe Bruno just put out a statement that notes the governor is still “arrogantly insisting'’ on giving licenses to illegals and Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco termed it a “flip flop'’ and claimed the govenor “cried ‘uncle’ ‘’

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=5704

[Livyjr]

THE ALBANY, NEW YORK TIMES UNION CAPITAL CONFIDENTIAL BLOG:

The local political race that I am watching, Dr. Cannon, is the race in Rensselaer County for the position of Rensselaer County District Attorney between underdog Greg Cholakis and FRONTRUNNER Rich McNally ….

McNally, the FRONTRUNNER and ODD’S-ON FAVORITE to win the race, has been endorsed for the office by such local political heavyweights as US Congressman Mike McNulty and Assemblyman Ton Canestrari, as well the Democratic party and the Working Families Party ….

The wags in the know out here in the countryside whisper that an endorsement of McNally by none other than “MR. LAW’N ORDER” Eliot “STEAMROLLER” Spitzer is said to be in the offing in the days just before the election as a HAMMER BLOW to Cholakis, who stands largely alone in this race, but for the public in Rensselaer County who are standing behind Cholakis, and supporting his campaign as an independent person, despite his Republican Party endorsement, which is seen as a definite stumbling block to support of Cholakis by many people in Rensselaer County ….

The taint of Joe Bruno and George W. Bush is on the Republicans, in the minds of too many people here in Rensselaer County ….

And so …

Anyway, Dr. Cannon, McNally’s campaign launched a new ATTACK AD this morning at 7:00 A.M. against Cholakis on WGY-AM out of Niskayuna …

All in all, I think it was a very good attack ad ….

A vey effective ad …

It was direct ….

It was hard-hitting ….

Whoever the narrator was, she had very good voice control, and diction …

When she spoke of Cholakis, her voice actually dripped with contempt over the radio airwaves and into my kitchen, as if she was a Park Avenue society hostess talking to a servant about cleaning up some dog doo that an inconsiderate party guest was tracking all over her new cashmire carpets, and Cholakis was the dog doo ….

She was comparing Cholakis to Joe Bruno’s one boy there, PRINCE KENNETH, when he had the job, and she was calling PRINCE KENNETH bad news, which nobody out here in the countryside will dispute ….

And then she was comparing Cholakis to the one who is in there now, Trish DeAngelis, and again, this narrator was calling DeAngelis bad news, which again, nobody in Rensselaer County will dispute ….

And then in a veritable coup d’grace to Cholakis, a death-blow, in tones dripping with condescension, she called Cholakis the worst of the three ….

And then, abruptly, her voice changed, and became sort of awe-filled and reverent, and she began talking about McNally as an experienced prosecutor who will keep us safe …

(OUTPOURING OF TONES OF REVERENCE)

And how McNally learned the trade of prosecuting from Jim Canfield ….

(MORE SPONTANEOUS OUTPOURING OF REVERENCE)

While all Cholakis had ever done in life was to defend criminals as a public defender …

Cholakis has never prosecuted, she said ….

(DRIPPING TONES OF CONDESCENSION)

And that will resonate with people out here in the countryside, Dr. Cannon ….

And so ….

That’s very effective use of psychology as a political tool by the McNally camp, is my thought, anyway ….

McNally is SWIFT-BOATING Cholakis, Dr. Cannon ….

And he is doing it very effectively ….

And like John Kerry when it was being done to him ….

All people are hearing from Cholakis is SILENCE ….

And that is not good, Dr. Cannon ….

McNally has picked the smart stratgy ….

Smear Cholakis with little sound-bites of just a few words that will require sentences or paragraphs from Cholakis to refute …..

And Cholakis is running out of the time needed to do that ….

And people digest soundbites …

They choke on sentences ….

Paragraphs are beyond them ….

And so ….

Time will soon tell ….

But I have sick feeling in my stomach …..

That Rich McNally is going to sweep this election ….

And hell for us common folks out here in the countryside is going to begin when he gets in the office and starts paying back the favors he owes to the special interests and the land development crowd who support him, so he can produce slick, high-quality ATTACK ADS such as this one which aired on WGY up here this morning ….

And so ……

Comment by John Galt — October 27, 2007 @ 4:01 pm

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=5699#comments

[Livyjr]

"Feds strike ID deal over NY licenses"

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press

Last updated: 5:12 p.m., Saturday, October 27, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration and New York cut a deal Saturday to create a new generation of super-secure driver's licenses for U.S. citizens, but also allow illegal immigrants to get a version.

New York is the fourth state to reach an agreement on federally approved secure licenses, after Arizona, Vermont and Washington.

The issue is pressing for border states, where new and tighter rules are soon to go into effect for crossings.

The Arizona deal announced in August does not contemplate issuing licenses to illegal immigrants, said Jeanine L'Ecuyer, a spokeswoman for Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano.

The proposed Arizona version would not be available to anyone illegally in the country, since one of the intended uses of the 3-in-1 identity card would be to prove U.S. citizenship, L'Ecuyer said.

It could be used as a license, as proof of citizenship and as a passport-like document valid for travel in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

It would be voluntary and available for a small extra fee.

"It is something that clearly would not be available for people who are in the county illegally," L'Ecuyer said.

The New York deal comes about one month after Gov. Eliot Spitzer announced a plan whereby illegal immigrants with a valid foreign passport could obtain a license.

Saturday's agreement with the Homeland Security Department will create a three-tier license system in New York.

It is the largest state to sign on so far to the government's post-Sept. 11 effort to make identification cards more secure.

Spitzer, who has faced much criticism on the issue, said the deal means New York "will usher in the most secure licensing system in the nation."

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he was not happy that New York intended to issue IDs to illegal immigrants.

But he said there was nothing he could do to stop it.

"I don't endorse giving licenses to people who are not here legally, but federal law does allow states to make that choice," Chertoff said.

The governor made clear he is going forward with his plan allowing licenses for illegal immigrants.

But advocates on both sides of the debate said Spitzer had caved to pressure by adopting the administration's stance on tighter security standards for most driver's licenses.

GOP Rep. Thomas Reynolds, who represents the Buffalo suburbs, said he was glad Washington had heeded his concerns about border identification.

But he said he feared that Spitzer "is taking this state down a risky path" by giving any kind of license to illegal immigrants.

Under the compromise, New York will produce an "enhanced driver's license" that will be as secure as a passport.

It is intended for people who soon will need to meet such ID requirements, even for a short drive to Canada.

A second version of the license will meet new federal standards of the Real ID Act.

That law is designed to make it much harder for illegal immigrants or would-be terrorists to obtain licenses.

New York has between 500,000 and 1 million undocumented immigrants, many of whom are driving without a license and car insurance or with fake driver's licenses, Spitzer said in September when he announced his executive order.

The administration has not finalized standards for Real ID-compliant driver's licenses.

Spitzer said he believed the new licenses would meet those standards or come very close.

Many states say it is too expensive to comply with the law; seven of them have passed legislation opposing Real ID.

Neither the governor nor Chertoff would say how much it would cost to put the system in place or who would pay for it.

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties, said Spitzer's move effectively revives a faltering ID program.

"The governor's stunning lack of courage is aiding the Bush administration in clamping down on civil liberties," Lieberman said.

------

On the Net:

Homeland Security Department background on Real ID: http://tinyurl.com/yoeo9w

N.Y. Governor's Office: http://www.ny.gov/governor/

[Livyjr]

"Clerks say they'll report illegals who apply for licenses"

By CAROLYN THOMPSON, Associated Press

Last updated: 5:53 p.m., Thursday, October 25, 2007

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Erie County Clerk Kathleen Hochul says she'll follow Gov. Eliot Spitzer's directive to accept driver's license applications from illegal immigrants.

Then she'll follow the law, she said, and report the applicants to authorities for possible arrest and deportation.

"We just don't want to be in any sense facilitating the furtherance of illegal activity, and that's really what we're being asked to do," Hochul said Thursday.

Niagara County Clerk Wayne Jagow said he, too, has been talking with law enforcement about reporting suspicious applicants.

"Illegal is illegal," he said.

With their positions known, neither of the western New York clerks expects long lines of illegal immigrants at their county auto bureaus.

But an influx of applicants anywhere would surprise Hochul.

"I don't see anybody who is trying to hide in this country illegally, trying to stay in the shadows, trying to stay undetected, walking into an auto bureau, letting us take their picture, letting us capture their signature electronically and getting their address," she said.

Spitzer last month reversed a 2002 executive order by his predecessor, Gov. George Pataki, that required people seeking a license to provide a Social Security number.

The policy change will allow illegal immigrants who have valid foreign passports to obtain driver's licenses.

A Spitzer spokeswoman said the clerks will not know for certain whether applicants are in the country illegally because they won't be required to provide documents demonstrating their immigration status.

"Any clerk making a report to federal immigration officials regarding a license applicant's immigration status will be reporting only their subjective suspicions regarding an individual's status," spokeswoman Jennifer Givner said Thursday.

The governor said the policy change will encourage those who are driving illegally to get insurance and improve public security by creating records for tens of thousands of people whose presence in the state is otherwise undocumented.

As many as 1 million immigrants live in New York, he said.

Richard A. Clarke, a former counterterrorism adviser to presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, endorsed the governor's plan last week.

But opposition among clerks who oversee the auto bureaus has not waned.

A majority of the state County Clerks Association oppose the plan.

Several say they will ignore it.

Earlier this week, Rensselaer County Clerk Frank Merola filed a lawsuit against the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles and DMV Commissioner David Swarts to try to block the policy change.

Jagow worries the change will "water down" an identification document heavily relied upon for voting and travel.

"The document, the driver's license, is going to lose its credibility," he said.

Jagow said he is conferring with the Niagara County district attorney and sheriff to develop a reporting procedure for suspicious applicants.

In Erie County, Sheriff Timothy Howard said his officers would respond to calls by clerks who report a possible illegal immigrant.

[Livyjr]

To: Elizabeth Benjamin @ nydailynews.com

From: John Galt

RE: Somebody is sabotaging your BLOG ...

EB, I was able to post for a couple of minutes yesterday afternoon, and almost immediately, I was shut back out again, and as of 6:47 AM Sunday, I am still shut out ...

It is hard to believe that this is some accident ...

Someone is screwing with your BLOG is my thought, shutting YOU down by shutting out the people who would post on your BLOG ...

Nobody has posted a single word besides my couple of posts since Saturday mid-day ...

Comment Submission Error

Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:

You are not allowed to post comments.

[Livyjr]

AND AS OUR EXPERIMENT IN DEMOCRACY HERE IN NEW YORK STATE USING THE BLOGS AS A MODERN METHOD OF POSTING MESSAGES TO THE PUBLIC ON ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO US AS CITIZENS CONTINUES, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY JOHN GALT'S LAST SUBSTANTIVE POST TO THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DAILY POLITICS BLOG BEFORE SOMEONE AT THAT PUBLICATION APPARENTLY SHUT DOWN THE PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO THAT BLOG TO POST COMMENTS:

THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DAILY POLITICS BLOG:

Posted by topo: BTW, here's an interesting topic.

The lunatics at Liz's old gig, CapCon, are now checking IP adresses because they say they're worried about sock puppets for elected officials and such?

They outed one guy.

Who cares?

Sock puppets are a part of the blogosphere.

We at the DP have no problem spotting and dealing with a** kissers for their bosses.

It can pretty amusing, in fact.

I hope that Liz never goes down this road of invading people's privacy just because they express their opinion.

JOHN GALT RESPONDS: As a disabled veteran, I am interested in citizenship here in America, topo ...

And as such, I am interested in what is available on the subject to schoolchildren on the internet ....

And in the course of my searches on the subject, I came across something called EDUCATION FOR FREEDOM - LESSON PLANS FOR TEACHING THE FIRST AMENDMENT wherein the following was stated, to wit:

First Principles

The First Amendment applies to all Americans.

Our nation affirms the truth of inalienable rights for all, working for more than 200 years to make the ideals expressed in the First Amendment a reality in the lives of all Americans.

These rights were so important to early citizens and their leaders, many states refused to ratify the Constitution of the United States without the promise of amendments that would protect individual rights.

1. The First Amendment affirms the freedom of the individual.

American government is based upon the concept that all human beings are born with certain rights or freedoms.

The First Amendment guards these rights by prohibiting the government from denying citizens their rights.

The government does not give us our rights.

Its role is to guard the rights that we already have.

We, as individuals, have freedom of conscience.

Religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, protects the beliefs of everyone, not just those of recognized faith communities.

We are free to worship — or not to worship — as we choose.

The government may not tell us what church, synagogue, mosque or temple to attend or whether, where and how we should pray.

As individuals, our ideas and beliefs are our own.

We are free to develop and express our thoughts.

Through our free press, we have access to a vast range of information.

We may criticize our government if we see fit to do so.

Judgments about ideas are for individuals to make, not for government to decree.

The First Amendment guarantees we may associate with people and join groups of our own choosing.

We may ask or lobby the government to correct certain wrongs or support our beliefs.

2. Free expression is the foundation — the cornerstone — of democracy.

The First Amendment is based on the premise that people who can freely share information (especially about their government) will be informed and able to make sound choices about what leaders to elect, what forms of government they want, what laws to enact.

The freedom to exchange information about the government enables people to seek alternatives to bad government.

end quotes

THE FREEDOM TO EXCHANGE INFORMATION ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT ENABLES PEOPLE TO SEEK ALTERNATIVES TO BAD GOVERNMENT!

That is what is being taught to schoolchildren here in America, topo ....

And since I believe that that sentiment is germane to what you are saying above here about censorship on the BLOGS .....

Or chilling free expression of political thoughts and sentiments ...

I thought to share that with you ...

And so ....

Posted by: John Galt | October 26, 2007 7:41 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypoli...115.html?page=1

[Livyjr]

"Police knew details of missing guns - Albany chief has claimed no records of assault weapons illegally obtained by officers"

By BRENDAN J. LYONS, Senior writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Sunday, October 28, 2007

ALBANY -- Albany Police Department officials wrote a letter to the federal government four years ago saying the department had lost 12 machine guns that were part of an arsenal of assault weapons illegally purchased by dozens of officers in the mid-1990s.

The letter, which was sent to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Washington, D.C., was signed by then-Police Chief Robert Wolfgang.

A copy was recently shared with the Times Union by a source with access to the department's records.

The letter confirms that top city police officials knew how many of the dangerous weapons had been secretly obtained through the department, and how many were gone.

It also raises questions about why current Chief James W. Tuffey has made inconsistent statements about the issue at two recent City Council committee meetings.

At the second meeting -- a police budget meeting -- the council's president was shouted down by council members as she pressed the chief for a fuller explanation.

The first meeting took place in late September, a month after the gun purchases were first disclosed in a Times Union story, as Tuffey went before the city's Public Safety Committee and apologized to the public.

He said mistakes had been made by previous administrations and said he was tightening policies to prevent them from happening again.

Tuffey did not tell the committee that any guns were missing, and he characterized the internal investigation as concluded.

Near the end of the committee meeting, Councilwoman Barbara Smith questioned Tuffey about the guns that had been recovered by the department.

Tuffey responded: "We had every one in our possession from when they were retrieved by OPS (Office of Professional Standards/internal affairs) back in 2001 and 2002, except for the one ... (but) we got that back so that that one was destroyed also."

Moments later, after Tuffey said the department had recovered and destroyed 42 assault rifles, an unidentified councilwoman is heard on an audio recording of the meeting questioning him about how many guns were involved and how many officers purchased them.

Tuffey gave an incomplete answer.

"The other question is, do you know the exact number of weapons and then the exact number of officers who purchased the weapons?" the councilwoman can be heard asking on the recording.

"I don't know the exact number of officers, I know some officers had multiple."

"But I know we destroyed 42 weapons," Tuffey said.

The Times Union has since reported more than 42 guns were involved.

Common Council President Shawn Morris and Public Safety Committee Chairman James Scalzo said the police chief's statements that night led them to believe all of the guns were recovered and destroyed, and that there were only 42 weapons.

On Oct. 8, after confirming information from law enforcement sources, the Times Union reported that an unknown number of the machine guns, which firearms experts said could now be worth thousands of dollars each, were never recovered by the department.

The missing guns are still registered to the police department.

By buying them through the department, officers were able to obtain the restricted weapons at sharply discounted, tax-exempt prices.

They are automatic weapons and were available for sale only to police agencies and military units.

It may be a felony under both state and federal law for an individual to be in possession of one of the guns, which were purchased for about $200 each by more than 30 officers and by an Albany County assistant district attorney.

The guns may not be transferred or sold by the Albany police force without permission from the federal government, ATF officials said.

The guns, as well as ammunition and cleaning kits, were purchased in multiple orders in 1993, 1994 and 1995, people with knowledge of the situation said.

A former assistant chief, William M. Murray, a gun enthusiast who has since died, signed official departmental letters that were used to buy the weapons from a Vermont manufacturer.

"These weapons will be used for official duties only, purchased by the department for departmental use only," one of the letters from Murray states.

In fact, after the issue was exposed in an Aug. 26 Times Union story, Tuffey acknowledged the guns were never used by the department and that there was no policy to use them.

Departmental sources said the guns were unsuitable for urban policing and that no officers received formal training on their use.

Tuffey's admissions came after city officials last year said the weapons were part of the department's arsenal and used in crime-fighting.

The city made that assertion in a letter denying a Times Union appeal under the Freedom of Information Law to review records related to the purchases.

Several Common Council members said city lawyers and Mayor Jerry Jennings never told them about the gun scandal, the newspaper's FOIL request or the lawsuit filed by the Times Union last year to obtain the records.

The case is pending.

City attorneys recently asked a judge for permission to submit new arguments to withhold the documents on the grounds they are personnel records.

The newspaper's Oct. 8 story on the guns set off a fiery confrontation two nights later at a Common Council finance meeting at which Tuffey presented his budget.

Under questioning at the end of the meeting, Tuffey stopped short of acknowledging weapons were missing.

Morris, the council president, was shouted down as she tried to ask her questions by at least two council members who defended Tuffey and joined the chief in criticizing the newspaper for reporting on the gun scandal.

"What's the point of bringing this up 10 years ago, all kidding aside," Scalzo can be heard asking Morris on a tape of the meeting.

"You smell blood in the water and now you want to go for the blood, that's what it's about."

Last week, Scalzo defended his actions, saying he didn't believe it was proper to talk about the machine guns during a finance meeting.

He said the Public Safety Committee, which he heads, will continue to seek answers.

Morris said it's routine for council members to be attacked when they raise questions about controversies such as allegations of police misconduct.

"There is just that tendency to keep things quiet, to have conversations rather than open discussion, and to view the actual just questioning of procedures and policy as personal attacks against whoever is there," Morris said.

"At the same time, we are left as a council without the real information that we need because we don't get things in writing."

"We are not presented with actual records and we're left to piecemeal things together from conversations."

The council has subpoena power but has not invoked it in the 14 years Morris has been a councilwoman, she said.

Tuffey denied misleading city leaders.

He urged Morris and others to listen to the tape of the Sept. 27 Public Safety Committee meeting.

"I never lie and I never will lie."

"... I said to you that all the guns we had in our possession were destroyed," Tuffey said.

"I don't know how many guns were purchased. ... I don't know."

"There's no records, guys."

The document reviewed by the Times Union last week showed that four years ago the department had precise records regarding the weapons, including serial numbers, makes and models.

Tuffey said he had never seen the letter written by Wolfgang.

Neither Tuffey nor his two predecessors as chief -- James Turley and Wolfgang -- ever briefed the Common Council about the gun scandal before it was exposed in the Times Union two months ago, several council members said.

Wolfgang, who was chief when the illegal purchases were discovered in December 2002, said he could not recall details of the internal investigation or the letter he wrote to the ATF in January 2003.

"Please be advised that the following weapons, registered with BATF to the Albany City Police Department ... are not accounted for," the letter states, listing 12 guns.

"Currently the departmental records identifying the officers who possessed the weapons cannot be located."

A person in the department who requested anonymity said a few of the guns, but not all of them, were later recovered, after Wolfgang wrote the letter.

"I don't recall the particulars around it."

"My involvement in that investigation was limited," Wolfgang said last week.

"As chief, I suspect that I probably just was the one who had to sign the submission form or report it to the agency."

Wolfgang retired from the department in 2004.

He said the gun investigation was handled by former Public Safety Commissioner John C. Nielsen, who could not be reached for comment, and Assistant Chief Anthony Bruno, who was then in charge of internal affairs.

Dozens of the machine guns were discovered missing from the department during an unrelated federal criminal investigation of a Colonie gun store, B & J Guns, in late 2002.

Most of them were recovered.

Joseph Greene, a spokesman for the New York field division of the ATF, said his agency is not planning to open an investigation into the missing guns.

"They did the right thing notifying ATF, but it still to me is an internal issue," Greene said.

"You've got an internal problem."

"You've got to find your machine guns."

At the recent finance committee meeting Tuffey said there is no urgency.

"Guys, I got to be very blunt with you; this happened 10 years ago."

"I think it's totally unfair that I'm taking the hit," he told the finance committee.

"This is not a priority of mine."

"This is a priority as I get to it."

"My priority since I came in is to cut crime in the city."

But on Friday, Tuffey said he has been working recently with the ATF to clarify the incident.

"How tough do you think it is coming in and finding these things?" asked Tuffey, referring to his return to the department, as chief, in December 2005 after a 10-year absence.

"I'm working myself, personally, with the new acting head of this ATF office so that we can resolve this once and for all."

Brendan J. Lyons can be reached at 454-5547 or by e-mail at blyons@timesunion.com.