Full Version: VIDEO OF ASSAULT APPROVED BY SOTOMAYOR ON YOUTUBE
Did you ever destroy official government records because they were inconvenient, Arneoker?
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 7 2009, 04:22 PM) 
And to conclude all that would have happened on that day I would have to review evidence you don't think anyone here needs to see.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 2 2009, 02:04 PM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 2 2009, 01:45 PM)
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 2 2009, 03:05 PM)
"IF WE DON'T SILENCE THIS SON OF A BITCH, HE IS GOING BACK TO THE FBI WITH MORE EVIDENCE!"
"WE NEED YOUR HELP IN SHUTTING HIM UP FOR GOOD!"
How did you come up with that quote, Livyjr?
Did you hear it with your own ears?
It is what the Plante case was all about, Arneoker ....
Haven't you bothered to LISTEN to Jeffrey Pelletier on that videotape?
And it is in the FACTS of the case as decided by the district court judge:
III. FACTS:
On July 7 (2001), Plante 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 Plante's investigation, Pelletier assaulted him.
On August 9 (2001), defendant Reiter (Rensselaer County Director of Veterans’ Services) warned 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 Plante threatening to harm him if he did not stop his investigation.
end quotes
Those FACTS can be found at page 600 of the 609-page RECORD that Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino submitted to Judge Sotomayor in this Plante appeal ....
As the FACTS clearly state, Plante was conducting an investigation and he was told or warned to BACK OFF ....
That occurred in front of some twenty veterans at a public gathering, by the way ...
He didn't ....
So Rensselaer County followed through with its threats to harm Plante by actually harming him ....
Which they did very well ...
Afterall, Arneoeker, what is the sense of the government merely threatening people?
A threat is only good when you do follow through on it, in a manner that is very visible, so that as many people as possible get the message, loud and clear:
"IF YOU WANT SOME OF WHAT HE JUST GOT, THEN BY GOD, YOU JUST TRY THE SAME THINGS THAT HE DID!"
And in this Plante case, we know what those things Plante did are to get himself harmed by Rensselaer County, by reference to the OFFICIAL FACTS in the matter that Sotomayor had before her in this Plante appeal that was buried ...
And then Jimino requested Sotomayor to give her a PASS ....
And here we are, Arneoker ....
Here we are ....
And so ...
Arneoker ....
PUH-LEEZE!
You are confusing me here with Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jmino and Obama Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor ....
There is no evidence that I am withholding from you in here ...
Absolutely none ....
I was one of those citizens up here who wanted to see this case come to trial, so that all of the evidence that Sotomayor buried could see the light of day in a jury trial ...
Yes, Arneoker ....
An open jury trial ...
That is what I wanted to see ....
But alas, you know what I am saying ....
And so ...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 7 2009, 05:24 PM)
Isn't this the Dr. Cox who released Plante pretty quickly?
This is the Dr. Billy Cox, Arneoker, who released Plante VERY quickly once the Albany Police Officer made it incandescentlyclear to Dr. Billy that he, Dr. Billy, was holding a man in custody against his will, which in New York State is tantamount to KIDNAPPING or ABDUCTION, which is a serious crime up here ....
When the police officer made it clear to Dr. Billy that the police officer was going to leave the VA and head for the office of a judge in Albany to report that he was the witness to a serious crime being perpetrated in the Stratton VA against a New York State citizen by Dr. Billy, Dr. Billy saw the wisdom of complying with the law and Constitution by immediately releasing Plante from custody ....
But that was after Plante had been in custody in a cage like an animal for several hours ....
And the fact that Dr. Billy released Plante DID NOT negate the issuance of the FRAUDULENT PSYCHIATRIC ARREST ORDER issued by the politically-connected doctors at Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York, who had PRE-ADMITTED Plante to the secure mental facility of the Samaritan Hospital in Troy despite the fact that they had never seen or examined Plante beforehand as is required by some words on a piece of paper called LAW in New York state ....
And so ...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 7 2009, 05:24 PM)
Are there committed people who typically stay in his custody until they are finally declared okay?
Who can possibly know that, Arneoker ....
And how can anyone find out?
And who is going to risk looking in the first place?
Dr. Billy is located behind locked doors, Arneoker, with tight security ....
Do you think that perhaps you could just waltz in there and demand to be let in to that secure facility so that you can ask Dr. Billy what he is really doing to people in there?
HEY!
I know ....
Maybe you can have the federal government conduct an investigation of itself to see if it is doing anything wrong by abducting people from the lobby of the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York for incarceration in Dr. Billy's secure mental facility ....
Yeah ....
I bet they would be all over Dr. Billy in a heartbeat ...
As for us, we know what happened to Plante in there, because he was actually in there ....
Veterans are kept in there like animals in cages, Arneoker ....
Do they belong in those cages?
We don't know, but we do know that Plante DID NOT belong in one of those cages, where he would have been stripped of his clothing and medicated, forcefully, if needed ....
There are a lot of BIG MUSCLE DUDES associated with that facility, Arneoker ....
They make sure that you take your meds whether you need them or not ....
AND ....
If the veteran is on compensation, by declaring the veteran mentally incompetent, the VA can take over on the veteran's pension, Arneoker ....
Steal that money, in essence ....
Which gives Dr. Billy an incentive to declare people like Plante in need of continued forced incarceration ....
And so ...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 7 2009, 05:24 PM)
Or maybe Plante was in his custody pending committment, which in this case never happened.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 8 2005, 06:18 PM)
TO: Hon. Gary L. Sharpe, Federal District Judge, Northern District of New York
Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:
1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.
I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.
3.PLAINTIFF commenced the instant action by the filing a SUMMONS and COMPLAINT on June 18, 2003.
Subsequently, the Court issued a Decision and Conditional Order of Dismissal on July 17, 2003.
In the order, PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to amend his COMPLAINT to comply with the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
By order of Judge Hurd, PLAINTIFF, in order to avoid dismissal, was required to file an AMENDED COMPLAINT by August 29, 2003.
PLAINTIFF filed his AMENDED COMPLAINT on August 22, 2003 and DEFENDANTS were required to answer or move against the AMENDED COMPLAINT by November 10, 2003.
The RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS served their ANSWER to AMENDED COMPLAINT on November 10, 2003.
The remainder of the DEFENDANTS moved separately to dismiss the AMENDED COMPLAINT for the failure to state a cause of action pursuant to RULE 12(b)(6) of the FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE.
The motions to dismiss are scheduled for a hearing before this Court on September 28, 2004.
4. On or about August 13, 2004, PLAINTIFF served the instant motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin DEFENDANTS from treating the 9.45 order issued on August 22, 2001 as valid.
5. As more fully detailed in the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS' Memorandum of Law in Opposition, PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.
6. This matter arises from a dispute between PLAINTIFF and one of his neighbors regarding the issuance of a sewage construction permit by the Rensselaer County Department of Health in July 2001.
In August 2001, PLAINTIFF met with various members of the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS regarding the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the sewage construction permit.
7. ***** On the morning of August 22, 2001, Carol Fiorino, a registered nurse with Samaritan Hospital, was contacted regarding the actions of PLAINTIFF.
8. Ms. Fiorino WAS INFORMED BY A RELIABLE SOURCE that PLAINTIFF had a history of psychiatric illness and had made numerous threats against his neighbor to various DEFENDANTS herein.
Ms. Fiorino reported the information conveyed to her to John Christian Braaten, M.D., a member of the staff of the Good Samaritan Hospital Behavioral Health Crisis Department.
UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY DR. BRAATEN, HE EXERCISED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY pursuant to NYS Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 and 9.40 and CERTIFIED THAT AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" to Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility was warranted.
A copy of the EMERGENCY ADMISSION FORM executed by Dr. Braaten is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
9. The Department of Veterans Affairs Police at the Stratton VA Medical Center in Albany, New York were notified regarding Plaintiff's history and actions.
The VA Police contacted New York State Trooper, Chris O'Brien, regarding PLAINTIFF, and obtained a copy of the DIRECT ADMISSION paperwork.
10. Around noontime on August 22, 2001, PLAINTIFF presented himself voluntarily at the emergency room of the VAMC FOR TREATMENT.
While at the VAMC, PLAINTIFF was evaluated by William F. Cox, M.D., IN THE SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.
Shortly after the arrival of an Albany, New York Police Officer on PLAINTIFF's behalf, PLAINTIFF was released from the VAMC ....
AT NO TIME WAS PLAINTIFF PICKED UP OR HELD IN CONNECTION WITH THE 9.45 order.
DATED: September 20, 2004
Albany, New York
Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:
1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.
I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.
3.PLAINTIFF commenced the instant action by the filing a SUMMONS and COMPLAINT on June 18, 2003.
Subsequently, the Court issued a Decision and Conditional Order of Dismissal on July 17, 2003.
In the order, PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to amend his COMPLAINT to comply with the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
By order of Judge Hurd, PLAINTIFF, in order to avoid dismissal, was required to file an AMENDED COMPLAINT by August 29, 2003.
PLAINTIFF filed his AMENDED COMPLAINT on August 22, 2003 and DEFENDANTS were required to answer or move against the AMENDED COMPLAINT by November 10, 2003.
The RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS served their ANSWER to AMENDED COMPLAINT on November 10, 2003.
The remainder of the DEFENDANTS moved separately to dismiss the AMENDED COMPLAINT for the failure to state a cause of action pursuant to RULE 12(b)(6) of the FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE.
The motions to dismiss are scheduled for a hearing before this Court on September 28, 2004.
4. On or about August 13, 2004, PLAINTIFF served the instant motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin DEFENDANTS from treating the 9.45 order issued on August 22, 2001 as valid.
5. As more fully detailed in the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS' Memorandum of Law in Opposition, PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.
6. This matter arises from a dispute between PLAINTIFF and one of his neighbors regarding the issuance of a sewage construction permit by the Rensselaer County Department of Health in July 2001.
In August 2001, PLAINTIFF met with various members of the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS regarding the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the sewage construction permit.
7. ***** On the morning of August 22, 2001, Carol Fiorino, a registered nurse with Samaritan Hospital, was contacted regarding the actions of PLAINTIFF.
8. Ms. Fiorino WAS INFORMED BY A RELIABLE SOURCE that PLAINTIFF had a history of psychiatric illness and had made numerous threats against his neighbor to various DEFENDANTS herein.
Ms. Fiorino reported the information conveyed to her to John Christian Braaten, M.D., a member of the staff of the Good Samaritan Hospital Behavioral Health Crisis Department.
UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY DR. BRAATEN, HE EXERCISED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY pursuant to NYS Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 and 9.40 and CERTIFIED THAT AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" to Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility was warranted.
A copy of the EMERGENCY ADMISSION FORM executed by Dr. Braaten is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
9. The Department of Veterans Affairs Police at the Stratton VA Medical Center in Albany, New York were notified regarding Plaintiff's history and actions.
The VA Police contacted New York State Trooper, Chris O'Brien, regarding PLAINTIFF, and obtained a copy of the DIRECT ADMISSION paperwork.
10. Around noontime on August 22, 2001, PLAINTIFF presented himself voluntarily at the emergency room of the VAMC FOR TREATMENT.
While at the VAMC, PLAINTIFF was evaluated by William F. Cox, M.D., IN THE SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.
Shortly after the arrival of an Albany, New York Police Officer on PLAINTIFF's behalf, PLAINTIFF was released from the VAMC ....
AT NO TIME WAS PLAINTIFF PICKED UP OR HELD IN CONNECTION WITH THE 9.45 order.
DATED: September 20, 2004
Albany, New York
Arneoker ....
Let me go out of my way here to assure you that I see nothing at all that you are asking as "hair-splitting" ....
Here you are, confronted with a case where it is alleged that a U.S. Supreme Court justice has lied and buried evidence, and that has shaken your world to its core ....
And I can undertand that, Arneoker ....
Dreams die hard, don't they?
As to the lies that were told, Arneoker, I am referring you to this September 20, 2004 affirmation of attorney Shawn T. Nash, Esq., IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 that I have posted for you above here ....
In addition to willfully perjuring himself with impunity in that affirmation, attorney Nash makes it incandescently clear that the doctors at Samaritan Hospital had executed DIRECT ADMISSION PAPERWORK for Plante ....
DO NOT STOP AT GO!
PUT HIM RIGHT INTO A CAGE AND GET THE NEEDLE IN HIS ARM!
So yes, Arneoker, Plante was already unlawfully committed by the time he arrived at the Stratton VA Hospital and asked for sanctuary .....
And so ...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 7 2009, 05:24 PM)
Or maybe Plante was in his custody pending committment, which in this case never happened.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 8 2005, 06:18 PM)
TO: Hon. Gary L. Sharpe, Federal District Judge, Northern District of New York
Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:
1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.
I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.
A copy of the EMERGENCY ADMISSION FORM executed by Dr. Braaten is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
9. The Department of Veterans Affairs Police at the Stratton VA Medical Center in Albany, New York were notified regarding Plaintiff's history and actions.
The VA Police contacted New York State Trooper, Chris O'Brien, regarding PLAINTIFF, and obtained a copy of the DIRECT ADMISSION paperwork.
DATED: September 20, 2004
Albany, New York
Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:
1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.
I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.
A copy of the EMERGENCY ADMISSION FORM executed by Dr. Braaten is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
9. The Department of Veterans Affairs Police at the Stratton VA Medical Center in Albany, New York were notified regarding Plaintiff's history and actions.
The VA Police contacted New York State Trooper, Chris O'Brien, regarding PLAINTIFF, and obtained a copy of the DIRECT ADMISSION paperwork.
DATED: September 20, 2004
Albany, New York
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 9 2005, 06:26 AM)
EXCERPTS FROM RECORDS OF DR. WILLIAM COX OF ALBANY, NEW YORK VA HOSPITAL ON AUGUST 22, 2001 CONCERNING THIS MATTER:
"Neither Mr. Reiter nor Mr. Shea are credentialed mental health providers, and PLAINTIFF was never examined at Good Samaritan Hospital or any other facility prior to coming here."
signed,
William F. Cox, MD
08/22/01
1602 HOURS
"Neither Mr. Reiter nor Mr. Shea are credentialed mental health providers, and PLAINTIFF was never examined at Good Samaritan Hospital or any other facility prior to coming here."
signed,
William F. Cox, MD
08/22/01
1602 HOURS
DIRECT ADMISSION PAPERWORK, Arneoker ...
IT MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS ....
Except by law as it is written on some flimsy pieces of paper in New York State, Dr. John Christian Braaten would have had to actually see and examine Plante, which of course, he never did ....
And we know that because in his OFFICIAL REPORT, Dr. Billy at the Stratton VA made it patently clear that Plante had never been examined by Braaten at any time before Braaten UNLAWFULLY issued the FRAUDULENT arrest order that forms the basis of this case ...
AND BRAATEN GOT TO SKATE, Arneoker ....
THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO HIM ...
BECAUSE THANKS TO PEOPLE LIKE OBAMA SUPEME COURT JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, THE LAW IN NEW YORK STATE IS NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF BULL****, AND CORRUPTION RULES ...
And so .....
IS IT ANY DIFFERENT DOWN IN VIRGINIA?
And so ...
And yes, Arneoker ....
I am as passionate about this case as tomhye used to be about the Armenian Genocide when he was still posting in here ...
And for the same reasons, I would say - INJUSTICES COMMITTED AGAINST PEOPLE BY "GOVERNMENTS" ...
Except that the Armenian Genocide occurred in another country to people who were not American citizens ....
Whereas this happened right here in my own community to an American citizen ....
And so ...
I am as passionate about this case as tomhye used to be about the Armenian Genocide when he was still posting in here ...
And for the same reasons, I would say - INJUSTICES COMMITTED AGAINST PEOPLE BY "GOVERNMENTS" ...
Except that the Armenian Genocide occurred in another country to people who were not American citizens ....
Whereas this happened right here in my own community to an American citizen ....
And so ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 31 2009, 03:01 PM)
Speaking at Duke in 2005, Sotomayor declared: “(The) court of appeals is where policy is made."
"I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law I know.”
She and the audience joined in the laughter.
Who were they laughing at?
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
"I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law I know.”
She and the audience joined in the laughter.
Who were they laughing at?
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 8 2005, 06:18 PM)
TO: Hon. Gary L. Sharpe, Federal District Judge, Northern District of New York
Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:
1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.
I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.
8. Ms. Fiorino WAS INFORMED BY A RELIABLE SOURCE that PLAINTIFF had a history of psychiatric illness and had made numerous threats against his neighbor to various DEFENDANTS herein.
Ms. Fiorino reported the information conveyed to her to John Christian Braaten, M.D., a member of the staff of the Good Samaritan Hospital Behavioral Health Crisis Department.
UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY DR. BRAATEN, HE EXERCISED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY pursuant to NYS Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 and 9.40 and CERTIFIED THAT AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" to Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility was warranted.
DATED: September 20, 2004
Albany, New York
Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:
1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.
I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.
8. Ms. Fiorino WAS INFORMED BY A RELIABLE SOURCE that PLAINTIFF had a history of psychiatric illness and had made numerous threats against his neighbor to various DEFENDANTS herein.
Ms. Fiorino reported the information conveyed to her to John Christian Braaten, M.D., a member of the staff of the Good Samaritan Hospital Behavioral Health Crisis Department.
UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY DR. BRAATEN, HE EXERCISED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY pursuant to NYS Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 and 9.40 and CERTIFIED THAT AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" to Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility was warranted.
DATED: September 20, 2004
Albany, New York
WHO were they laughing at?
They were laughing at us, Arneoker ....
Yes, they were ....
Well ....
Okay, maybe not you, since you are down in Virginia, where Sotomayor had no direct power to set "POLICY" as a federal appeals court judge such as she did in New York State, which was her "TURF" ...
Where "SETTING POLICY" is a euphemism for her telling people in politics what it was that she was going to let them get away with, despite any laws or constitutional provisions to the contrary ....
Rub judge Sonia's back, Arnoker, and she will purr for you in reurn ...
Dr. John Christian Braaten of Northeast Health, Inc's Samaritan Hosptial in Troy, New York had absolutely NO statutory authority whatsoever under the law as it is actually written in New York State to issue PSYCHIATRIC ARREST ORDERS for persons that he has never even laid eyes on ....
Nor did he have any statutory authority to pre-admit the licensed engineer Paul R. Plante into the secure psychiatric facility of Northeast Health. Inc's Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York ....
BUT ....
HEY!
To Sonia Sotomayor, who now wears the robes of a U.S. Supreme Court justice, that was just a minor detail ....
NOT TO WORRY, Dr. Braaten, says our judge Sonia ...
Never fear ....
"I AM THE ONE WHO MAKES POLICY HERE ..."
Not the New York State Legislature ...
Nor the New York State Constitution ...
But DEMOCRAT Sonia Sotomayor ...
So Dr. Braaten now has the "statutory" authority over OUR lives up here, Arneoker, to crush us whenever some corrupt politician beckons their finger and gives him a call .....
And that is how it is, Arneoker ...
In the hands of Obama Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor, the law as written is no more than some silly putty that she can twist into any shape she desires ....
For which reason, the DEMOCRATS RUBBER-STAMPED her right on up into a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court ...
And today, her first day on the court begins ...
GOD help the nation, Arneoker ...
And so ...
And an interested observer from the home-viewing audience asks: "Livyjr, we have seen no sign at all of Arneoker in the last couple of days."
"Does that mean that he has finally conceded here?"
LIVYJR: It is hard to say with Arneoker, usually ....
He has not been posting as much as he used to, lately, so his silence could be as a result of that ...
We will have to wait and see if his silence continues ....
We will also have to see if he has any more debater's tricks up his sleeve, or any more ploys ....
He does have a very large bag of tricks when it comes to debating an issue, and that is a fact ...
But generally, as he employs them, I smack them down hard, or hit them right on out of the park, as I have been doing in here ...
And the end result is that the facts and the story become fully laid out in here for all the candid world to see ....
And since that is the purpose of the exercise, I am content with that ....
And so ....
"Does that mean that he has finally conceded here?"
LIVYJR: It is hard to say with Arneoker, usually ....
He has not been posting as much as he used to, lately, so his silence could be as a result of that ...
We will have to wait and see if his silence continues ....
We will also have to see if he has any more debater's tricks up his sleeve, or any more ploys ....
He does have a very large bag of tricks when it comes to debating an issue, and that is a fact ...
But generally, as he employs them, I smack them down hard, or hit them right on out of the park, as I have been doing in here ...
And the end result is that the facts and the story become fully laid out in here for all the candid world to see ....
And since that is the purpose of the exercise, I am content with that ....
And so ....
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 9 2009, 04:57 AM)
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 31 2009, 03:01 PM)
Speaking at Duke in 2005, Sotomayor declared: “(The) court of appeals is where policy is made."
"I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law I know.”
She and the audience joined in the laughter.
Who were they laughing at?
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 8 2005, 06:18 PM)
TO: Hon. Gary L. Sharpe, Federal District Judge, Northern District of New York
Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:
1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.
I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.
8. Ms. Fiorino WAS INFORMED BY A RELIABLE SOURCE that PLAINTIFF had a history of psychiatric illness and had made numerous threats against his neighbor to various DEFENDANTS herein.
Ms. Fiorino reported the information conveyed to her to John Christian Braaten, M.D., a member of the staff of the Good Samaritan Hospital Behavioral Health Crisis Department.
UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY DR. BRAATEN, HE EXERCISED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY pursuant to NYS Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 and 9.40 and CERTIFIED THAT AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" to Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility was warranted.
DATED: September 20, 2004
Albany, New York
Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:
1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.
I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.
8. Ms. Fiorino WAS INFORMED BY A RELIABLE SOURCE that PLAINTIFF had a history of psychiatric illness and had made numerous threats against his neighbor to various DEFENDANTS herein.
Ms. Fiorino reported the information conveyed to her to John Christian Braaten, M.D., a member of the staff of the Good Samaritan Hospital Behavioral Health Crisis Department.
UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY DR. BRAATEN, HE EXERCISED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY pursuant to NYS Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 and 9.40 and CERTIFIED THAT AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" to Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility was warranted.
DATED: September 20, 2004
Albany, New York
Dr. John Christian Braaten of Northeast Health, Inc's Samaritan Hosptial in Troy, New York had absolutely NO statutory authority whatsoever under the law as it is actually written in New York State to issue PSYCHIATRIC ARREST ORDERS for persons that he has never even laid eyes on ....
Nor did he have any statutory authority to pre-admit the licensed engineer Paul R. Plante into the secure psychiatric facility of Northeast Health. Inc's Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York ....
BUT ....
HEY!
To Sonia Sotomayor, who now wears the robes of a U.S. Supreme Court justice, that was just a minor detail ....
NOT TO WORRY, Dr. Braaten, says our judge Sonia ...
Never fear ....
"I AM THE ONE WHO MAKES POLICY HERE ..."
And so ...
And as this debate on the Obama HEALTHCARE plan drags on, with legitimate questions being raised over the power that Obama is going to give to doctors over our individual lives, I did not want these above parts of prior posts to get overlooked in here ....
And I am talking specifically about Obama Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor giving this doctor John Braaten who works for a PRIVATE CORPORATION in New York state STAUTORY AUTHORITY to commit anyone of us up here in a secure psychiatric facility anytime he chooses, WITH NO OVERSIGHT OR LEGAL REVIEW OR RECOURSE WHATSOEVER AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO HE INCARCERATES ...
Think on that for a moment as we continue to hear about the Obama HEALTHCARE plan ...
And so ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 7 2009, 07:25 PM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 7 2009, 04:39 PM)
Was Plante unlawfully committed?
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 5 2009, 02:34 PM)
There is NOTHING tricky here, especially where you have the sworn testimony of this Albany, New York Police Office to rely upon ....
His was an eye-witness account, Arneoker ....
Do you see what he is saying here in paragraph #4:
4. Upon arriving at the Stratton VA Medical Center at about 2:00 P.M. on the afternoon of August 22, 2001 and making inquiry as to PLAINTIFF's whereabouts, I found him in the custody of Dr. Cox in the secure mental health facility on the tenth floor of the VA Hospital in Albany.
end quotes
IN CUSTODY, Arneoker, in a SECURE mental facility ....
That is what Sonia Sotomayor is trying to tell you never happened ....
And she would know that she was lying to you, Arneoker, because this sworn affidavit was a part of Plante's papers that were before her, the papers that she falsely states "contradicted" Plante's version of what went down at the Stratton VA in Albany, New York on 8-22-01 ...
And so ...
His was an eye-witness account, Arneoker ....
Do you see what he is saying here in paragraph #4:
4. Upon arriving at the Stratton VA Medical Center at about 2:00 P.M. on the afternoon of August 22, 2001 and making inquiry as to PLAINTIFF's whereabouts, I found him in the custody of Dr. Cox in the secure mental health facility on the tenth floor of the VA Hospital in Albany.
end quotes
IN CUSTODY, Arneoker, in a SECURE mental facility ....
That is what Sonia Sotomayor is trying to tell you never happened ....
And she would know that she was lying to you, Arneoker, because this sworn affidavit was a part of Plante's papers that were before her, the papers that she falsely states "contradicted" Plante's version of what went down at the Stratton VA in Albany, New York on 8-22-01 ...
And so ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 9 2005, 06:26 AM)
EXCERPTS FROM RECORDS OF DR. WILLIAM COX OF ALBANY, NEW YORK VA HOSPITAL ON AUGUST 22, 2001 CONCERNING THIS MATTER:
"Neither Mr. Reiter nor Mr. Shea are credentialed mental health providers, and PLAINTIFF was never examined at Good Samaritan Hospital or any other facility prior to coming here."
"When asked about his own expectations for his visit, PLAINTIFF replied, 'I need an advocate'."
"Later, he said, 'SANCTUARY'!"
He gave a detailed and circumstantial account of his career as an engineer, loosely intertwining that with his status as a fully service-connected, disabled veteran, and his precise concerns about on-going 'corruption' in Rensselaer County, naming several current and former county officials."
"He was specifically concerned that, because of his efforts to counter such 'corruption', he may be the subject of immediate arrest in Rensselaer County."
"Our records indicate that PLAINTIFF IS NOT CONNECTED WITH MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT."
"THE AUTHOR WOULD HAVE RETAINED PLAINTIFF INVOLUNTARILY BUT FOR AN ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER, who reported he 'went out to dinner last Sunday (8/19/01)' with him and found him to be in his usual state of mind."
"The Albany, New York Police Officer listened patiently while PLAINTIFF reviewed his version of events, and agreed with him."
"I ASKED THE ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER IF HE HAD ANY REQUESTS OR CONCERNS ABOUT PLAINTIFF'S MENTAL HEALTH, AND HE REPLIED NEGATIVELY."
"IN FACT, THE ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER WAS MORE CONCERNED, AS WAS PLAINTIFF, ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE 9.41 PETITION."
signed,
William F. Cox, MD
08/22/01
1602 HOURS
"Neither Mr. Reiter nor Mr. Shea are credentialed mental health providers, and PLAINTIFF was never examined at Good Samaritan Hospital or any other facility prior to coming here."
"When asked about his own expectations for his visit, PLAINTIFF replied, 'I need an advocate'."
"Later, he said, 'SANCTUARY'!"
He gave a detailed and circumstantial account of his career as an engineer, loosely intertwining that with his status as a fully service-connected, disabled veteran, and his precise concerns about on-going 'corruption' in Rensselaer County, naming several current and former county officials."
"He was specifically concerned that, because of his efforts to counter such 'corruption', he may be the subject of immediate arrest in Rensselaer County."
"Our records indicate that PLAINTIFF IS NOT CONNECTED WITH MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT."
"THE AUTHOR WOULD HAVE RETAINED PLAINTIFF INVOLUNTARILY BUT FOR AN ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER, who reported he 'went out to dinner last Sunday (8/19/01)' with him and found him to be in his usual state of mind."
"The Albany, New York Police Officer listened patiently while PLAINTIFF reviewed his version of events, and agreed with him."
"I ASKED THE ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER IF HE HAD ANY REQUESTS OR CONCERNS ABOUT PLAINTIFF'S MENTAL HEALTH, AND HE REPLIED NEGATIVELY."
"IN FACT, THE ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER WAS MORE CONCERNED, AS WAS PLAINTIFF, ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE 9.41 PETITION."
signed,
William F. Cox, MD
08/22/01
1602 HOURS
AND QUESS WHAT, Arneoker?
Not only do we have the unimpeached sworn testimony of this Albany, New York Police Officer, we also have the official report of none other than Dr. Billy Cox of the Stratton VA who was holding Plante in custody on 8-22-01 ....
His official report is right above here ....
Let us peruse it and see what he has to say about it:
"THE AUTHOR WOULD HAVE RETAINED PLAINTIFF INVOLUNTARILY BUT FOR AN ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER, who reported he 'went out to dinner last Sunday (8/19/01)' with him and found him to be in his usual state of mind."
end quotes
That, Arneoker, is taken from an OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT RECORD that was buried by Obama Supreme Court judge Sonia Sotomayor ....
An OFFiCIAL RECORD, Arneoker ....
You worked for the government ....
Can you just willy-nilly destroy OFFICIAL government records when they are inconvenient, or do you want to plead the Fifth on that?
THE DOCTOR WHO WAS HOLDING PLANTE IN INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT IN THE SECURE MENTAL FACILITY OF THE STRATTON VA HOSPITAL IN ALBANY, NEW YORK ON 8-22-01 SAYS THAT BUT FOR THE APPEARANCE OF THE POLICE OFFICER, HE WOULD HAVE RETAINED PLANTE INVOLUNARILY ....
Soooo .....
WAS PLANTE THERE VOLUNTARILY, Arneoker?
OF COURSE NOT ....
DON'T BE SILLY ...
IF HE WAS THERE VOLUNTARILY, WHY DID THE CONFINING DOCTOR STATE OTHERWISE IN AN OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT THAT IS IN PLANTE'S VA MEDICAL RECORDS?
AND WHY DID SONIA SOTOMAYOR THEN LIE ABOUT IT, Arneoker?
That is the question that sticks in my mind here ....
And so ...
This is evidence that he was not there voluntarily. Thank you for showing that you can answer my questions, when you choose to. Did you answer my other questions? Let us see as we go down the thread.
Now I have some other questions:
What says that Sotomayor "buried" this evidence? What says that she lied about it? Other than your passionate convictions, that is.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 7 2009, 07:35 PM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 7 2009, 05:24 PM)
Or maybe Plante was in his custody pending committment, which in this case never happened.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 7 2009, 05:25 PM)
AND QUESS WHAT, Arneoker?
Not only do we have the unimpeached sworn testimony of this Albany, New York Police Officer, we also have the official report of none other than Dr. Billy Cox of the Stratton VA who was holding Plante in custody on 8-22-01 ....
His official report is right above here ....
Let us peruse it and see what he has to say about it:
"THE AUTHOR WOULD HAVE RETAINED PLAINTIFF INVOLUNTARILY BUT FOR AN ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER, who reported he 'went out to dinner last Sunday (8/19/01)' with him and found him to be in his usual state of mind."
end quotes
That, Arneoker, is taken from an OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT RECORD that was buried by Obama Supreme Court judge Sonia Sotomayor ....
An OFFiCIAL RECORD, Arneoker ....
You worked for the government ....
Can you just willy-nilly destroy OFFICIAL government records when they are inconvenient, or do you want to plead the Fifth on that?
THE DOCTOR WHO WAS HOLDING PLANTE IN INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT IN THE SECURE MENTAL FACILITY OF THE STRATTON VA HOSPITAL IN ALBANY, NEW YORK ON 8-22-01 SAYS THAT BUT FOR THE APPEARANCE OF THE POLICE OFFICER, HE WOULD HAVE RETAINED PLANTE INVOLUNARILY ....
Soooo .....
WAS PLANTE THERE VOLUNTARILY, Arneoker?
OF COURSE NOT ....
DON'T BE SILLY ...
IF HE WAS THERE VOLUNTARILY, WHY DID THE CONFINING DOCTOR STATE OTHERWISE IN AN OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT THAT IS IN PLANTE'S VA MEDICAL RECORDS?
AND WHY DID SONIA SOTOMAYOR THEN LIE ABOUT IT, Arneoker?
That is the question that sticks in my mind here ....
And so ...
Not only do we have the unimpeached sworn testimony of this Albany, New York Police Officer, we also have the official report of none other than Dr. Billy Cox of the Stratton VA who was holding Plante in custody on 8-22-01 ....
His official report is right above here ....
Let us peruse it and see what he has to say about it:
"THE AUTHOR WOULD HAVE RETAINED PLAINTIFF INVOLUNTARILY BUT FOR AN ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER, who reported he 'went out to dinner last Sunday (8/19/01)' with him and found him to be in his usual state of mind."
end quotes
That, Arneoker, is taken from an OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT RECORD that was buried by Obama Supreme Court judge Sonia Sotomayor ....
An OFFiCIAL RECORD, Arneoker ....
You worked for the government ....
Can you just willy-nilly destroy OFFICIAL government records when they are inconvenient, or do you want to plead the Fifth on that?
THE DOCTOR WHO WAS HOLDING PLANTE IN INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT IN THE SECURE MENTAL FACILITY OF THE STRATTON VA HOSPITAL IN ALBANY, NEW YORK ON 8-22-01 SAYS THAT BUT FOR THE APPEARANCE OF THE POLICE OFFICER, HE WOULD HAVE RETAINED PLANTE INVOLUNARILY ....
Soooo .....
WAS PLANTE THERE VOLUNTARILY, Arneoker?
OF COURSE NOT ....
DON'T BE SILLY ...
IF HE WAS THERE VOLUNTARILY, WHY DID THE CONFINING DOCTOR STATE OTHERWISE IN AN OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT THAT IS IN PLANTE'S VA MEDICAL RECORDS?
AND WHY DID SONIA SOTOMAYOR THEN LIE ABOUT IT, Arneoker?
That is the question that sticks in my mind here ....
And so ...
Plante had been committed based upon FRAUDULENT CERTIFICATIONS to Dr. Cox from Dr. John Christian Braaten and Dr. Adrian Anthony Morris at Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York, neither of whom had ever laid eyes on Plante in their life ...
Yet they certified in writing that he was mentally ill and dangerous ....
And thanks to Sonia Sotomayor, that FRAUDULENT certification remains a permanent part of Plante's records, which in turn has destroyed his career as a licensed professional engineer in New York State ...
Which in its turn has deprived us of his services as an expert witness ....
So thanks to Sonia Sotomayor, CORRUPTION thrives in New York State ....
And so ...
Sorry, but I am simply not taking your word on this.
What says that he was committed? We agree that he was in Cox' custody. And to repeat, for how long was he in that custody?
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 7 2009, 07:37 PM)
Did you ever destroy official government records because they were inconvenient, Arneoker?
Did you ever twist the meaning of something when that was convenient? Or is that a silly question?
Even if she "buried" the records (something that you have not shown) how does that become "destroying" them?
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 8 2009, 06:18 AM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 7 2009, 04:22 PM)
And to conclude all that would have happened on that day I would have to review evidence you don't think anyone here needs to see.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 2 2009, 02:04 PM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 2 2009, 01:45 PM)
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 2 2009, 03:05 PM)
"IF WE DON'T SILENCE THIS SON OF A BITCH, HE IS GOING BACK TO THE FBI WITH MORE EVIDENCE!"
"WE NEED YOUR HELP IN SHUTTING HIM UP FOR GOOD!"
How did you come up with that quote, Livyjr?
Did you hear it with your own ears?
It is what the Plante case was all about, Arneoker ....
Haven't you bothered to LISTEN to Jeffrey Pelletier on that videotape?
And it is in the FACTS of the case as decided by the district court judge:
III. FACTS:
On July 7 (2001), Plante 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 Plante's investigation, Pelletier assaulted him.
On August 9 (2001), defendant Reiter (Rensselaer County Director of Veterans’ Services) warned 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 Plante threatening to harm him if he did not stop his investigation.
end quotes
Those FACTS can be found at page 600 of the 609-page RECORD that Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino submitted to Judge Sotomayor in this Plante appeal ....
As the FACTS clearly state, Plante was conducting an investigation and he was told or warned to BACK OFF ....
That occurred in front of some twenty veterans at a public gathering, by the way ...
He didn't ....
So Rensselaer County followed through with its threats to harm Plante by actually harming him ....
Which they did very well ...
Afterall, Arneoeker, what is the sense of the government merely threatening people?
A threat is only good when you do follow through on it, in a manner that is very visible, so that as many people as possible get the message, loud and clear:
"IF YOU WANT SOME OF WHAT HE JUST GOT, THEN BY GOD, YOU JUST TRY THE SAME THINGS THAT HE DID!"
And in this Plante case, we know what those things Plante did are to get himself harmed by Rensselaer County, by reference to the OFFICIAL FACTS in the matter that Sotomayor had before her in this Plante appeal that was buried ...
And then Jimino requested Sotomayor to give her a PASS ....
And here we are, Arneoker ....
Here we are ....
And so ...
Arneoker ....
PUH-LEEZE!
You are confusing me here with Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jmino and Obama Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor ....
There is no evidence that I am withholding from you in here ...
Absolutely none ....
I was one of those citizens up here who wanted to see this case come to trial, so that all of the evidence that Sotomayor buried could see the light of day in a jury trial ...
Yes, Arneoker ....
An open jury trial ...
That is what I wanted to see ....
But alas, you know what I am saying ....
And so ...
You are the one confusing things. I don't think I ever asked you that. Check the time stamps on those quotes, the "response" is earlier than the "original post". I think you messed up here.
In any event I don't deny that there was government hanky panky going on or that Plante was trying to do something about it. Now perhaps he was making a few wild claims, but the idea that the County government was corruptly trying to protect some special interests is quite plausible. And it seems likely that there was an attempt to shut up him up in a hospital. Apparently that proposition is contested, but it is still plausible, and we don't know if the objection to the proposition is itself plausible (for one thing you don't show us too much about what it is). But even if we accept that as fact it seems that the attempt failed.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 8 2009, 06:34 AM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 7 2009, 05:24 PM)
Isn't this the Dr. Cox who released Plante pretty quickly?
This is the Dr. Billy Cox, Arneoker, who released Plante VERY quickly once the Albany Police Officer made it incandescentlyclear to Dr. Billy that he, Dr. Billy, was holding a man in custody against his will, which in New York State is tantamount to KIDNAPPING or ABDUCTION, which is a serious crime up here ....
When the police officer made it clear to Dr. Billy that the police officer was going to leave the VA and head for the office of a judge in Albany to report that he was the witness to a serious crime being perpetrated in the Stratton VA against a New York State citizen by Dr. Billy, Dr. Billy saw the wisdom of complying with the law and Constitution by immediately releasing Plante from custody ....
But that was after Plante had been in custody in a cage like an animal for several hours ....
And the fact that Dr. Billy released Plante DID NOT negate the issuance of the FRAUDULENT PSYCHIATRIC ARREST ORDER issued by the politically-connected doctors at Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York, who had PRE-ADMITTED Plante to the secure mental facility of the Samaritan Hospital in Troy despite the fact that they had never seen or examined Plante beforehand as is required by some words on a piece of paper called LAW in New York state ....
And so ...
Several hours, which apparently did not stretch to as many as 24, or I would wager not even as many as 12. Not the way I would want to spend the day, your friend here would definitely seem to have more than a trivial beef. But does he have quite the beef you seem to want us to believe?
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 8 2009, 07:03 AM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 7 2009, 05:24 PM)
Or maybe Plante was in his custody pending committment, which in this case never happened.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 8 2005, 06:18 PM)
TO: Hon. Gary L. Sharpe, Federal District Judge, Northern District of New York
Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:
1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.
I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.
3.PLAINTIFF commenced the instant action by the filing a SUMMONS and COMPLAINT on June 18, 2003.
Subsequently, the Court issued a Decision and Conditional Order of Dismissal on July 17, 2003.
In the order, PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to amend his COMPLAINT to comply with the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
By order of Judge Hurd, PLAINTIFF, in order to avoid dismissal, was required to file an AMENDED COMPLAINT by August 29, 2003.
PLAINTIFF filed his AMENDED COMPLAINT on August 22, 2003 and DEFENDANTS were required to answer or move against the AMENDED COMPLAINT by November 10, 2003.
The RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS served their ANSWER to AMENDED COMPLAINT on November 10, 2003.
The remainder of the DEFENDANTS moved separately to dismiss the AMENDED COMPLAINT for the failure to state a cause of action pursuant to RULE 12(
(6) of the FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE.
The motions to dismiss are scheduled for a hearing before this Court on September 28, 2004.
4. On or about August 13, 2004, PLAINTIFF served the instant motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin DEFENDANTS from treating the 9.45 order issued on August 22, 2001 as valid.
5. As more fully detailed in the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS' Memorandum of Law in Opposition, PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.
6. This matter arises from a dispute between PLAINTIFF and one of his neighbors regarding the issuance of a sewage construction permit by the Rensselaer County Department of Health in July 2001.
In August 2001, PLAINTIFF met with various members of the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS regarding the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the sewage construction permit.
7. ***** On the morning of August 22, 2001, Carol Fiorino, a registered nurse with Samaritan Hospital, was contacted regarding the actions of PLAINTIFF.
8. Ms. Fiorino WAS INFORMED BY A RELIABLE SOURCE that PLAINTIFF had a history of psychiatric illness and had made numerous threats against his neighbor to various DEFENDANTS herein.
Ms. Fiorino reported the information conveyed to her to John Christian Braaten, M.D., a member of the staff of the Good Samaritan Hospital Behavioral Health Crisis Department.
UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY DR. BRAATEN, HE EXERCISED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY pursuant to NYS Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 and 9.40 and CERTIFIED THAT AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" to Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility was warranted.
A copy of the EMERGENCY ADMISSION FORM executed by Dr. Braaten is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
9. The Department of Veterans Affairs Police at the Stratton VA Medical Center in Albany, New York were notified regarding Plaintiff's history and actions.
The VA Police contacted New York State Trooper, Chris O'Brien, regarding PLAINTIFF, and obtained a copy of the DIRECT ADMISSION paperwork.
10. Around noontime on August 22, 2001, PLAINTIFF presented himself voluntarily at the emergency room of the VAMC FOR TREATMENT.
While at the VAMC, PLAINTIFF was evaluated by William F. Cox, M.D., IN THE SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.
Shortly after the arrival of an Albany, New York Police Officer on PLAINTIFF's behalf, PLAINTIFF was released from the VAMC ....
AT NO TIME WAS PLAINTIFF PICKED UP OR HELD IN CONNECTION WITH THE 9.45 order.
DATED: September 20, 2004
Albany, New York
Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:
1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.
I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.
3.PLAINTIFF commenced the instant action by the filing a SUMMONS and COMPLAINT on June 18, 2003.
Subsequently, the Court issued a Decision and Conditional Order of Dismissal on July 17, 2003.
In the order, PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to amend his COMPLAINT to comply with the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
By order of Judge Hurd, PLAINTIFF, in order to avoid dismissal, was required to file an AMENDED COMPLAINT by August 29, 2003.
PLAINTIFF filed his AMENDED COMPLAINT on August 22, 2003 and DEFENDANTS were required to answer or move against the AMENDED COMPLAINT by November 10, 2003.
The RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS served their ANSWER to AMENDED COMPLAINT on November 10, 2003.
The remainder of the DEFENDANTS moved separately to dismiss the AMENDED COMPLAINT for the failure to state a cause of action pursuant to RULE 12(
(6) of the FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE.The motions to dismiss are scheduled for a hearing before this Court on September 28, 2004.
4. On or about August 13, 2004, PLAINTIFF served the instant motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin DEFENDANTS from treating the 9.45 order issued on August 22, 2001 as valid.
5. As more fully detailed in the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS' Memorandum of Law in Opposition, PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.
6. This matter arises from a dispute between PLAINTIFF and one of his neighbors regarding the issuance of a sewage construction permit by the Rensselaer County Department of Health in July 2001.
In August 2001, PLAINTIFF met with various members of the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS regarding the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the sewage construction permit.
7. ***** On the morning of August 22, 2001, Carol Fiorino, a registered nurse with Samaritan Hospital, was contacted regarding the actions of PLAINTIFF.
8. Ms. Fiorino WAS INFORMED BY A RELIABLE SOURCE that PLAINTIFF had a history of psychiatric illness and had made numerous threats against his neighbor to various DEFENDANTS herein.
Ms. Fiorino reported the information conveyed to her to John Christian Braaten, M.D., a member of the staff of the Good Samaritan Hospital Behavioral Health Crisis Department.
UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY DR. BRAATEN, HE EXERCISED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY pursuant to NYS Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 and 9.40 and CERTIFIED THAT AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" to Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility was warranted.
A copy of the EMERGENCY ADMISSION FORM executed by Dr. Braaten is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
9. The Department of Veterans Affairs Police at the Stratton VA Medical Center in Albany, New York were notified regarding Plaintiff's history and actions.
The VA Police contacted New York State Trooper, Chris O'Brien, regarding PLAINTIFF, and obtained a copy of the DIRECT ADMISSION paperwork.
10. Around noontime on August 22, 2001, PLAINTIFF presented himself voluntarily at the emergency room of the VAMC FOR TREATMENT.
While at the VAMC, PLAINTIFF was evaluated by William F. Cox, M.D., IN THE SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.
Shortly after the arrival of an Albany, New York Police Officer on PLAINTIFF's behalf, PLAINTIFF was released from the VAMC ....
AT NO TIME WAS PLAINTIFF PICKED UP OR HELD IN CONNECTION WITH THE 9.45 order.
DATED: September 20, 2004
Albany, New York
Arneoker ....
Let me go out of my way here to assure you that I see nothing at all that you are asking as "hair-splitting" ....
Here you are, confronted with a case where it is alleged that a U.S. Supreme Court justice has lied and buried evidence, and that has shaken your world to its core ....
And I can undertand that, Arneoker ....
Dreams die hard, don't they?
As to the lies that were told, Arneoker, I am referring you to this September 20, 2004 affirmation of attorney Shawn T. Nash, Esq., IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 that I have posted for you above here ....
In addition to willfully perjuring himself with impunity in that affirmation, attorney Nash makes it incandescently clear that the doctors at Samaritan Hospital had executed DIRECT ADMISSION PAPERWORK for Plante ....
DO NOT STOP AT GO!
PUT HIM RIGHT INTO A CAGE AND GET THE NEEDLE IN HIS ARM!
So yes, Arneoker, Plante was already unlawfully committed by the time he arrived at the Stratton VA Hospital and asked for sanctuary .....
And so ...
None of this shows that he was committed. (I agree that is the likely intention of those who "wanted to get rid of him." My question is were such people successful. If they weren't then maybe all of those judges were right and the particular case he argued could not stand.) And didn't you say that Plante was at the VA for "sanctuary"? Now saying that he was there "voluntarily" would not seem to be the whole story in any event, but as we know no lawyer always puts things into context. That is why we have an adversarial system so that the other side can watch for that.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 12 2009, 06:34 AM)
Several hours, which apparently did not stretch to as many as 24, or I would wager not even as many as 12.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 30 2006, 05:57 AM)
NEW YORK STATE PENAL LAW ARTICLE 135 - KIDNAPPING, COERCION AND RELATED OFFENSES
§135.00 Unlawful imprisonment, kidnapping and custodial interference; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:
1. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements intentionally and unlawfully in such manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful.
A person is so moved or confined "without consent" when such is accomplished by (a) physical force, intimidation or deception, or (b) any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim, if he is a child less than sixteen years old or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or custody of him has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement.
2. "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by either (a) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found, or (b) using or threatening to use deadly physical force.
§135.05 Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree when he restrains another person.
Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
§135.10 Unlawful imprisonment in the first degree.
A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree when he restrains another person under circumstances which expose the latter to a risk of serious physical injury.
Unlawful imprisonment in the first degree is a class E felony.
§135.20 Kidnapping in the second degree.
A person is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree when he abducts another person.
Kidnapping in the second degree is a class B felony.
§135.25 Kidnapping in the first degree.
A person is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree when he abducts another person and when:
1. His intent is to compel a third person to pay or deliver money or property as ransom, or to engage in other particular conduct, or to refrain from engaging in particular conduct; or
2. He restrains the person abducted for a period of more than twelve hours with intent to:
(a) Inflict physical injury upon him or violate or abuse him sexually; or
b) Accomplish or advance the commission of a felony; or
© Terrorize him or a third person; or
(d) Interfere with the performance of a governmental or political function;
Kidnapping in the first degree is a class A-I felony.
§135.60 Coercion in the second degree.
A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:
1. Cause physical injury to a person; or
2. Cause damage to property; or
3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or
4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him; or
5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or
6. Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person`s business; except that such a threat shall not be deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or
7. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another`s legal claim or defense; or
8. Use or abuse his position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely; or
9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.
Coercion in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
§135.65 Coercion in the first degree.
A person is guilty of coercion in the first degree when he commits the crime of coercion in the second degree, and when:
1. He commits such crime by instilling in the victim a fear that he will cause physical injury to a person or cause damage to property; or
2. He thereby compels or induces the victim to:
(a) Commit or attempt to commit a felony; or
(b) Cause or attempt to cause physical injury to a person; or
© Violate his duty as a public servant.
Coercion in the first degree is a class D felony.
§135.00 Unlawful imprisonment, kidnapping and custodial interference; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:
1. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements intentionally and unlawfully in such manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful.
A person is so moved or confined "without consent" when such is accomplished by (a) physical force, intimidation or deception, or (b) any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim, if he is a child less than sixteen years old or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or custody of him has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement.
2. "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by either (a) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found, or (b) using or threatening to use deadly physical force.
§135.05 Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree when he restrains another person.
Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
§135.10 Unlawful imprisonment in the first degree.
A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree when he restrains another person under circumstances which expose the latter to a risk of serious physical injury.
Unlawful imprisonment in the first degree is a class E felony.
§135.20 Kidnapping in the second degree.
A person is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree when he abducts another person.
Kidnapping in the second degree is a class B felony.
§135.25 Kidnapping in the first degree.
A person is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree when he abducts another person and when:
1. His intent is to compel a third person to pay or deliver money or property as ransom, or to engage in other particular conduct, or to refrain from engaging in particular conduct; or
2. He restrains the person abducted for a period of more than twelve hours with intent to:
(a) Inflict physical injury upon him or violate or abuse him sexually; or
b) Accomplish or advance the commission of a felony; or
© Terrorize him or a third person; or
(d) Interfere with the performance of a governmental or political function;
Kidnapping in the first degree is a class A-I felony.
§135.60 Coercion in the second degree.
A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:
1. Cause physical injury to a person; or
2. Cause damage to property; or
3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or
4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him; or
5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or
6. Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person`s business; except that such a threat shall not be deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or
7. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another`s legal claim or defense; or
8. Use or abuse his position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely; or
9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.
Coercion in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
§135.65 Coercion in the first degree.
A person is guilty of coercion in the first degree when he commits the crime of coercion in the second degree, and when:
1. He commits such crime by instilling in the victim a fear that he will cause physical injury to a person or cause damage to property; or
2. He thereby compels or induces the victim to:
(a) Commit or attempt to commit a felony; or
(b) Cause or attempt to cause physical injury to a person; or
© Violate his duty as a public servant.
Coercion in the first degree is a class D felony.
WHAT exactly is your hang-up with time here, Arneoker?
You ARE fixated on this time element to the exclusion of all else ...
Plante was ABDUCTED UNLAWFULLY from the lobby of the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York on 8-22-01 ...
That is a CRIME ...
What does the element of time have to do with it, in YOUR mind?
Would it have been any more serious if he was held HOSTAGE for twelve hours, instead of 1 second?
And so ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 12 2009, 12:14 PM)
Plante was ABDUCTED UNLAWFULLY from the lobby of the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York on 8-22-01 ...
That is a CRIME ...
What does the element of time have to do with it, in YOUR mind?
Would it have been any more serious if he was held HOSTAGE for twelve hours, instead of 1 second?
And so ...
That is a CRIME ...
What does the element of time have to do with it, in YOUR mind?
Would it have been any more serious if he was held HOSTAGE for twelve hours, instead of 1 second?
And so ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 12 2009, 12:14 PM)
NEW YORK STATE PENAL LAW ARTICLE 135 - KIDNAPPING, COERCION AND RELATED OFFENSES
§135.25 Kidnapping in the first degree.
A person is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree when he abducts another person and when:
1. His intent is to compel a third person to pay or deliver money or property as ransom, or to engage in other particular conduct, or to refrain from engaging in particular conduct; or
2. He restrains the person abducted for a period of more than twelve hours with intent to:
(a) Inflict physical injury upon him or violate or abuse him sexually; or
b) Accomplish or advance the commission of a felony; or
© Terrorize him or a third person; or
(d) Interfere with the performance of a governmental or political function;
Kidnapping in the first degree is a class A-I felony.
§135.25 Kidnapping in the first degree.
A person is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree when he abducts another person and when:
1. His intent is to compel a third person to pay or deliver money or property as ransom, or to engage in other particular conduct, or to refrain from engaging in particular conduct; or
2. He restrains the person abducted for a period of more than twelve hours with intent to:
(a) Inflict physical injury upon him or violate or abuse him sexually; or
b) Accomplish or advance the commission of a felony; or
© Terrorize him or a third person; or
(d) Interfere with the performance of a governmental or political function;
Kidnapping in the first degree is a class A-I felony.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 2 2009, 02:52 PM)
AUGUST 6, 2004 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER WHO SECURED PLAINTIFF PAUL R. PLANTE'S RELEASE FROM HIS UNLAWFUL INCARCERATION AT THE STRATTON VA HOSPITAL ON 8-22-01:
1. I am qualified as a law enforcement officer in the State of New York.
2. In that capacity, I am familiar with orders for involuntary commitment issued pursuant to 9.45 of the New York State Mental Hygiene Law, commonly known as "pick-up" orders.
3. With respect to this above matter, on August 22, 2001, I returned home to find an urgent message on my telephone answering machine from PLAINTIFF (Plante) in the above matter, requesting me to come to his aid and assistance at the Stratton VA Medical Center at 113 Holland Avenue in Albany, New York 12208.
4. Upon arriving at the Stratton VA Medical Center at about 2:00 P.M. on the afternoon of August 22, 2001 and making inquiry as to PLAINTIFF's whereabouts, I found him in the custody of Dr. Cox in the secure mental health facility on the tenth floor of the VA Hospital in Albany.
*******
18. I told Dr. Cox that if PLAINTIFF had in fact been in lawful custody at the Samaritan Hospital in Troy on August 22, 2001, and had then escaped custody before making his way to Albany, where we all were then sitting, that in my own view of my responsibilities as a police officer in New York State, I would be obligated to apprehend PLAINTIFF myself for the public safety, so that if Dr. Cox had evidence of such alleged conduct by PLAINTIFF, then he was obligated to hold PLAINTIFF, and PLAINTIFF was obligated to stay.
19. However, I told Dr. Cox, that from what I was hearing PLAINTIFF recount concerning this MHL 9.45 order, it sounded as if a Constitutional Tort had been committed against PLAINTIFF in the State of New York by these named public officials in the County of Rensselaer and the State of New York, so that the reality of the situation right there as it stood in Dr. Cox's office at that moment was that PLAINTIFF was being held against his will by Dr. Cox in a federal facility based upon null acts in the State of New York in violation of PLAINTIFF's legal and constitutional rights under New York law, and that as someone who knew him quite well, I would institute proceedings against Dr. Cox on constitutional grounds to have PLAINTIFF freed, after it was clear to him as the examining doctor that there were no medical grounds upon which to continue the detention of PLAINTIFF in the Albany VA Hospital as an alleged dangerous mental patient.
20. With that question before him of the lawfulness and constitutionality of PLAINTIFF's continued detention in the secure mental health facility of the Albany VA Hospital on August 22, 2001, after the moment when Dr. Cox admitted that he had no medical evidence upon which to base his continued detention of PLAINTIFF, I recall Dr. Cox stating for the record on an apparent recording device that he had no knowledge that PLAINTIFF had ever been seen or examined by anyone at the Samaritan Hospital in Troy, and that in his opinion, there was no evidence that PLAINTIFF was in need of care and treatment for a mental illness, nor was there evidence that PLAINTIFF was dangerous, and that therefore, there was no legal basis for him to continue detaining PLAINTIFF, at which time PLAINTIFF was released from custody by the VA Hospital on Dr. Cox's orders.
21. At that time, I recall going to the office of the VA Police to inform them that Dr. Cox had released PLAINTIFF based upon a lack of medical evidence upon which to hold him.
DATED: Albany, New York
August 6, 2004
1. I am qualified as a law enforcement officer in the State of New York.
2. In that capacity, I am familiar with orders for involuntary commitment issued pursuant to 9.45 of the New York State Mental Hygiene Law, commonly known as "pick-up" orders.
3. With respect to this above matter, on August 22, 2001, I returned home to find an urgent message on my telephone answering machine from PLAINTIFF (Plante) in the above matter, requesting me to come to his aid and assistance at the Stratton VA Medical Center at 113 Holland Avenue in Albany, New York 12208.
4. Upon arriving at the Stratton VA Medical Center at about 2:00 P.M. on the afternoon of August 22, 2001 and making inquiry as to PLAINTIFF's whereabouts, I found him in the custody of Dr. Cox in the secure mental health facility on the tenth floor of the VA Hospital in Albany.
*******
18. I told Dr. Cox that if PLAINTIFF had in fact been in lawful custody at the Samaritan Hospital in Troy on August 22, 2001, and had then escaped custody before making his way to Albany, where we all were then sitting, that in my own view of my responsibilities as a police officer in New York State, I would be obligated to apprehend PLAINTIFF myself for the public safety, so that if Dr. Cox had evidence of such alleged conduct by PLAINTIFF, then he was obligated to hold PLAINTIFF, and PLAINTIFF was obligated to stay.
19. However, I told Dr. Cox, that from what I was hearing PLAINTIFF recount concerning this MHL 9.45 order, it sounded as if a Constitutional Tort had been committed against PLAINTIFF in the State of New York by these named public officials in the County of Rensselaer and the State of New York, so that the reality of the situation right there as it stood in Dr. Cox's office at that moment was that PLAINTIFF was being held against his will by Dr. Cox in a federal facility based upon null acts in the State of New York in violation of PLAINTIFF's legal and constitutional rights under New York law, and that as someone who knew him quite well, I would institute proceedings against Dr. Cox on constitutional grounds to have PLAINTIFF freed, after it was clear to him as the examining doctor that there were no medical grounds upon which to continue the detention of PLAINTIFF in the Albany VA Hospital as an alleged dangerous mental patient.
20. With that question before him of the lawfulness and constitutionality of PLAINTIFF's continued detention in the secure mental health facility of the Albany VA Hospital on August 22, 2001, after the moment when Dr. Cox admitted that he had no medical evidence upon which to base his continued detention of PLAINTIFF, I recall Dr. Cox stating for the record on an apparent recording device that he had no knowledge that PLAINTIFF had ever been seen or examined by anyone at the Samaritan Hospital in Troy, and that in his opinion, there was no evidence that PLAINTIFF was in need of care and treatment for a mental illness, nor was there evidence that PLAINTIFF was dangerous, and that therefore, there was no legal basis for him to continue detaining PLAINTIFF, at which time PLAINTIFF was released from custody by the VA Hospital on Dr. Cox's orders.
21. At that time, I recall going to the office of the VA Police to inform them that Dr. Cox had released PLAINTIFF based upon a lack of medical evidence upon which to hold him.
DATED: Albany, New York
August 6, 2004
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 9 2005, 06:26 AM)
EXCERPTS FROM RECORDS OF DR. WILLIAM COX OF ALBANY, NEW YORK VA HOSPITAL ON AUGUST 22, 2001 CONCERNING THIS MATTER:
He [licensed engineer Paul R. Plante) gave a detailed and circumstantial account of his career as an engineer, loosely intertwining that with his status as a fully service-connected, disabled veteran, and his precise concerns about on-going 'corruption' in Rensselaer County, naming several current and former county officials."
"He was specifically concerned that, because of his efforts to counter such 'corruption', he may be the subject of immediate arrest in Rensselaer County."
"THE AUTHOR WOULD HAVE RETAINED PLAINTIFF INVOLUNTARILY BUT FOR AN ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER, who reported he 'went out to dinner last Sunday (8/19/01)' with him and found him to be in his usual state of mind."
"The Albany, New York Police Officer listened patiently while PLAINTIFF reviewed his version of events, and agreed with him."
"I ASKED THE ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER IF HE HAD ANY REQUESTS OR CONCERNS ABOUT PLAINTIFF'S MENTAL HEALTH, AND HE REPLIED NEGATIVELY."
"IN FACT, THE ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER WAS MORE CONCERNED, AS WAS PLAINTIFF, ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE 9.41 PETITION."
signed,
William F. Cox, MD
08/22/01
1602 HOURS
He [licensed engineer Paul R. Plante) gave a detailed and circumstantial account of his career as an engineer, loosely intertwining that with his status as a fully service-connected, disabled veteran, and his precise concerns about on-going 'corruption' in Rensselaer County, naming several current and former county officials."
"He was specifically concerned that, because of his efforts to counter such 'corruption', he may be the subject of immediate arrest in Rensselaer County."
"THE AUTHOR WOULD HAVE RETAINED PLAINTIFF INVOLUNTARILY BUT FOR AN ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER, who reported he 'went out to dinner last Sunday (8/19/01)' with him and found him to be in his usual state of mind."
"The Albany, New York Police Officer listened patiently while PLAINTIFF reviewed his version of events, and agreed with him."
"I ASKED THE ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER IF HE HAD ANY REQUESTS OR CONCERNS ABOUT PLAINTIFF'S MENTAL HEALTH, AND HE REPLIED NEGATIVELY."
"IN FACT, THE ALBANY, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER WAS MORE CONCERNED, AS WAS PLAINTIFF, ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE 9.41 PETITION."
signed,
William F. Cox, MD
08/22/01
1602 HOURS
And while we are waiting on Arneoker to get back to us here, in my own mind, if Plante had been held HOSTAGE for more than twelve hours in New York State, it would have jumped this up to an "A-1" feloney, instead of a "B", "D" or "E" felony ....
And upon information and belief, the source of which is Plante and the Albany Police Officer, both of whom were there at the time, when this REALITY was explained carefully and fully to Dr. Billy Cox at the Stratton VA Hospital on 8-22-01, Dr. Billy Cox released Plante from CUSTODY in a heartbeat, as if Dr. Billy had a real hot rock in his hand ...
They said he was actually shaking and trembling and his voice was quavering at the thought that right then, he was an ACCOMPLICE to some quite serious crimes ...
And so ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 12 2009, 12:14 PM)
WHAT exactly is your hang-up with time here, Arneoker?
Plante was ABDUCTED UNLAWFULLY from the lobby of the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York on 8-22-01 ...
That is a CRIME ...
What does the element of time have to do with it, in YOUR mind?
Would it have been any more serious if he was held HOSTAGE for twelve hours, instead of 1 second?
And so ...
Plante was ABDUCTED UNLAWFULLY from the lobby of the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York on 8-22-01 ...
That is a CRIME ...
What does the element of time have to do with it, in YOUR mind?
Would it have been any more serious if he was held HOSTAGE for twelve hours, instead of 1 second?
And so ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 30 2009, 12:07 PM)
THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DAILY POLITICS BLOG:
John Galt posted at May 30, 2009, 1:56 PM: And BLUE ....
Looking at this from the dispassionate perspective of a court martial proceeding ...
When Sotomayor says: "Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" ....
The question that arises in my mind is:
HAS THAT THESIS OF HERS EVER BEEN TESTED IN REAL LIFE WHILE SHE HAS BEEN A FEDERAL JUDGE?
And that answer is in the AFFIRMATIVE, BLUE, in at least one case which came before her for what is called de novo review, which is a fresh look at a case from front to back, supposedly, anyway ....
And that case was the case of disabled Viet Nam veteran Paul R. Plante ...
Specifically, we are talking about a July 13, 2004 letter from Rensselaer County Court Judge Patrick McGrath concerning his review of the same evidence that was before Sotomayor in November of 2005 in federal court in NYC ...
That letter from Judge McGrath was at p.456 of the 609-page RECORD submitted to Sotomayor in the Plante appeal by Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino ..
That McGrath letter states as follows:
"This will acknowledge the court's receipt of your letter dated July 9, 2004, and the attachments thereto, all of which I have reviewed."
"Needless to say, your allegations are disturbing, especially as they encompass potential federal, as well as state, criminal charges, in that they include, among others, an allegation of false imprisonment in a federal facility, Stratton VA Medical Center."
end quotes
Now, it cannot be argued in good faith that Patrick McGrath is anything other than a WHITE MALE ...
He is not pasty white, but the dude is clearly white, if you ever saw him and he is a male ....
And what Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino wanted Sotomayor to do in that Plante appeal was to take another look through the eyes of a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences" at the evidence which Judge McGrath had looked at to conclude that Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino was allegedly involved in state and federal crimes in connection with the false imprisonment of Plante in a federal facility, Stratton VA Medical Center ...
And Jimino wanted Sotomayor, through the eyes of a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences", to reach a better conclusion for Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino than a white male like Patrick McGrath who hasn't lived that life could reach ....
WHICH IS TO SAY, MAKE THE EVIDENCE OF HER ALLEGED STATE AND FEDERAL CRIMES THAT McGRATH HAD REVIEWED GO AWAY ....
And the rest is history, BLUE ....
Here we are tody ....
What will tomarrow be?
And so ...
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypoli...-thread-21.html
John Galt posted at May 30, 2009, 1:56 PM: And BLUE ....
Looking at this from the dispassionate perspective of a court martial proceeding ...
When Sotomayor says: "Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" ....
The question that arises in my mind is:
HAS THAT THESIS OF HERS EVER BEEN TESTED IN REAL LIFE WHILE SHE HAS BEEN A FEDERAL JUDGE?
And that answer is in the AFFIRMATIVE, BLUE, in at least one case which came before her for what is called de novo review, which is a fresh look at a case from front to back, supposedly, anyway ....
And that case was the case of disabled Viet Nam veteran Paul R. Plante ...
Specifically, we are talking about a July 13, 2004 letter from Rensselaer County Court Judge Patrick McGrath concerning his review of the same evidence that was before Sotomayor in November of 2005 in federal court in NYC ...
That letter from Judge McGrath was at p.456 of the 609-page RECORD submitted to Sotomayor in the Plante appeal by Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino ..
That McGrath letter states as follows:
"This will acknowledge the court's receipt of your letter dated July 9, 2004, and the attachments thereto, all of which I have reviewed."
"Needless to say, your allegations are disturbing, especially as they encompass potential federal, as well as state, criminal charges, in that they include, among others, an allegation of false imprisonment in a federal facility, Stratton VA Medical Center."
end quotes
Now, it cannot be argued in good faith that Patrick McGrath is anything other than a WHITE MALE ...
He is not pasty white, but the dude is clearly white, if you ever saw him and he is a male ....
And what Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino wanted Sotomayor to do in that Plante appeal was to take another look through the eyes of a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences" at the evidence which Judge McGrath had looked at to conclude that Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino was allegedly involved in state and federal crimes in connection with the false imprisonment of Plante in a federal facility, Stratton VA Medical Center ...
And Jimino wanted Sotomayor, through the eyes of a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences", to reach a better conclusion for Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino than a white male like Patrick McGrath who hasn't lived that life could reach ....
WHICH IS TO SAY, MAKE THE EVIDENCE OF HER ALLEGED STATE AND FEDERAL CRIMES THAT McGRATH HAD REVIEWED GO AWAY ....
And the rest is history, BLUE ....
Here we are tody ....
What will tomarrow be?
And so ...
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypoli...-thread-21.html
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 30 2006, 05:57 AM)
NEW YORK STATE PENAL LAW ARTICLE 135 - KIDNAPPING, COERCION AND RELATED OFFENSES
§135.00 Unlawful imprisonment, kidnapping and custodial interference; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:
1. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements intentionally and unlawfully in such manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful.
A person is so moved or confined "without consent" when such is accomplished by (a) physical force, intimidation or deception, or (b) any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim, if he is a child less than sixteen years old or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or custody of him has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement.
2. "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by either (a) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found, or (b) using or threatening to use deadly physical force.
§135.05 Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree when he restrains another person.
Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
§135.10 Unlawful imprisonment in the first degree.
A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree when he restrains another person under circumstances which expose the latter to a risk of serious physical injury.
Unlawful imprisonment in the first degree is a class E felony.
§135.20 Kidnapping in the second degree.
A person is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree when he abducts another person.
Kidnapping in the second degree is a class B felony.
§135.25 Kidnapping in the first degree.
A person is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree when he abducts another person and when:
1. His intent is to compel a third person to pay or deliver money or property as ransom, or to engage in other particular conduct, or to refrain from engaging in particular conduct; or
2. He restrains the person abducted for a period of more than twelve hours with intent to:
(a) Inflict physical injury upon him or violate or abuse him sexually; or
b) Accomplish or advance the commission of a felony; or
© Terrorize him or a third person; or
(d) Interfere with the performance of a governmental or political function;
Kidnapping in the first degree is a class A-I felony.
§135.60 Coercion in the second degree.
A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:
1. Cause physical injury to a person; or
2. Cause damage to property; or
3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or
4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him; or
5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or
6. Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person`s business; except that such a threat shall not be deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or
7. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another`s legal claim or defense; or
8. Use or abuse his position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely; or
9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.
Coercion in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
§135.65 Coercion in the first degree.
A person is guilty of coercion in the first degree when he commits the crime of coercion in the second degree, and when:
1. He commits such crime by instilling in the victim a fear that he will cause physical injury to a person or cause damage to property; or
2. He thereby compels or induces the victim to:
(a) Commit or attempt to commit a felony; or
(b) Cause or attempt to cause physical injury to a person; or
© Violate his duty as a public servant.
Coercion in the first degree is a class D felony.
§135.00 Unlawful imprisonment, kidnapping and custodial interference; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:
1. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements intentionally and unlawfully in such manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful.
A person is so moved or confined "without consent" when such is accomplished by (a) physical force, intimidation or deception, or (b) any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim, if he is a child less than sixteen years old or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or custody of him has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement.
2. "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by either (a) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found, or (b) using or threatening to use deadly physical force.
§135.05 Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree when he restrains another person.
Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
§135.10 Unlawful imprisonment in the first degree.
A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree when he restrains another person under circumstances which expose the latter to a risk of serious physical injury.
Unlawful imprisonment in the first degree is a class E felony.
§135.20 Kidnapping in the second degree.
A person is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree when he abducts another person.
Kidnapping in the second degree is a class B felony.
§135.25 Kidnapping in the first degree.
A person is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree when he abducts another person and when:
1. His intent is to compel a third person to pay or deliver money or property as ransom, or to engage in other particular conduct, or to refrain from engaging in particular conduct; or
2. He restrains the person abducted for a period of more than twelve hours with intent to:
(a) Inflict physical injury upon him or violate or abuse him sexually; or
b) Accomplish or advance the commission of a felony; or
© Terrorize him or a third person; or
(d) Interfere with the performance of a governmental or political function;
Kidnapping in the first degree is a class A-I felony.
§135.60 Coercion in the second degree.
A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:
1. Cause physical injury to a person; or
2. Cause damage to property; or
3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or
4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him; or
5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or
6. Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person`s business; except that such a threat shall not be deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or
7. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another`s legal claim or defense; or
8. Use or abuse his position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely; or
9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.
Coercion in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
§135.65 Coercion in the first degree.
A person is guilty of coercion in the first degree when he commits the crime of coercion in the second degree, and when:
1. He commits such crime by instilling in the victim a fear that he will cause physical injury to a person or cause damage to property; or
2. He thereby compels or induces the victim to:
(a) Commit or attempt to commit a felony; or
(b) Cause or attempt to cause physical injury to a person; or
© Violate his duty as a public servant.
Coercion in the first degree is a class D felony.
Have you forgotten this July 13, 2004 letter from Rensselaer County Court Judge Patrick McGrath to Paul R. Plante, Arneoker, concerning his review of the same evidence that was before Sotomayor in November of 2005 in federal court in NYC?
That letter from Judge McGrath was at p.456 of the 609-page RECORD submitted to Sotomayor in the Plante appeal by Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino ..
That McGrath letter states as follows:
"This will acknowledge the court's receipt of your letter dated July 9, 2004, and the attachments thereto, all of which I have reviewed."
"Needless to say, your allegations are disturbing, especially as they encompass potential federal, as well as state, criminal charges, in that they include, among others, an allegation of false imprisonment in a federal facility, Stratton VA Medical Center."
end quotes
CRIMINAL CHARGES, Arneoker ...
KIDNAPPING ....
ABDUCTION ...
COERCION ...
And Sonia Sotomayor would have known all of that when she looked the other way ....
She started out as an assistant district attorney in New York State afterall ....
And so ...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 12 2009, 06:34 AM)
Not the way I would want to spend the day, your friend here would definitely seem to have more than a trivial beef.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with mere friendship, Arneoker ....
It has to do with INJUSTICE ...
An INJUSTICE committed against a community, and the law as written, and not just one person ...
This person was not a "friend" ...
This person was an EXPERT WITNESS ....
FOR THE PEOPLE ...
Without an expert witness, Arneoker, we are OUT OF COURT ....
Without an expert witness on our side, one who is not being paid off by the polluters up here, then we cannot go to court to challenge the government corruption which protects these polluters of our air and drinking water ...
What Sonia Sotomayor did was to DESTROY this person's professional reputation by upholding a FRAUD committed against him by this CORPORATE DOCTOR, Rensselaer County and the State of New York, that was allegedly aided and abetted by the OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....
So that if we were to now have this person prepare a professional report for us as evidence, the first thing the lawyers for the corrupt State of New York, or Rensselaer County, or the various towns in Rensselaer County would do would be to put this FRAUDULENT PSYCHIATRIC ARREST ORDER before the court and they would tell the court to toss our case BECAUSE our expert witness was MENTALLY ILL ....
And how do I know that, Arneoker?
Because that is what got this matter up to federal court in the first place, when Jeffrey Pelletier, the SKINHEAD in the video, and his smarmy lawyer did exactly that in Albany County Supreme Court in New York State ....
And so ...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 12 2009, 06:40 AM)
That is why we have an adversarial system so that the other side can watch for that.
Arneoker ...
An "adversarial system" CANNOT and DOES NOT work when one side, the side in this case with all of the political and financial power, can keep the other side completely out of court and away from a jury, and discovery, with the connivance of the judges ...
And so it was in this cae, Arneoker, where Plante was not even allowed the rights an accused rabid dog would have up here ....
There was NO adversarial system in operation here ....
What it was was a mockery ....
A travesty .....
And so ...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 12 2009, 06:20 AM)
Sorry, but I am simply not taking your word on this.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 8 2005, 06:18 PM)
TO: Hon. Gary L. Sharpe, Federal District Judge, Northern District of New York
Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:
1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.
I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.
3.PLAINTIFF commenced the instant action by the filing a SUMMONS and COMPLAINT on June 18, 2003.
Subsequently, the Court issued a Decision and Conditional Order of Dismissal on July 17, 2003.
In the order, PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to amend his COMPLAINT to comply with the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
By order of Judge Hurd, PLAINTIFF, in order to avoid dismissal, was required to file an AMENDED COMPLAINT by August 29, 2003.
PLAINTIFF filed his AMENDED COMPLAINT on August 22, 2003 and DEFENDANTS were required to answer or move against the AMENDED COMPLAINT by November 10, 2003.
The RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS served their ANSWER to AMENDED COMPLAINT on November 10, 2003.
The remainder of the DEFENDANTS moved separately to dismiss the AMENDED COMPLAINT for the failure to state a cause of action pursuant to RULE 12(B)(6) of the FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE.
The motions to dismiss are scheduled for a hearing before this Court on September 28, 2004.
4. On or about August 13, 2004, PLAINTIFF served the instant motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin DEFENDANTS from treating the 9.45 order issued on August 22, 2001 as valid.
5. As more fully detailed in the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS' Memorandum of Law in Opposition, PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.
6. This matter arises from a dispute between PLAINTIFF and one of his neighbors regarding the issuance of a sewage construction permit by the Rensselaer County Department of Health in July 2001.
In August 2001, PLAINTIFF met with various members of the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS regarding the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the sewage construction permit.
7. ***** On the morning of August 22, 2001, Carol Fiorino, a registered nurse with Samaritan Hospital, was contacted regarding the actions of PLAINTIFF.
8. Ms. Fiorino WAS INFORMED BY A RELIABLE SOURCE that PLAINTIFF had a history of psychiatric illness and had made numerous threats against his neighbor to various DEFENDANTS herein.
Ms. Fiorino reported the information conveyed to her to John Christian Braaten, M.D., a member of the staff of the Good Samaritan Hospital Behavioral Health Crisis Department.
UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY DR. BRAATEN, HE EXERCISED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY pursuant to NYS Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 and 9.40 and CERTIFIED THAT AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" to Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility was warranted.
A copy of the EMERGENCY ADMISSION FORM executed by Dr. Braaten is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
9. The Department of Veterans Affairs Police at the Stratton VA Medical Center in Albany, New York were notified regarding Plaintiff's history and actions.
The VA Police contacted New York State Trooper, Chris O'Brien, regarding PLAINTIFF, and obtained a copy of the DIRECT ADMISSION paperwork.
10. Around noontime on August 22, 2001, PLAINTIFF presented himself voluntarily at the emergency room of the VAMC FOR TREATMENT.
While at the VAMC, PLAINTIFF was evaluated by William F. Cox, M.D., IN THE SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.
Shortly after the arrival of an Albany, New York Police Officer on PLAINTIFF's behalf, PLAINTIFF was released from the VAMC ....
AT NO TIME WAS PLAINTIFF PICKED UP OR HELD IN CONNECTION WITH THE 9.45 order.
DATED: September 20, 2004
Albany, New York
Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:
1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.
I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.
3.PLAINTIFF commenced the instant action by the filing a SUMMONS and COMPLAINT on June 18, 2003.
Subsequently, the Court issued a Decision and Conditional Order of Dismissal on July 17, 2003.
In the order, PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to amend his COMPLAINT to comply with the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
By order of Judge Hurd, PLAINTIFF, in order to avoid dismissal, was required to file an AMENDED COMPLAINT by August 29, 2003.
PLAINTIFF filed his AMENDED COMPLAINT on August 22, 2003 and DEFENDANTS were required to answer or move against the AMENDED COMPLAINT by November 10, 2003.
The RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS served their ANSWER to AMENDED COMPLAINT on November 10, 2003.
The remainder of the DEFENDANTS moved separately to dismiss the AMENDED COMPLAINT for the failure to state a cause of action pursuant to RULE 12(B)(6) of the FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE.
The motions to dismiss are scheduled for a hearing before this Court on September 28, 2004.
4. On or about August 13, 2004, PLAINTIFF served the instant motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin DEFENDANTS from treating the 9.45 order issued on August 22, 2001 as valid.
5. As more fully detailed in the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS' Memorandum of Law in Opposition, PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.
6. This matter arises from a dispute between PLAINTIFF and one of his neighbors regarding the issuance of a sewage construction permit by the Rensselaer County Department of Health in July 2001.
In August 2001, PLAINTIFF met with various members of the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS regarding the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the sewage construction permit.
7. ***** On the morning of August 22, 2001, Carol Fiorino, a registered nurse with Samaritan Hospital, was contacted regarding the actions of PLAINTIFF.
8. Ms. Fiorino WAS INFORMED BY A RELIABLE SOURCE that PLAINTIFF had a history of psychiatric illness and had made numerous threats against his neighbor to various DEFENDANTS herein.
Ms. Fiorino reported the information conveyed to her to John Christian Braaten, M.D., a member of the staff of the Good Samaritan Hospital Behavioral Health Crisis Department.
UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY DR. BRAATEN, HE EXERCISED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY pursuant to NYS Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 and 9.40 and CERTIFIED THAT AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" to Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility was warranted.
A copy of the EMERGENCY ADMISSION FORM executed by Dr. Braaten is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
9. The Department of Veterans Affairs Police at the Stratton VA Medical Center in Albany, New York were notified regarding Plaintiff's history and actions.
The VA Police contacted New York State Trooper, Chris O'Brien, regarding PLAINTIFF, and obtained a copy of the DIRECT ADMISSION paperwork.
10. Around noontime on August 22, 2001, PLAINTIFF presented himself voluntarily at the emergency room of the VAMC FOR TREATMENT.
While at the VAMC, PLAINTIFF was evaluated by William F. Cox, M.D., IN THE SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.
Shortly after the arrival of an Albany, New York Police Officer on PLAINTIFF's behalf, PLAINTIFF was released from the VAMC ....
AT NO TIME WAS PLAINTIFF PICKED UP OR HELD IN CONNECTION WITH THE 9.45 order.
DATED: September 20, 2004
Albany, New York
Nor have I ever asked you to, Arneoker ....
And so ...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 12 2009, 06:20 AM)
Sorry, but I am simply not taking your word on this.
What says that he was committed?
What says that he was committed?
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 13 2006, 03:35 PM)
"Livyjr," a concerned reader asks, "Can you point us to anything in the record, outside of PLAINTIFF's own statements, that would make it clear to us readers out here that New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer himself would have known that Julie M. Sheridan was knowingly and willfully lying to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals when she told that body that PLAINTIFF was never INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED to the Stratton VA Hospital on August 22, 2001?"
And that answer is yes ....
For it would indeed be foolish on my part ...
To fall into the trap ...
Of having made statements ...
That ultimately .....
Cannot be corroborated .....
By some independent evidence ....
And so ...
Here, I simply go back in time ...
To an AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN ...
Dated August 16, 2002 .....
About one (1) year after the August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN went down ......
That was submiited by Spitzer's Office .....
To Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr. .....
A Justice of the New York State Supreme Court ....
In Rensselaer County .....
Early on in connection with this matter ....
That ultimately made its way to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City ....
This past fall ...
And in that August 16, 2002 AFFIRMATION ......
Ms. Ullman is quoted as follows:
LISA ULLMAN, being a duly licensed attorney in the State of New York and an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL in the offices of Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, does hereby affirm under penalties of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106:
1. I am an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE STAFF OF ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General of the State of New York, ATTORNEY for the State respondents in this proceeding.
I HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED THIS CASE AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE FILE.
I make this affirmation in opposition to PETITIONER'S (PLAINTIFF) motion for leave to reargue and renew.
2. This proceeding was commenced by pro se petitioner PLAINTIFF under Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules ("CPLR"), who requested a court order compelling the release of certain mental health records.
SPECIFICALLY, PETITIONER HAD BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45 FOR SEVERAL HOURS ON AUGUST 22, 2001, and had obtained redacted versions of documents pertaining to that COMMITMENT.
IN THIS PROCEEDING, HE SOUGHT A COURT ORDER COMPELLING RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE HIM WITH UNREDACTED VERSIONS OF THOSE DOCUMENTS.
end quotes
And so .....
And that answer is yes ....
For it would indeed be foolish on my part ...
To fall into the trap ...
Of having made statements ...
That ultimately .....
Cannot be corroborated .....
By some independent evidence ....
And so ...
Here, I simply go back in time ...
To an AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN ...
Dated August 16, 2002 .....
About one (1) year after the August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN went down ......
That was submiited by Spitzer's Office .....
To Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr. .....
A Justice of the New York State Supreme Court ....
In Rensselaer County .....
Early on in connection with this matter ....
That ultimately made its way to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City ....
This past fall ...
And in that August 16, 2002 AFFIRMATION ......
Ms. Ullman is quoted as follows:
LISA ULLMAN, being a duly licensed attorney in the State of New York and an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL in the offices of Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, does hereby affirm under penalties of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106:
1. I am an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE STAFF OF ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General of the State of New York, ATTORNEY for the State respondents in this proceeding.
I HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED THIS CASE AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE FILE.
I make this affirmation in opposition to PETITIONER'S (PLAINTIFF) motion for leave to reargue and renew.
2. This proceeding was commenced by pro se petitioner PLAINTIFF under Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules ("CPLR"), who requested a court order compelling the release of certain mental health records.
SPECIFICALLY, PETITIONER HAD BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45 FOR SEVERAL HOURS ON AUGUST 22, 2001, and had obtained redacted versions of documents pertaining to that COMMITMENT.
IN THIS PROCEEDING, HE SOUGHT A COURT ORDER COMPELLING RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE HIM WITH UNREDACTED VERSIONS OF THOSE DOCUMENTS.
end quotes
And so .....
Not WHAT, Arneoker ...
But WHO ....
WHO says that Plante was "INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED"?
Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman in an AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN dated August 16, 2002, about one (1) year after the August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN went down, an affirmation that was submiited by Spitzer's Office to Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr., a Justice of the New York State Supreme Court for Rensselaer County .....
SPECIFICALLY, PETITIONER (Paul R. Plante) HAD BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45 FOR SEVERAL HOURS ON AUGUST 22, 2001, and had obtained redacted versions of documents pertaining to that COMMITMENT.
end quotes
That is who said that Plante was INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED at the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York on 8-22-01 ....
And I have a copy of that affirmation right here in the records before me ....
And there is also a copy on file with the Rensselaer County Clerk as an official public record ....
It was that sworn statement by Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman that served as the basis for Plante's standing in federal court to bring on this federal civil rights lawsuit in the first place ....
I mean, what better evidence of an INJUSTICE having been committed could you ask for than that?
And so ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 14 2009, 07:09 AM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 12 2009, 06:40 AM)
That is why we have an adversarial system so that the other side can watch for that.
Arneoker ...
An "adversarial system" CANNOT and DOES NOT work when one side, the side in this case with all of the political and financial power, can keep the other side completely out of court and away from a jury, and discovery, with the connivance of the judges ...
And so it was in this cae, Arneoker, where Plante was not even allowed the rights an accused rabid dog would have up here ....
There was NO adversarial system in operation here ....
What it was was a mockery ....
A travesty .....
And so ...
I missed what crime Plante was charged with that he was entitled to a jury trial.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 14 2009, 06:48 PM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 12 2009, 06:20 AM)
Sorry, but I am simply not taking your word on this.
What says that he was committed?
What says that he was committed?
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 13 2006, 03:35 PM)
"Livyjr," a concerned reader asks, "Can you point us to anything in the record, outside of PLAINTIFF's own statements, that would make it clear to us readers out here that New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer himself would have known that Julie M. Sheridan was knowingly and willfully lying to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals when she told that body that PLAINTIFF was never INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED to the Stratton VA Hospital on August 22, 2001?"
And that answer is yes ....
For it would indeed be foolish on my part ...
To fall into the trap ...
Of having made statements ...
That ultimately .....
Cannot be corroborated .....
By some independent evidence ....
And so ...
Here, I simply go back in time ...
To an AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN ...
Dated August 16, 2002 .....
About one (1) year after the August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN went down ......
That was submiited by Spitzer's Office .....
To Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr. .....
A Justice of the New York State Supreme Court ....
In Rensselaer County .....
Early on in connection with this matter ....
That ultimately made its way to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City ....
This past fall ...
And in that August 16, 2002 AFFIRMATION ......
Ms. Ullman is quoted as follows:
LISA ULLMAN, being a duly licensed attorney in the State of New York and an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL in the offices of Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, does hereby affirm under penalties of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106:
1. I am an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE STAFF OF ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General of the State of New York, ATTORNEY for the State respondents in this proceeding.
I HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED THIS CASE AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE FILE.
I make this affirmation in opposition to PETITIONER'S (PLAINTIFF) motion for leave to reargue and renew.
2. This proceeding was commenced by pro se petitioner PLAINTIFF under Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules ("CPLR"), who requested a court order compelling the release of certain mental health records.
SPECIFICALLY, PETITIONER HAD BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45 FOR SEVERAL HOURS ON AUGUST 22, 2001, and had obtained redacted versions of documents pertaining to that COMMITMENT.
IN THIS PROCEEDING, HE SOUGHT A COURT ORDER COMPELLING RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE HIM WITH UNREDACTED VERSIONS OF THOSE DOCUMENTS.
end quotes
And so .....
And that answer is yes ....
For it would indeed be foolish on my part ...
To fall into the trap ...
Of having made statements ...
That ultimately .....
Cannot be corroborated .....
By some independent evidence ....
And so ...
Here, I simply go back in time ...
To an AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN ...
Dated August 16, 2002 .....
About one (1) year after the August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN went down ......
That was submiited by Spitzer's Office .....
To Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr. .....
A Justice of the New York State Supreme Court ....
In Rensselaer County .....
Early on in connection with this matter ....
That ultimately made its way to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City ....
This past fall ...
And in that August 16, 2002 AFFIRMATION ......
Ms. Ullman is quoted as follows:
LISA ULLMAN, being a duly licensed attorney in the State of New York and an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL in the offices of Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, does hereby affirm under penalties of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106:
1. I am an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE STAFF OF ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General of the State of New York, ATTORNEY for the State respondents in this proceeding.
I HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED THIS CASE AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE FILE.
I make this affirmation in opposition to PETITIONER'S (PLAINTIFF) motion for leave to reargue and renew.
2. This proceeding was commenced by pro se petitioner PLAINTIFF under Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules ("CPLR"), who requested a court order compelling the release of certain mental health records.
SPECIFICALLY, PETITIONER HAD BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45 FOR SEVERAL HOURS ON AUGUST 22, 2001, and had obtained redacted versions of documents pertaining to that COMMITMENT.
IN THIS PROCEEDING, HE SOUGHT A COURT ORDER COMPELLING RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE HIM WITH UNREDACTED VERSIONS OF THOSE DOCUMENTS.
end quotes
And so .....
Not WHAT, Arneoker ...
But WHO ....
WHO says that Plante was "INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED"?
Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman in an AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN dated August 16, 2002, about one (1) year after the August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN went down, an affirmation that was submiited by Spitzer's Office to Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr., a Justice of the New York State Supreme Court for Rensselaer County .....
SPECIFICALLY, PETITIONER (Paul R. Plante) HAD BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45 FOR SEVERAL HOURS ON AUGUST 22, 2001, and had obtained redacted versions of documents pertaining to that COMMITMENT.
end quotes
That is who said that Plante was INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED at the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York on 8-22-01 ....
And I have a copy of that affirmation right here in the records before me ....
And there is also a copy on file with the Rensselaer County Clerk as an official public record ....
It was that sworn statement by Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman that served as the basis for Plante's standing in federal court to bring on this federal civil rights lawsuit in the first place ....
I mean, what better evidence of an INJUSTICE having been committed could you ask for than that?
And so ...
Excuse me, is this the complaint or is this something that was established? What constitutes being committed in the State of New York?
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 15 2009, 04:01 AM)
I missed what crime Plante was charged with that he was entitled to a jury trial.
Are you really so dense, Arneoker?
Or do you just play that character on the internet?
Plante was FALSELY accused of being mentally ill and dangerous, and that was put in his VA medical records, court records in New York State and the federal courts, plus on law enforcement computers across the nation ...
He was BRANDED, just as if a hot iron had been applied to the skin of his forehead ...
His professional reputation was DESTROYED without DUE PROCESS OF LAW ...
That entitled him to a federal jury trial by the law as it is written in the United States, Arneoker .....
And so ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 7 2009, 10:51 AM)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 15th day of December, two thousand and five.
PRESENT:
HON. SONIA SOTOMAYOR,
HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Circuit Judges,
HON. RICHARD K. EATON,
Judge,*
-X
PAUL R. PLANTE,
Appellant,
v. No. 05-2133-cv
EUGENE BECHARD, et. al,
Defendants-Appellees.
As the district court explained, the reports from the VA Hospital indicated that Plante voluntarily admitted himself to the mental facility.
http://vlex.com/vid/paul-r-plante-eugene-b...dants-20096740#
SUMMARY ORDER
THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 15th day of December, two thousand and five.
PRESENT:
HON. SONIA SOTOMAYOR,
HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Circuit Judges,
HON. RICHARD K. EATON,
Judge,*
-X
PAUL R. PLANTE,
Appellant,
v. No. 05-2133-cv
EUGENE BECHARD, et. al,
Defendants-Appellees.
As the district court explained, the reports from the VA Hospital indicated that Plante voluntarily admitted himself to the mental facility.
http://vlex.com/vid/paul-r-plante-eugene-b...dants-20096740#
Do you comprehend these following words, Arneoker?
THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
end quotes
Do you have any understanding of them, at all?
What the federal appeals court in New York and Obama Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor are saying to anyone who is corrupt is that IF Plante were to try and give testimony in a court against you, all you have to do is to refer to THIS judgment from us and tell the court that the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals considers Plante to be mentally ill and dangerous, even though it has NO evidence with which to support that FALSE JUDGMENT ...
And so ...
Up here, Arneoker, we call that a LIE ....
And so ...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 15 2009, 04:06 AM)
What constitutes being committed in the State of New York?
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 8 2005, 06:18 PM)
TO: Hon. Gary L. Sharpe, Federal District Judge, Northern District of New York
Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:
1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.
I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.
UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY DR. BRAATEN, HE EXERCISED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY pursuant to NYS Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 and 9.40 and CERTIFIED THAT AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" to Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility was warranted.
A copy of the EMERGENCY ADMISSION FORM executed by Dr. Braaten is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
DATED: September 20, 2004
Albany, New York
Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:
1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.
I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.
UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY DR. BRAATEN, HE EXERCISED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY pursuant to NYS Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 and 9.40 and CERTIFIED THAT AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" to Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility was warranted.
A copy of the EMERGENCY ADMISSION FORM executed by Dr. Braaten is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
DATED: September 20, 2004
Albany, New York
What constitutes being committed in New York State, Arneoker, are papers signed by medical doctors stating that the person has been committed ....
That is what constitutes "committment" ....
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 15 2009, 04:06 AM)
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 14 2009, 06:48 PM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 12 2009, 06:20 AM)
Sorry, but I am simply not taking your word on this.
What says that he was committed?
What says that he was committed?
Not WHAT, Arneoker ...
But WHO ....
WHO says that Plante was "INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED"?
Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman in an AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN dated August 16, 2002, about one (1) year after the August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN went down, an affirmation that was submiited by Spitzer's Office to Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr., a Justice of the New York State Supreme Court for Rensselaer County .....
SPECIFICALLY, PETITIONER (Paul R. Plante) HAD BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45 FOR SEVERAL HOURS ON AUGUST 22, 2001, and had obtained redacted versions of documents pertaining to that COMMITMENT.
end quotes
That is who said that Plante was INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED at the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York on 8-22-01 ....
And I have a copy of that affirmation right here in the records before me ....
And there is also a copy on file with the Rensselaer County Clerk as an official public record ....
It was that sworn statement by Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman that served as the basis for Plante's standing in federal court to bring on this federal civil rights lawsuit in the first place ....
I mean, what better evidence of an INJUSTICE having been committed could you ask for than that?
And so ...
Excuse me, is this the complaint or is this something that was established?
That is a sworn affirmation, Arneoker, of an Assistant New York State Attorney General in Rensselaer County Supreme Court ....
That is what the State of New York was stating as FACT in the first legal challenge in this matter, before Plante had it removed to federal court in an effort, futile as it was, to get the matter away from political judges in New York state ....
And so ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 15 2009, 07:09 AM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 15 2009, 04:06 AM)
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 14 2009, 06:48 PM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 12 2009, 06:20 AM)
Sorry, but I am simply not taking your word on this.
What says that he was committed?
What says that he was committed?
Not WHAT, Arneoker ...
But WHO ....
WHO says that Plante was "INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED"?
Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman in an AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN dated August 16, 2002, about one (1) year after the August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN went down, an affirmation that was submiited by Spitzer's Office to Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr., a Justice of the New York State Supreme Court for Rensselaer County .....
SPECIFICALLY, PETITIONER (Paul R. Plante) HAD BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45 FOR SEVERAL HOURS ON AUGUST 22, 2001, and had obtained redacted versions of documents pertaining to that COMMITMENT.
end quotes
That is who said that Plante was INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED at the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York on 8-22-01 ....
And I have a copy of that affirmation right here in the records before me ....
And there is also a copy on file with the Rensselaer County Clerk as an official public record ....
It was that sworn statement by Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman that served as the basis for Plante's standing in federal court to bring on this federal civil rights lawsuit in the first place ....
I mean, what better evidence of an INJUSTICE having been committed could you ask for than that?
And so ...
Excuse me, is this the complaint or is this something that was established?
That is a sworn affirmation, Arneoker, of an Assistant New York State Attorney General in Rensselaer County Supreme Court ....
That is what the State of New York was stating as FACT in the first legal challenge in this matter, before Plante had it removed to federal court in an effort, futile as it was, to get the matter away from political judges in New York state ....
And so ...
What was the fact? That Plante made that particular complaint?
BTW, since the NYAG was involved, did they bring out their own case on this?
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 15 2009, 06:45 AM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 15 2009, 04:01 AM)
I missed what crime Plante was charged with that he was entitled to a jury trial.
Are you really so dense, Arneoker?
Or do you just play that character on the internet?
Plante was FALSELY accused of being mentally ill and dangerous, and that was put in his VA medical records, court records in New York State and the federal courts, plus on law enforcement computers across the nation ...
He was BRANDED, just as if a hot iron had been applied to the skin of his forehead ...
His professional reputation was DESTROYED without DUE PROCESS OF LAW ...
That entitled him to a federal jury trial by the law as it is written in the United States, Arneoker .....
And so ...
But you are telling me you aren't asking us to take your word for it.
I am familiar with the Constitution, and that says that if you are charge with a crime you are entitled to a trial by jury. Apparently Plante was charged with no crime here, so some other, as yet unrevealed, law needs to be cited.
you got it arneoker
you know how they always said Seinfeld was a show about "nothing"?
it's a sleight of hand again
you know how they always said Seinfeld was a show about "nothing"?
it's a sleight of hand again
and Free Leonard Peltier
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 15 2009, 05:35 AM)
BTW, since the NYAG was involved, did they bring out their own case on this?
Well ...
I thought you were never going to ask that question, Arneoker ....
And here you are, right on schdule, like clockwork, asking that very question ....
And it is a GOOD question that you are asking, Arneoker, because it helps us to see our way more clear in here, in understanding exactly what INJUSTICE Obama Supreme Court judge Sonia Sotomayor has committed against our community up here ...
OF COURSE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ELIOT SPITZER BROUGHT OUT HIS OWN CASE HERE ....
That is why this Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman had submitted that AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN dated August 16, 2002 to
to Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr., a Justice of the New York State Supreme Court for Rensselaer County .....
SPITZER WAS TREATING THE FRAUDULENT 9.45 PSYCHIATRIC ARREST ORDER ISSUED BY DOCTOR JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN OF NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC.'s SAMARITAN HOSPITAL IN TROY, NEW YORK ON 8-22-01 AS HAVING BEEN VALIDLY ISSUED ...
And he defended that very position before Judge Sotomayor at the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC in November of 2005 ....
And when he ran for governor, he scored big political points off of that win before Sotomayor ...
And so ...
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Sep 15 2009, 05:49 AM)
you got it arneoker
you know how they always said Seinfeld was a show about "nothing"?
it's a sleight of hand again
you know how they always said Seinfeld was a show about "nothing"?
it's a sleight of hand again
Partial text of Reply Brief sent to Second Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC by appellant Paul R. Plante on 25 July 2005 in answer to BRIEF of Thomas O'Connor, on behalf of Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino et al, to include Timothy Holt, Carl Richard Aiken, NYSPE, and Kevin Joseph McGrath, the New York State licensed surveyor who was at the same time the "lead professional" for developer Jeffrey Pelletier, and the Chairman of the Poestenkill Town Planning Board, and the Brief of the Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson Law Firm on behalf of John Christian Braaten et al, to include nurse Carol Fiorino, and Northeast Health, Inc. and Samaritan Hospital, and the Brief of nurse Andrea Gallerie:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
As can be readily discerned from a review of page 455 of the extensive Appendix ("RCA") Rensselaer County State Actors Kathleen Jimino, Joseph Cybulski, Timothy Holt, Denise Ayers, NYSRPN, Roy Champagne, Robert Reiter, Kevin Joseph McGrath, NYSLS, and Carl Richard Aiken, NYSPE, have submitted to this Court pursuant to Appellate Rule 30(b)(1) in support of the issues Rensselaer County State Actors are presenting this Court for review in this appeal, the facts before the Court in the appeal are few, they are simple, and they are conceded by appellees.
Nor are they challenged by Appellant.
According to those facts, on August 7, 2001, appellee Jeffrey Pelletier assaulted PLAINTIFF on Liberty Lane in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, State of New York for the express purpose of denying PLAINTIFF rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to PLAINTIFF by the United States Constitution, and 18 USC 1512(b) & 1513(b) of the laws of the United States.
18 USC 1512(b) of the laws of the United States, entitled "Tampering with a witness", states in relevant part to this appeal that "whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to, (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; (2) cause or induce any person to - (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding ....... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
No party to this appeal, either appellant, or appellees, disputes that this assault by Pelletier took place, for the express purposes stated in the record, which is to say, to intentionally harm and intimidate PLAINTIFF, both as a witness, and as a victim, so as to deter him by acts of overt physical violence from seeking redress of grievance against Pelletier, Aiken and McGrath with respect to the Rensselaer County sewage permit at issue in the courts of the State of New York where this matter was originally served and filed, prior to it being brought on in Federal District Court in June of 2001.
(For Constitutional Torts in the State of New York, see, Ricky Brown et al. v. State of New York], 89 NY2d 172, 192 [Ct. of Appeals 1996]).
Nor can they deny the assault, since the videotape of the Pelletier assault on PLAINTIFF is a part of the "evidence" in the possession of Northeast Health State Actor John Christian Braaten at the time he executed the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order (Brief of Braaten at 7) at issue herein, as well as a New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.39 direct psychiatric admission for PLAINTIFF to both the Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York, a co-appellee of Braaten, and the VA Hospital in Albany, New York despite never having seen PLAINTIFF in his life.
With these simple facts well-settled, and agreed to among the parties herein, this appeal presents this Court, then, with a simple question of law, that being the objective reasonableness of Braaten's actions on August 22, 2001, where Timothy Holt, the alleged "reliable source" Braaten relied upon in determining that PLAINTIFF was a alleged dangerous mental patient is the head of custodial and janitorial services for the Rensselaer County Office Building in Troy, New York.
There is not one scrap or shred of evidence in the voluminous Appendix Rensselaer County State Actors have placed before this Court in support of their issues in this appeal, which is the "objective reasonableness" of PLAINTIFF's "seizure" at the Albany VA Hospital on August 22, 2001, that Timothy Holt is anything other than the head of custodial services for the Rensselaer County Office Building, and despite that lack of any credentials whatsoever, other than "cleaning rest rooms", and "taking out trash" which apparently converted Holt into a "health officer" in the eyes of Braaten, on August 22, 2001, Braaten executed a NYSMHL 9.45 order for PLAINTIFF based on nothing more than Holt's say so that he, Holt, wanted it to be done that way!
That, say appellees, is what "objective reasonableness" looks like in Rensselaer County, in the State of New York, so, please, Justices of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, put your judicial imprimatur on this conduct so stated, by denying this appeal, and thereby immunizing appellees in the eyes of the law, forever!
It is a simple question, actually, a yes, or a no:
"Should the head of Janitorial Services for the Rensselaer County Office Building have the unimpeded "constitutional" authority, 24/7, to hinder a New York State licensed professional engineer in the performance of his duties, who at the time in question was investigating alleged professional misconduct in the County of Rensselaer by Rensselaer County State Actor Appellees Carl Richard Aiken, P.E., and Kevin Joseph McGrath, L.S. in connection with a Rensselaer County Department of Health sewage system construction permit issued to appellee Jeffrey Pelletier, by having the unrestrained right to have PLAINTIFF incarcerated at will in the secure mental hospital of Holt's choice, by the simple expedient of Holt calling Fiorino at Samaritan Hospital, and putting in a request for a 9.45 order to be faxed over to Holt at the Rensselaer County Office Building, so Holt can then have the New York State Police seize PLAINTIFF for transport to wherever Holt directs them to go?"
With respect to the question of "objective reasonableness" in this appeal, as it pertains to PLAINTIFF's "seizure" at the VA Hospital on August 22, 2001, in a comprehensive and scholarly opinion at 169-171 in Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services, 234 F.Supp.2d 140 (NDNY 2002), a case in which counsel for Braaten in this matter was also counsel of record for defendants in that matter, District Court (Hurd, J.) stated clearly at 169 that "The issue of probable cause may be decided as a matter of law if there is no dispute as to the relevant events and beliefs of those involved", and in this case, the unrebutted sworn statements of Albany, New York police officer (******) in the Rensselaer County State Actors' Appendix make it incandescently clear to all parties that there was no probable cause here, and of all people, appellee John Christian Braaten should have been the very first to become suspicious, when Fiorino told him to sign the 9.45 order she had in her hand, so she could get it back to the head of custodians in the Rensselaer County Office Building, to have PLAINTIFF, a New York State licensed professional engineer, incarcerated as a dangerous mental patient in Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility, where Braaten had already certified an emergency admission pursuant to New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.39, despite never having seen PLAINTIFF in his life!
It is clear from Ruhlmann, supra, that had this happened in Ulster County in the State of New York, instead of Rensselaer County, PLAINTIFF would by this time in the proceedings have already been afforded discovery, and this matter would now be headed to a jury for speedy trial, in the interests of justice for PLAINTIFF, a permanently disabled Viet Nam combat veteran, with a damaged spine from the August 7, 2001 Jeffrey Pelletier assault documented in the video that Timothy Holt provided to Carol Fiorino as alleged proof that PLAINTIFF was "mentally ill", where appellee Jeffrey Pelletier can be seen and heard in the videotape calling PLAINTIFF a "F***ING RETARD", after having "cracked" PLAINTIFF's spine in a kind of wrestling throw where Pelletier grabbed PLAINTIFF's head and cracked PLAINTIFF's spine against Pelletier's hip, in a move intended to cripple PLAINTIFF, in wilful violation of 18 USC 1512(b) & 1513(b) of the laws of the United States.
As it is in Rensselaer County, however, instead of Ulster County, where the facts in this matter arise, counsel for Rensselaer County State Actors to include Jimino, Holt, Ayes, Champagne, Reiter, McGrath and Aiken, has combined with counsel for Northeast Health State Actors to include Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, N.Y., Adrian Anthony Morris, John Christian Braaten, Carol Fiorino, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, and counsel for Andrea Gallerie to argue in this Court for a lower standard of "reasonableness" in the County of Rensselaer in the State of New York which makes it "constitutional" as a matter of law in the Northern District of New York, for the head of custodial services for the Rensselaer County Office Building to be placed, 24/7, in a position of such authority over the life and liberty of a New York State licensed professional engineer investigating alleged corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health and Town of Poestenkill Planning and Zoning Boards, that this head of custodial services can, at the literal drop of a hat, have this licensed professional engineer picked up by the New York State Police for transport to a secure mental hospital of Timothy Holt's choosing!
It is uncontrovertible in this case, based upon the Appendix Rensselaer County State Actors have placed in evidence in support of their issues that on August 22, 2001, Holt ordered PLAINTIFF's "arrest" on alleged psychiatric grounds immediately after PLAINTIFF had informed appellee Jimino in writing of PLAINTIFF's intent to commence legal action against the Rensselaer County Department of Health to seek redress of grievance in the matter of the Pelletier sewage permit which was the subject of the letters Holt gave to Fiorino as alleged proof that PLAINTIFF was allegedly mentally ill.
Presumably, at the time Braaten executed the 9.45 order on August 22, 2001, he had read these letters, as they were a vital part of the "evidence" against PLAINTIFF that allegedly "supported" the "objective reasonableness" of Braaten's actions on August 22, 2001 and he had witnessed the assault of PLAINTIFF by Pelletier in the videotape, and so, it was with intent to cause harm to PLAINTIFF that Braaten executed the 9.45 order, where he had no objective evidence before him other than that PLAINTIFF was exactly what he said he was, an honest competent licensed engineer in the State of New York performing his duty with respect to a Board of Regents requirement for ALL licensed engineers in the State of New York, pursuant to section 29.3 of the Rules of the Board of Regents governing professional practice of engineers in the State of New York, to police the profession, 24/7.
In this case, the only conclusion that the established facts allow for, is that on August 22, 2001, Fiorino and Braaten combined with Holt for the express purpose of preventing PLAINTIFF from going forward with his lawsuit against Rensselaer County in a timely manner, which is exactly what ended up happening, to PLAINTIFF's detriment.
That is a tactic that the County of Rensselaer employed to deny PLAINTIFF equal protection and due process of law pursuant to the Constitution of the State of New York, and in their briefs, appellees are praying this Court to place its imprimatur on this tactic by immunizing Timothy Holt, Carol Fiorino, John Christian Braaten, and Andrea Gallerie, finding that under the circumstances as they are presented by the facts in this specific matter, the actions of Holt, Fiorino, Braaten and Gallerie were objectively reasonable as a matter of law, pursuant to this Court in Glass v. Mayas, 984 F.2d. 55,58 (2nd. Cir. 1993).
DATED: July 21, 2005
Respectfully submitted,
Paul R. Plante,
Appellant Pro Se
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 15 2009, 05:39 AM)
I am familiar with the Constitution, and that says that if you are charge with a crime you are entitled to a trial by jury.
Apparently Plante was charged with no crime here, so some other, as yet unrevealed, law needs to be cited.
Apparently Plante was charged with no crime here, so some other, as yet unrevealed, law needs to be cited.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 15 2009, 04:24 PM)
Partial text of Reply Brief sent to Second Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC by appellant Paul R. Plante on 25 July 2005 in answer to BRIEF of Thomas O'Connor, on behalf of Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino et al, to include Timothy Holt, Carl Richard Aiken, NYSPE, and Kevin Joseph McGrath, the New York State licensed surveyor who was at the same time the "lead professional" for developer Jeffrey Pelletier, and the Chairman of the Poestenkill Town Planning Board, and the Brief of the Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson Law Firm on behalf of John Christian Braaten et al, to include nurse Carol Fiorino, and Northeast Health, Inc. and Samaritan Hospital, and the Brief of nurse Andrea Gallerie:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
With respect to the question of "objective reasonableness" in this appeal, as it pertains to PLAINTIFF's "seizure" at the VA Hospital on August 22, 2001, in a comprehensive and scholarly opinion at 169-171 in Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services, 234 F.Supp.2d 140 (NDNY 2002), a case in which counsel for Braaten in this matter was also counsel of record for defendants in that matter, District Court (Hurd, J.) stated clearly at 169 that "The issue of probable cause may be decided as a matter of law if there is no dispute as to the relevant events and beliefs of those involved", and in this case, the unrebutted sworn statements of Albany, New York police officer (******) in the Rensselaer County State Actors' Appendix make it incandescently clear to all parties that there was no probable cause here, and of all people, appellee John Christian Braaten should have been the very first to become suspicious, when Fiorino told him to sign the 9.45 order she had in her hand, so she could get it back to the head of custodians in the Rensselaer County Office Building, to have PLAINTIFF, a New York State licensed professional engineer, incarcerated as a dangerous mental patient in Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility, where Braaten had already certified an emergency admission pursuant to New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.39, despite never having seen PLAINTIFF in his life!
It is clear from Ruhlmann, supra, that had this happened in Ulster County in the State of New York, instead of Rensselaer County, PLAINTIFF would by this time in the proceedings have already been afforded discovery, and this matter would now be headed to a jury for speedy trial, in the interests of justice for PLAINTIFF, a permanently disabled Viet Nam combat veteran, with a damaged spine from the August 7, 2001 Jeffrey Pelletier assault documented in the video that Timothy Holt provided to Carol Fiorino as alleged proof that PLAINTIFF was "mentally ill", where appellee Jeffrey Pelletier can be seen and heard in the videotape calling PLAINTIFF a "F***ING RETARD", after having "cracked" PLAINTIFF's spine in a kind of wrestling throw where Pelletier grabbed PLAINTIFF's head and cracked PLAINTIFF's spine against Pelletier's hip, in a move intended to cripple PLAINTIFF, in wilful violation of 18 USC 1512(b) & 1513(b) of the laws of the United States.
As it is in Rensselaer County, however, instead of Ulster County, where the facts in this matter arise, counsel for Rensselaer County State Actors to include Jimino, Holt, Ayes, Champagne, Reiter, McGrath and Aiken, has combined with counsel for Northeast Health State Actors to include Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, N.Y., Adrian Anthony Morris, John Christian Braaten, Carol Fiorino, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, and counsel for Andrea Gallerie to argue in this Court for a lower standard of "reasonableness" in the County of Rensselaer in the State of New York which makes it "constitutional" as a matter of law in the Northern District of New York, for the head of custodial services for the Rensselaer County Office Building to be placed, 24/7, in a position of such authority over the life and liberty of a New York State licensed professional engineer investigating alleged corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health and Town of Poestenkill Planning and Zoning Boards, that this head of custodial services can, at the literal drop of a hat, have this licensed professional engineer picked up by the New York State Police for transport to a secure mental hospital of Timothy Holt's choosing!
DATED: July 21, 2005
Respectfully submitted,
Paul R. Plante,
Appellant Pro Se
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
With respect to the question of "objective reasonableness" in this appeal, as it pertains to PLAINTIFF's "seizure" at the VA Hospital on August 22, 2001, in a comprehensive and scholarly opinion at 169-171 in Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services, 234 F.Supp.2d 140 (NDNY 2002), a case in which counsel for Braaten in this matter was also counsel of record for defendants in that matter, District Court (Hurd, J.) stated clearly at 169 that "The issue of probable cause may be decided as a matter of law if there is no dispute as to the relevant events and beliefs of those involved", and in this case, the unrebutted sworn statements of Albany, New York police officer (******) in the Rensselaer County State Actors' Appendix make it incandescently clear to all parties that there was no probable cause here, and of all people, appellee John Christian Braaten should have been the very first to become suspicious, when Fiorino told him to sign the 9.45 order she had in her hand, so she could get it back to the head of custodians in the Rensselaer County Office Building, to have PLAINTIFF, a New York State licensed professional engineer, incarcerated as a dangerous mental patient in Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility, where Braaten had already certified an emergency admission pursuant to New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.39, despite never having seen PLAINTIFF in his life!
It is clear from Ruhlmann, supra, that had this happened in Ulster County in the State of New York, instead of Rensselaer County, PLAINTIFF would by this time in the proceedings have already been afforded discovery, and this matter would now be headed to a jury for speedy trial, in the interests of justice for PLAINTIFF, a permanently disabled Viet Nam combat veteran, with a damaged spine from the August 7, 2001 Jeffrey Pelletier assault documented in the video that Timothy Holt provided to Carol Fiorino as alleged proof that PLAINTIFF was "mentally ill", where appellee Jeffrey Pelletier can be seen and heard in the videotape calling PLAINTIFF a "F***ING RETARD", after having "cracked" PLAINTIFF's spine in a kind of wrestling throw where Pelletier grabbed PLAINTIFF's head and cracked PLAINTIFF's spine against Pelletier's hip, in a move intended to cripple PLAINTIFF, in wilful violation of 18 USC 1512(b) & 1513(b) of the laws of the United States.
As it is in Rensselaer County, however, instead of Ulster County, where the facts in this matter arise, counsel for Rensselaer County State Actors to include Jimino, Holt, Ayes, Champagne, Reiter, McGrath and Aiken, has combined with counsel for Northeast Health State Actors to include Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, N.Y., Adrian Anthony Morris, John Christian Braaten, Carol Fiorino, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, and counsel for Andrea Gallerie to argue in this Court for a lower standard of "reasonableness" in the County of Rensselaer in the State of New York which makes it "constitutional" as a matter of law in the Northern District of New York, for the head of custodial services for the Rensselaer County Office Building to be placed, 24/7, in a position of such authority over the life and liberty of a New York State licensed professional engineer investigating alleged corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health and Town of Poestenkill Planning and Zoning Boards, that this head of custodial services can, at the literal drop of a hat, have this licensed professional engineer picked up by the New York State Police for transport to a secure mental hospital of Timothy Holt's choosing!
DATED: July 21, 2005
Respectfully submitted,
Paul R. Plante,
Appellant Pro Se
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 24 2009, 01:12 PM)
At page 245 of the RECORD before Judge Sotomayor in the Plante appeal, which is page 12 of Plante's Amended Complaint, in para. 32, STANDING is claimed by Plante based on SCOTUS precedent as follows:
This action is non-frivolous, as it presents this Court with substantial federal Constitutional questions with respect to the Constituional rule set forth by the United States Supreme Court in O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) and progeny in the State of New York, that without more, states may not incarcerate or maintain as political prisoners in mental institutions persons such as PLAINTIFF who are without mental disease or defect, and who are not dangerous, and who can survive safely in freedom by themselves, simply because of an exercise of protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
end quotes
And so ....
This action is non-frivolous, as it presents this Court with substantial federal Constitutional questions with respect to the Constituional rule set forth by the United States Supreme Court in O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) and progeny in the State of New York, that without more, states may not incarcerate or maintain as political prisoners in mental institutions persons such as PLAINTIFF who are without mental disease or defect, and who are not dangerous, and who can survive safely in freedom by themselves, simply because of an exercise of protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
end quotes
And so ....
Always happy to oblige you, Arneoker ....
And I revealed this same body of law to you before ....
You just did not hear me talking ....
And so ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 15 2009, 04:24 PM)
QUESTION OF LAW BEFORE OBAMA SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR IN NOVEMBER OF 2005 IN APPEAL OF NEW YORK STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER PAUL R. PLANTE:
Should the head of Janitorial Services for the Rensselaer County Office Building have the unimpeded
"constitutional" authority, 24/7, to hinder a New York State licensed professional engineer
in the performance of his duties, who at the time in question was investigating alleged
professional misconduct in the County of Rensselaer by Rensselaer County State Actor Appellees Carl Richard
Aiken, P.E., and Kevin Joseph McGrath, L.S. in connection with a Rensselaer County Department of Health
sewage system construction permit issued to appellee Jeffrey Pelletier, by having the unrestrained right to
have PLAINTIFF incarcerated at will in the secure mental hospital of Holt's choice, by the simple expedient of
Holt calling Fiorino at Samaritan Hospital, and putting in a request for a 9.45 order to be faxed over to Holt at
the Rensselaer County Office Building, so Holt can then have the New York State Police seize PLAINTIFF
for transport to wherever Holt directs them to go?
Should the head of Janitorial Services for the Rensselaer County Office Building have the unimpeded
"constitutional" authority, 24/7, to hinder a New York State licensed professional engineer
in the performance of his duties, who at the time in question was investigating alleged
professional misconduct in the County of Rensselaer by Rensselaer County State Actor Appellees Carl Richard
Aiken, P.E., and Kevin Joseph McGrath, L.S. in connection with a Rensselaer County Department of Health
sewage system construction permit issued to appellee Jeffrey Pelletier, by having the unrestrained right to
have PLAINTIFF incarcerated at will in the secure mental hospital of Holt's choice, by the simple expedient of
Holt calling Fiorino at Samaritan Hospital, and putting in a request for a 9.45 order to be faxed over to Holt at
the Rensselaer County Office Building, so Holt can then have the New York State Police seize PLAINTIFF
for transport to wherever Holt directs them to go?
Obama Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor said YES, OF COURSE HE SHOULD HAVE THAT POLITICAL POWER AND AUTHORITY ....
And so ...
Sooo .....
To summarize in here for you, Arneoker ...
What Obama Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor did in this case was to sanctify FRAUD and CORRUPTION in New York State ..
She also exempted Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino from having to comply with the law as written, as well as the New York State and United States Constitutions ....
So she made the oath of office in New York State into a complete mockery, along with the concept of rule of law ....
And it is our belief that she serves as a template for what Obama will put on the Supreme Court next, assuming that he has the opportunity ....
Do you disagree with any of this asessment?
And so ...
To summarize in here for you, Arneoker ...
What Obama Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor did in this case was to sanctify FRAUD and CORRUPTION in New York State ..
She also exempted Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino from having to comply with the law as written, as well as the New York State and United States Constitutions ....
So she made the oath of office in New York State into a complete mockery, along with the concept of rule of law ....
And it is our belief that she serves as a template for what Obama will put on the Supreme Court next, assuming that he has the opportunity ....
Do you disagree with any of this asessment?
And so ...
THIS THREAD IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE HEALTHCARE DEBATE HERE IN AMERICA AND IS A COMPANION TO MY NEW THREAD ON WHETHER OR NOT HEALTHCARE IN AMERICA IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ....
And so ...
And so ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 15 2009, 06:07 PM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 15 2009, 05:35 AM)
BTW, since the NYAG was involved, did they bring out their own case on this?
Well ...
I thought you were never going to ask that question, Arneoker ....
And here you are, right on schdule, like clockwork, asking that very question ....
And it is a GOOD question that you are asking, Arneoker, because it helps us to see our way more clear in here, in understanding exactly what INJUSTICE Obama Supreme Court judge Sonia Sotomayor has committed against our community up here ...
OF COURSE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ELIOT SPITZER BROUGHT OUT HIS OWN CASE HERE ....
That is why this Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman had submitted that AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN dated August 16, 2002 to
to Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr., a Justice of the New York State Supreme Court for Rensselaer County .....
SPITZER WAS TREATING THE FRAUDULENT 9.45 PSYCHIATRIC ARREST ORDER ISSUED BY DOCTOR JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN OF NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC.'s SAMARITAN HOSPITAL IN TROY, NEW YORK ON 8-22-01 AS HAVING BEEN VALIDLY ISSUED ...
And he defended that very position before Judge Sotomayor at the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC in November of 2005 ....
And when he ran for governor, he scored big political points off of that win before Sotomayor ...
And so ...
Gee, in all those words I can't discern what the NYAG case was. And I don't take your word for it that Spitzer's position here (and I really am quite certain that there is much, much more to the story than your little pithy description) is evidence on corruption on his part, it could (but we don't know, lacking the information) be evidence that Plante's case was weak meriting the rejection of those Federal judges.
Again, Plante may have be something of a victim of the system (certainly there are many who have suffered considerably more than he, but that does not make the actions concerning okay, I will grant you that), but that does not mean the case of his those judges rejected was a good case.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 16 2009, 06:22 AM)
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 15 2009, 04:24 PM)
QUESTION OF LAW BEFORE OBAMA SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR IN NOVEMBER OF 2005 IN APPEAL OF NEW YORK STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER PAUL R. PLANTE:
Should the head of Janitorial Services for the Rensselaer County Office Building have the unimpeded
"constitutional" authority, 24/7, to hinder a New York State licensed professional engineer
in the performance of his duties, who at the time in question was investigating alleged
professional misconduct in the County of Rensselaer by Rensselaer County State Actor Appellees Carl Richard
Aiken, P.E., and Kevin Joseph McGrath, L.S. in connection with a Rensselaer County Department of Health
sewage system construction permit issued to appellee Jeffrey Pelletier, by having the unrestrained right to
have PLAINTIFF incarcerated at will in the secure mental hospital of Holt's choice, by the simple expedient of
Holt calling Fiorino at Samaritan Hospital, and putting in a request for a 9.45 order to be faxed over to Holt at
the Rensselaer County Office Building, so Holt can then have the New York State Police seize PLAINTIFF
for transport to wherever Holt directs them to go?
Should the head of Janitorial Services for the Rensselaer County Office Building have the unimpeded
"constitutional" authority, 24/7, to hinder a New York State licensed professional engineer
in the performance of his duties, who at the time in question was investigating alleged
professional misconduct in the County of Rensselaer by Rensselaer County State Actor Appellees Carl Richard
Aiken, P.E., and Kevin Joseph McGrath, L.S. in connection with a Rensselaer County Department of Health
sewage system construction permit issued to appellee Jeffrey Pelletier, by having the unrestrained right to
have PLAINTIFF incarcerated at will in the secure mental hospital of Holt's choice, by the simple expedient of
Holt calling Fiorino at Samaritan Hospital, and putting in a request for a 9.45 order to be faxed over to Holt at
the Rensselaer County Office Building, so Holt can then have the New York State Police seize PLAINTIFF
for transport to wherever Holt directs them to go?
Obama Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor said YES, OF COURSE HE SHOULD HAVE THAT POLITICAL POWER AND AUTHORITY ....
And so ...
Please cite where you found that quote of hers.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 15 2009, 06:49 PM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 15 2009, 05:39 AM)
I am familiar with the Constitution, and that says that if you are charge with a crime you are entitled to a trial by jury.
Apparently Plante was charged with no crime here, so some other, as yet unrevealed, law needs to be cited.
Apparently Plante was charged with no crime here, so some other, as yet unrevealed, law needs to be cited.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 15 2009, 04:24 PM)
Partial text of Reply Brief sent to Second Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC by appellant Paul R. Plante on 25 July 2005 in answer to BRIEF of Thomas O'Connor, on behalf of Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino et al, to include Timothy Holt, Carl Richard Aiken, NYSPE, and Kevin Joseph McGrath, the New York State licensed surveyor who was at the same time the "lead professional" for developer Jeffrey Pelletier, and the Chairman of the Poestenkill Town Planning Board, and the Brief of the Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson Law Firm on behalf of John Christian Braaten et al, to include nurse Carol Fiorino, and Northeast Health, Inc. and Samaritan Hospital, and the Brief of nurse Andrea Gallerie:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
With respect to the question of "objective reasonableness" in this appeal, as it pertains to PLAINTIFF's "seizure" at the VA Hospital on August 22, 2001, in a comprehensive and scholarly opinion at 169-171 in Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services, 234 F.Supp.2d 140 (NDNY 2002), a case in which counsel for Braaten in this matter was also counsel of record for defendants in that matter, District Court (Hurd, J.) stated clearly at 169 that "The issue of probable cause may be decided as a matter of law if there is no dispute as to the relevant events and beliefs of those involved", and in this case, the unrebutted sworn statements of Albany, New York police officer (******) in the Rensselaer County State Actors' Appendix make it incandescently clear to all parties that there was no probable cause here, and of all people, appellee John Christian Braaten should have been the very first to become suspicious, when Fiorino told him to sign the 9.45 order she had in her hand, so she could get it back to the head of custodians in the Rensselaer County Office Building, to have PLAINTIFF, a New York State licensed professional engineer, incarcerated as a dangerous mental patient in Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility, where Braaten had already certified an emergency admission pursuant to New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.39, despite never having seen PLAINTIFF in his life!
It is clear from Ruhlmann, supra, that had this happened in Ulster County in the State of New York, instead of Rensselaer County, PLAINTIFF would by this time in the proceedings have already been afforded discovery, and this matter would now be headed to a jury for speedy trial, in the interests of justice for PLAINTIFF, a permanently disabled Viet Nam combat veteran, with a damaged spine from the August 7, 2001 Jeffrey Pelletier assault documented in the video that Timothy Holt provided to Carol Fiorino as alleged proof that PLAINTIFF was "mentally ill", where appellee Jeffrey Pelletier can be seen and heard in the videotape calling PLAINTIFF a "F***ING RETARD", after having "cracked" PLAINTIFF's spine in a kind of wrestling throw where Pelletier grabbed PLAINTIFF's head and cracked PLAINTIFF's spine against Pelletier's hip, in a move intended to cripple PLAINTIFF, in wilful violation of 18 USC 1512( & 1513( of the laws of the United States.
As it is in Rensselaer County, however, instead of Ulster County, where the facts in this matter arise, counsel for Rensselaer County State Actors to include Jimino, Holt, Ayes, Champagne, Reiter, McGrath and Aiken, has combined with counsel for Northeast Health State Actors to include Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, N.Y., Adrian Anthony Morris, John Christian Braaten, Carol Fiorino, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, and counsel for Andrea Gallerie to argue in this Court for a lower standard of "reasonableness" in the County of Rensselaer in the State of New York which makes it "constitutional" as a matter of law in the Northern District of New York, for the head of custodial services for the Rensselaer County Office Building to be placed, 24/7, in a position of such authority over the life and liberty of a New York State licensed professional engineer investigating alleged corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health and Town of Poestenkill Planning and Zoning Boards, that this head of custodial services can, at the literal drop of a hat, have this licensed professional engineer picked up by the New York State Police for transport to a secure mental hospital of Timothy Holt's choosing!
DATED: July 21, 2005
Respectfully submitted,
Paul R. Plante,
Appellant Pro Se
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
With respect to the question of "objective reasonableness" in this appeal, as it pertains to PLAINTIFF's "seizure" at the VA Hospital on August 22, 2001, in a comprehensive and scholarly opinion at 169-171 in Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services, 234 F.Supp.2d 140 (NDNY 2002), a case in which counsel for Braaten in this matter was also counsel of record for defendants in that matter, District Court (Hurd, J.) stated clearly at 169 that "The issue of probable cause may be decided as a matter of law if there is no dispute as to the relevant events and beliefs of those involved", and in this case, the unrebutted sworn statements of Albany, New York police officer (******) in the Rensselaer County State Actors' Appendix make it incandescently clear to all parties that there was no probable cause here, and of all people, appellee John Christian Braaten should have been the very first to become suspicious, when Fiorino told him to sign the 9.45 order she had in her hand, so she could get it back to the head of custodians in the Rensselaer County Office Building, to have PLAINTIFF, a New York State licensed professional engineer, incarcerated as a dangerous mental patient in Samaritan Hospital's secure mental health facility, where Braaten had already certified an emergency admission pursuant to New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.39, despite never having seen PLAINTIFF in his life!
It is clear from Ruhlmann, supra, that had this happened in Ulster County in the State of New York, instead of Rensselaer County, PLAINTIFF would by this time in the proceedings have already been afforded discovery, and this matter would now be headed to a jury for speedy trial, in the interests of justice for PLAINTIFF, a permanently disabled Viet Nam combat veteran, with a damaged spine from the August 7, 2001 Jeffrey Pelletier assault documented in the video that Timothy Holt provided to Carol Fiorino as alleged proof that PLAINTIFF was "mentally ill", where appellee Jeffrey Pelletier can be seen and heard in the videotape calling PLAINTIFF a "F***ING RETARD", after having "cracked" PLAINTIFF's spine in a kind of wrestling throw where Pelletier grabbed PLAINTIFF's head and cracked PLAINTIFF's spine against Pelletier's hip, in a move intended to cripple PLAINTIFF, in wilful violation of 18 USC 1512(
& 1513( of the laws of the United States. As it is in Rensselaer County, however, instead of Ulster County, where the facts in this matter arise, counsel for Rensselaer County State Actors to include Jimino, Holt, Ayes, Champagne, Reiter, McGrath and Aiken, has combined with counsel for Northeast Health State Actors to include Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, N.Y., Adrian Anthony Morris, John Christian Braaten, Carol Fiorino, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, and counsel for Andrea Gallerie to argue in this Court for a lower standard of "reasonableness" in the County of Rensselaer in the State of New York which makes it "constitutional" as a matter of law in the Northern District of New York, for the head of custodial services for the Rensselaer County Office Building to be placed, 24/7, in a position of such authority over the life and liberty of a New York State licensed professional engineer investigating alleged corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health and Town of Poestenkill Planning and Zoning Boards, that this head of custodial services can, at the literal drop of a hat, have this licensed professional engineer picked up by the New York State Police for transport to a secure mental hospital of Timothy Holt's choosing!
DATED: July 21, 2005
Respectfully submitted,
Paul R. Plante,
Appellant Pro Se
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 24 2009, 01:12 PM)
At page 245 of the RECORD before Judge Sotomayor in the Plante appeal, which is page 12 of Plante's Amended Complaint, in para. 32, STANDING is claimed by Plante based on SCOTUS precedent as follows:
This action is non-frivolous, as it presents this Court with substantial federal Constitutional questions with respect to the Constituional rule set forth by the United States Supreme Court in O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) and progeny in the State of New York, that without more, states may not incarcerate or maintain as political prisoners in mental institutions persons such as PLAINTIFF who are without mental disease or defect, and who are not dangerous, and who can survive safely in freedom by themselves, simply because of an exercise of protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
end quotes
And so ....
This action is non-frivolous, as it presents this Court with substantial federal Constitutional questions with respect to the Constituional rule set forth by the United States Supreme Court in O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) and progeny in the State of New York, that without more, states may not incarcerate or maintain as political prisoners in mental institutions persons such as PLAINTIFF who are without mental disease or defect, and who are not dangerous, and who can survive safely in freedom by themselves, simply because of an exercise of protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
end quotes
And so ....
Always happy to oblige you, Arneoker ....
And I revealed this same body of law to you before ....
You just did not hear me talking ....
And so ...
Well I am glad you are happy to oblige me, and hope that you actually will and answer my question about entitlement to a jury trial when one is not actually a defendant in a criminal case.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 20 2009, 07:48 AM)
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 16 2009, 06:22 AM)
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 15 2009, 04:24 PM)
QUESTION OF LAW BEFORE OBAMA SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR IN NOVEMBER OF 2005 IN APPEAL OF NEW YORK STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER PAUL R. PLANTE:
Should the head of Janitorial Services for the Rensselaer County Office Building have the unimpeded
"constitutional" authority, 24/7, to hinder a New York State licensed professional engineer
in the performance of his duties, who at the time in question was investigating alleged
professional misconduct in the County of Rensselaer by Rensselaer County State Actor Appellees Carl Richard
Aiken, P.E., and Kevin Joseph McGrath, L.S. in connection with a Rensselaer County Department of Health
sewage system construction permit issued to appellee Jeffrey Pelletier, by having the unrestrained right to
have PLAINTIFF incarcerated at will in the secure mental hospital of Holt's choice, by the simple expedient of
Holt calling Fiorino at Samaritan Hospital, and putting in a request for a 9.45 order to be faxed over to Holt at
the Rensselaer County Office Building, so Holt can then have the New York State Police seize PLAINTIFF
for transport to wherever Holt directs them to go?
Obama Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor said YES, OF COURSE HE SHOULD HAVE THAT POLITICAL POWER AND AUTHORITY ....
And so ...
Please cite where you found that quote of hers.
Dear Arneoker ....
This was an appeal ....
An appeal in federal appeals court is based on QUESTIONS OF LAW ....
The QUESTIONS OF LAW come from the persons involved in the appeal, not the judges ....
The judges are presented with QUESTIONS OF LAW, and that is what they decide, no matter what is written in the decision ....
They can talk about their vacation in that decision, or their hairdresser, or whatever, and that changes nothing ....
EACH APPEAL PRESENTS UNIQUE QUESTIONS OF LAW!
In this case, the QUESTION OF LAW that Sonia Sotomayor was asked to decide is as follows:
Should the head of Janitorial Services for the Rensselaer County Office Building have the unimpeded "constitutional" authority, 24/7, to hinder a New York State licensed professional engineer in the performance of his duties, who at the time in question was investigating alleged professional misconduct in the County of Rensselaer by Rensselaer County State Actor Appellees Carl Richard Aiken, P.E., and Kevin Joseph McGrath, L.S. in connection with a Rensselaer County Department of Health sewage system construction permit issued to appellee Jeffrey Pelletier, by having the unrestrained right to have PLAINTIFF incarcerated at will in the secure mental hospital of Holt's choice, by the simple expedient of Holt calling Fiorino at Samaritan Hospital, and putting in a request for a 9.45 order to be faxed over to Holt at the Rensselaer County Office Building, so Holt can then have the New York State Police seize PLAINTIFF for transport to wherever Holt directs them to go?
end quotes
IT IS A YES OR NO QUESTION, Arneoker ....
There is no grey there at all ...
In upholding the actions of the Rensselaer County defendants and the Samaritan Hospital defendants, and in dismissing Plante's appeal, Sotomayor answered this QUESTION OF LAW in the AFFIRAMTIVE - YES, HE DOES AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT POWER, DESPITE ANY LAWS OR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS TO THE CONTRARY ...
POLICY, Arneoker ....
Sotomayor said it right out loud in public ....
IN NEW YORK STATE, SHE IS THE ONE THAT SETS POLICY ....
And this is the policy she set in the Plante case:
The head of Janitorial Services for the Rensselaer County Office Building DOES have the unimpeded "constitutional" authority, 24/7, to hinder a New York State licensed professional engineer in the performance of his duties, who at the time in question was investigating alleged professional misconduct in the County of Rensselaer by Rensselaer County State Actor Appellees Carl Richard Aiken, P.E., and Kevin Joseph McGrath, L.S. in connection with a Rensselaer County Department of Health sewage system construction permit issued to appellee Jeffrey Pelletier, by having the unrestrained right to have PLAINTIFF incarcerated at will in the secure mental hospital of Holt's choice, by the simple expedient of Holt calling Fiorino at Samaritan Hospital, and putting in a request for a 9.45 order to be faxed over to Holt at the Rensselaer County Office Building, so Holt can then have the New York State Police seize PLAINTIFF for transport to wherever Holt directs them to go!
And so ...
As they say in academia, Arneoker: QED!
There it is ....
And so ...
There it is ....
And so ...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 20 2009, 07:51 AM)
Well I am glad you are happy to oblige me, and hope that you actually will and answer my question about entitlement to a jury trial when one is not actually a defendant in a criminal case.
I have answered that question several times, but would be happy to do it once more for clarity in here ....
And so ...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Robert R. Ruhlmann, PLAINTIFF v. Ulster County Department of Social Services, Ulster County Department of Mental Health, Marshall Beckman, Ernest Townsend, Benedictene Hospital, Ruth MacGregor, Dr. Joel Ginsburg, Dr. Kevin Smith, and Dr. Diana Puglisi, DEFENDANTS
234 F. Supp.2d 240
Judge Hurd, presiding
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
Thuillez, Ford & Gold Johnson, LLP, attorneys for DEFENDANTS Benedictene Hospital, Ruth MacGregor, Dr. Joel Ginsberg, and Dr. David Steres - Debra J. Young, of counsel
Suit was brought against county agencies, mental hospital, and public defendants and private physicians arising from SEIZURE AND INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT IN MENTAL HOSPITAL and plaintiff's subsequent termination of his employment.
Upon cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court, Hurd, J., held that:
(1) Genuine issues of MATERIAL FACT existed as to whether private defendants were state actors for purposes of plaintiff's § 1983 claim;
(2) SOCIAL WORKER WAS NOT A PROPER REPORTER FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION OF NEW YORK MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PURSUANT TO WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS PICKED UP;
(3) Summary judgment was precluded in favor of either side on false arrest/imprisonment claims;
(4) Although employee who had bi-polar disorder was not disabled for purposes of Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), he was disabled within meaning of New York law; and
(5) Summary judgment was precluded in favor on employer or employee's disability discrimination claim.
Probable Cause To Arrest Under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.45
"The existence of probable cause to arrest constitutes jurisdiction and 'is a complete defense to an action for false arrest'."
Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 852 (2d. Cir. 1996) (quoting Bernard v. United States, 25 F.3d 98, 102 (2d. Cir. 1994))
THE ISSUE OF PROBABLE CAUSE MAY BE DECIDED AS A MATTER OF LAW IF THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE RELEVANT EVENTS AND BELIEFS OF THOSE INVOLVED.
Weyant, 101 F.3d at 852, BUT WHERE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PERSON ARRESTING, OR IN THIS CASE, THE PERSONS DIRECTING THE ARREST, HAD PROBABLE CAUSE IS "PREDOMINANTLY FACTUAL IN NATURE, (IT IS) PROPERLY PRESENT[ABLE] TO THE JURY."
Moore v. Comesanas, 32 F.3d 670, 673 (2d. Cir. 1994) (citations omitted)).
As noted above, (New York State) Mental Hygiene Law § 9.45 MANDATES THAT A SEIZURE can be made ONLY ON PROBABLE CAUSE that a person "has a mental illness for which immediate care and treatment in a hospital IS APPROPRIATE and which is likely to result in serious harm to himself or herself or others."
The parties have very different versions of whether the information obtained AT THE POINT OF ISSUANCE OF THE PICK-UP ORDER WAS SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE STATUTE.
Defendants argue that it was clear that a serious threat had been made, that DSS personnel were frightened because of it, and that additional information, like plaintiff's mental illness history and his access to firearms, was also known.
This knowledge, argues the defendants, is a proper basis for issuing the PICK-UP ORDER.
Plaintiif, on the other hand, argues that the only information known to defendants about the threat was uncorroborated and incorrect, and that insufficient investigation was done to corroborate the threat.
He argues that the parties acted jointly and without the attention that was due the matter.
HE ARGUES THAT EVEN IF THE ORDER WAS ISSUED OUT OF THE AXIOM THAT IT IS BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY, SUCH IS NOT THE STANDARD OF § 9.45.
A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE FACTUAL DISCREPANCIES NEED NOT BE RESTATED HERE.
ALL DISPUTES ARE ADEQUATELY OUTLINED IN THE EXTENSIVE FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSED UP TO THIS POINT.
SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT SEVERAL JURY QUESTIONS EXIST AS TO THE ACTIONS TAKEN AND FACTS KNOWN TO THE DEFENDANTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE PICK-UP ORDER
PROBABLE CAUSE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW ON THIS RECORD.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 20 2009, 01:27 PM)
BUT WHERE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PERSON ARRESTING, OR IN THIS CASE, THE PERSONS DIRECTING THE ARREST, HAD PROBABLE CAUSE IS "PREDOMINANTLY FACTUAL IN NATURE, (IT IS) PROPERLY PRESENT[ABLE] TO THE JURY."
There is where Plante's right to a jury trial stemmed from, Arneoker ...
FROM THE LAW AS IT WAS WRITTEN ...
Before Sotomayor changed it in this specific case .....
And so ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 8 2005, 06:18 PM)
TO: Hon. Gary L. Sharpe, Federal District Judge, Northern District of New York
Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:
1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.
I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.
3.PLAINTIFF commenced the instant action by the filing a SUMMONS and COMPLAINT on June 18, 2003.
Subsequently, the Court issued a Decision and Conditional Order of Dismissal on July 17, 2003.
In the order, PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to amend his COMPLAINT to comply with the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
By order of Judge Hurd, PLAINTIFF, in order to avoid dismissal, was required to file an AMENDED COMPLAINT by August 29, 2003.
PLAINTIFF filed his AMENDED COMPLAINT on August 22, 2003 and DEFENDANTS were required to answer or move against the AMENDED COMPLAINT by November 10, 2003.
The RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS served their ANSWER to AMENDED COMPLAINT on November 10, 2003.
The remainder of the DEFENDANTS moved separately to dismiss the AMENDED COMPLAINT for the failure to state a cause of action pursuant to RULE 12(B)(6) of the FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE.
The motions to dismiss are scheduled for a hearing before this Court on September 28, 2004.
4. On or about August 13, 2004, PLAINTIFF served the instant motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin DEFENDANTS from treating the 9.45 order issued on August 22, 2001 as valid.
5. As more fully detailed in the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS' Memorandum of Law in Opposition, PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.
DATED: September 20, 2004
Albany, New York
Shawn T. Nash, Esq., under penalty of perjury, affirms as follows:
1. I am an attorney and counselor-at-law and am duly licensed to practice in the Northern District of New York.
I am an associate attorney with the law offices of Napierski, Vendenburgh & Napierski, LLP, attorneys for Defendants, Kathleen Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive; Joseph Cybulski, individually and as Rensselaer County Director of Community Services; Timothy Holt, Rensselaer County Director of Central Services; Denise Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Rensselaer County Public health Director; Roy Champagne, Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health; and Robert "BOB" Reiter, Rensselaer County Director of Veteran's Services, and as such, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
2. I make this affirmation IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from treating the New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order ISSUED ON August 21, 2001 as valid, thereby returning him to his status as a non-dangerous person, and restoring his professional reputation and standing as a New York State licensed professional engineer.
3.PLAINTIFF commenced the instant action by the filing a SUMMONS and COMPLAINT on June 18, 2003.
Subsequently, the Court issued a Decision and Conditional Order of Dismissal on July 17, 2003.
In the order, PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to amend his COMPLAINT to comply with the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
By order of Judge Hurd, PLAINTIFF, in order to avoid dismissal, was required to file an AMENDED COMPLAINT by August 29, 2003.
PLAINTIFF filed his AMENDED COMPLAINT on August 22, 2003 and DEFENDANTS were required to answer or move against the AMENDED COMPLAINT by November 10, 2003.
The RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS served their ANSWER to AMENDED COMPLAINT on November 10, 2003.
The remainder of the DEFENDANTS moved separately to dismiss the AMENDED COMPLAINT for the failure to state a cause of action pursuant to RULE 12(B)(6) of the FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE.
The motions to dismiss are scheduled for a hearing before this Court on September 28, 2004.
4. On or about August 13, 2004, PLAINTIFF served the instant motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin DEFENDANTS from treating the 9.45 order issued on August 22, 2001 as valid.
5. As more fully detailed in the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS' Memorandum of Law in Opposition, PLAINTIFF's motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.
DATED: September 20, 2004
Albany, New York
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 14 2005, 04:08 PM)
July 29, 2004
TO: Paul R. Plante
FROM: Marguerite A. Conan, Esq., Staff Attorney for the Federal District Court of the Northern District of New York
Dear PLAINTIFF:
Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece requested that I respond to your recent letter addressed to Hon. Donald E. Walter, Docket No. 77.
As you know, shortly after your letter was received, this matter was returned from Judge Walter to the original District Judge and Magistrate Judge assigned to this case, Docket No. 78.
At this time, motions to dismiss filed on behalf of the defendants are pending and will be addressed by the Court in due course.
YOUR LETTER TOUCHES UPON SEVERAL DIFFERENT MATTERS RELATED TO THIS LITIGATION AND HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COURT.
Please be advised, however, that all requests for judicial action must be addressed to the Court by a motion filed in compliance with the Local Rules of Practice of the Northern District.
Accordingly, no rulings or determinations of any kind will be made at this time with regard to the matters you raise!
Very truly yours,
Marguerite A. Conan, Esq.
cc: ALL Parties
TO: Paul R. Plante
FROM: Marguerite A. Conan, Esq., Staff Attorney for the Federal District Court of the Northern District of New York
Dear PLAINTIFF:
Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece requested that I respond to your recent letter addressed to Hon. Donald E. Walter, Docket No. 77.
As you know, shortly after your letter was received, this matter was returned from Judge Walter to the original District Judge and Magistrate Judge assigned to this case, Docket No. 78.
At this time, motions to dismiss filed on behalf of the defendants are pending and will be addressed by the Court in due course.
YOUR LETTER TOUCHES UPON SEVERAL DIFFERENT MATTERS RELATED TO THIS LITIGATION AND HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COURT.
Please be advised, however, that all requests for judicial action must be addressed to the Court by a motion filed in compliance with the Local Rules of Practice of the Northern District.
Accordingly, no rulings or determinations of any kind will be made at this time with regard to the matters you raise!
Very truly yours,
Marguerite A. Conan, Esq.
cc: ALL Parties
Did you see these words of this defense lawyer above here in the Plante case, Arneoker?
By order of Judge Hurd, PLAINTIFF (Plante), in order to avoid dismissal, was required to file an AMENDED COMPLAINT by August 29, 2003.
PLAINTIFF filed his AMENDED COMPLAINT on August 22, 2003 and DEFENDANTS were required to answer or move against the AMENDED COMPLAINT by November 10, 2003.
The RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS served their ANSWER to AMENDED COMPLAINT on November 10, 2003.
By order of Judge Hurd, PLAINTIFF, in order to avoid dismissal, was required to file an AMENDED COMPLAINT by August 29, 2003.
PLAINTIFF filed his AMENDED COMPLAINT on August 22, 2003 and DEFENDANTS were required to answer or move against the AMENDED COMPLAINT by November 10, 2003.
The RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS served their ANSWER to AMENDED COMPLAINT on November 10, 2003.
end quotes
DO YOU COMPREHEND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE TO THIS MATTER?
And what about this following sentence from this July 29, 2004 letter above here to Plante from Marguerite A. Conan, Esq., Staff Attorney for the Federal District Court of the Northern District of New York:
YOUR LETTER TOUCHES UPON SEVERAL DIFFERENT MATTERS RELATED TO THIS LITIGATION AND HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COURT.
end quotes
Do you comprehend its significance?
And since I am not in the habit of asking you questions that I don't already know the answer to, I will tell you:
AS OF JULY 29, 2004, PLANTE DID HAVE STANDING IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BASED ON THE FACT THAT HE WAS INDEED UNLAWFULLY INCARCERATED IN THE SECURE MENTAL FACILITY OF THE STRATTON VA HOSPITAL IN ALBANY, NEW YORK ON 8-22-01 ...
Elsewise, he would not have been allowed to amend his complaint and the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS would not have answered it ....
If Plante did not have standing then, his complaint would have been dismissed out of hand, not amended and answered ...
BUT ....
That of course was going to cause problems for the politically-powerful defendants ....
So the politically-connected lawyers for the defendants did some alleged "JUDGE SHOPPING" to find a more sympathetic federal judge who would alter the law and facts in the case to strip Plante of his standing ...
And thus, save them from having to have their clients face a federal jury on civil rights charges ....
And that is what Sotomayor approved as a federal appeals court judge ...
That CHICANERY ....
And patent dishonesty ....
And now, she is a U.S. Supreme Court judge ...
And so ....
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 7 2009, 10:51 AM)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 15th day of December, two thousand and five.
PRESENT:
HON. SONIA SOTOMAYOR,
HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Circuit Judges,
HON. RICHARD K. EATON,
Judge,*
-X
PAUL R. PLANTE,
Appellant,
v. No. 05-2133-cv
EUGENE BECHARD, et. al,
Defendants-Appellees.
-X
APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: Paul R. Plante, pro se, Averill Park, New York.
APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: David T. Luntz, Ryan & Smallacombe, PLLC,
Albany, New York, for Eugene Bechard and David Gebhardt,
Colleen H. Whalen, Malta, New York, for Andrea J. Gallerie,
Julie M. Sheridan, Office of the New York State Attorney General, Albany, New York, for William Shea,
Donald E. Rook, Thuillez, Ford, Gold, Johnson & Bulter, LLP, Albany, New York, for Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, NY, Adrian A. Morris, John C. Braaten, Carol Fiorino, and Bernadette R. Hallam,
Thomas J. O'Connor, Napierski, Vandenburgh & Napierski, LLP, Albany, New York, for Kathleen Jimino, Joseph Cybulski, Timothy Holt, Denise M. Ayers, Roy Champagne, Robert Reiter, Kevin J. McGrath, and Carl R. Aiken,
Raymond Pelletier, pro se, Averill Park, New York,
Jeffrey Pelletier, pro se, Averill Park, New York,
Gerald Jones, pro se, Averill Park, New York,
Gary James Horton, pro se, Averill Park, New York.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Sharpe, J.). is AFFIRMED.
Paul R. Plante appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.
We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts in this case, its relevant procedural history, and the issues on appeal.
A district court's dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo.
See Cooper v. Parsky, 140 F.3d 433, 440 (2d Cir. 1998).
"(I)n ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court is required to accept the material facts alleged in the complaint as true, and not to dismiss 'unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992, 998 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) (citation omitted)).
We agree with the district court that, even construing Plante's amended complaint liberally, Plante's conspiracy claims were wholly devoid of any supporting detail and Plante's own exhibits defeated his claim that he had been unlawfully committed.
Additionally, to the extent that Plante has attempted to assert claims against Jeffrey Pelletier for assault, he has not alleged that Pelletier is a state actor liable under § 1983.
Further, with respect to Plante's allegations that the defendants violated his due process rights by labeling him as mentally unstable and dangerous, Plante failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted.
Even if Plante demonstrated that his reputation was damaged by his commitment, he did not demonstrate that this "stigma" was coupled with a tangible deprivation.
See Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992, 999-1000 (2d Cir. 1994) (noting that a state action resulting in "stigma," that is, in public opprobrium and damage to an individual's reputation, must be combined with a more significant deprivation of liberty or property to be cognizable under the due process clause).
As the district court explained, the reports from the VA Hospital indicated that Plante voluntarily admitted himself to the mental facility.
Thus, Plante has not established that the defendants' actions caused him to suffer a tangible loss.
For these reasons, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT: Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk By:
*The Honorable Richard K. Eaton, Judge, United States Court of International Trade sitting by designation.
http://vlex.com/vid/paul-r-plante-eugene-b...dants-20096740#
SUMMARY ORDER
THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 15th day of December, two thousand and five.
PRESENT:
HON. SONIA SOTOMAYOR,
HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Circuit Judges,
HON. RICHARD K. EATON,
Judge,*
-X
PAUL R. PLANTE,
Appellant,
v. No. 05-2133-cv
EUGENE BECHARD, et. al,
Defendants-Appellees.
-X
APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: Paul R. Plante, pro se, Averill Park, New York.
APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: David T. Luntz, Ryan & Smallacombe, PLLC,
Albany, New York, for Eugene Bechard and David Gebhardt,
Colleen H. Whalen, Malta, New York, for Andrea J. Gallerie,
Julie M. Sheridan, Office of the New York State Attorney General, Albany, New York, for William Shea,
Donald E. Rook, Thuillez, Ford, Gold, Johnson & Bulter, LLP, Albany, New York, for Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, NY, Adrian A. Morris, John C. Braaten, Carol Fiorino, and Bernadette R. Hallam,
Thomas J. O'Connor, Napierski, Vandenburgh & Napierski, LLP, Albany, New York, for Kathleen Jimino, Joseph Cybulski, Timothy Holt, Denise M. Ayers, Roy Champagne, Robert Reiter, Kevin J. McGrath, and Carl R. Aiken,
Raymond Pelletier, pro se, Averill Park, New York,
Jeffrey Pelletier, pro se, Averill Park, New York,
Gerald Jones, pro se, Averill Park, New York,
Gary James Horton, pro se, Averill Park, New York.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Sharpe, J.). is AFFIRMED.
Paul R. Plante appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.
We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts in this case, its relevant procedural history, and the issues on appeal.
A district court's dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo.
See Cooper v. Parsky, 140 F.3d 433, 440 (2d Cir. 1998).
"(I)n ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court is required to accept the material facts alleged in the complaint as true, and not to dismiss 'unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992, 998 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) (citation omitted)).
We agree with the district court that, even construing Plante's amended complaint liberally, Plante's conspiracy claims were wholly devoid of any supporting detail and Plante's own exhibits defeated his claim that he had been unlawfully committed.
Additionally, to the extent that Plante has attempted to assert claims against Jeffrey Pelletier for assault, he has not alleged that Pelletier is a state actor liable under § 1983.
Further, with respect to Plante's allegations that the defendants violated his due process rights by labeling him as mentally unstable and dangerous, Plante failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted.
Even if Plante demonstrated that his reputation was damaged by his commitment, he did not demonstrate that this "stigma" was coupled with a tangible deprivation.
See Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992, 999-1000 (2d Cir. 1994) (noting that a state action resulting in "stigma," that is, in public opprobrium and damage to an individual's reputation, must be combined with a more significant deprivation of liberty or property to be cognizable under the due process clause).
As the district court explained, the reports from the VA Hospital indicated that Plante voluntarily admitted himself to the mental facility.
Thus, Plante has not established that the defendants' actions caused him to suffer a tangible loss.
For these reasons, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT: Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk By:
*The Honorable Richard K. Eaton, Judge, United States Court of International Trade sitting by designation.
http://vlex.com/vid/paul-r-plante-eugene-b...dants-20096740#
And you will notice, Arneoker, that in her SUMMARY ORDER in the Plante case, that Sotomayor makes absolutely no mention of any of this prior procedural history, or federal district court judge Hurd ....
Nor does she make any mention of the QUESTIONS OF LAW that were presented to her in this appeal ....
Instead, Arneoker, she propagates a lie to protect politically-powerful persons in Rensselaer County in upstate New York:
We agree with the district court that, even construing Plante's amended complaint liberally, Plante's conspiracy claims were wholly devoid of any supporting detail and Plante's own exhibits defeated his claim that he had been unlawfully committed.
end quotes
Who Sotomayor is agreeing with there is NOT Judge Hurd who knew the law as written and granted Plante STANDING to sue in federal court as a result ...
Who Sotomayor is agreeing with is the second federal judge who blatantly changed the facts in the matter to strip Plante of his standing so he couldn't sue in federal court ...
And now, Sotomayor is a U.S. Supreme Court justice ...
And so ...
You do have to admit, Arneoker, that she is slick in her dishonesty here ....
And blatant ....
And so ...
And blatant ....
And so ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 20 2009, 02:29 PM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 20 2009, 07:48 AM)
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 16 2009, 06:22 AM)
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 15 2009, 04:24 PM)
QUESTION OF LAW BEFORE OBAMA SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR IN NOVEMBER OF 2005 IN APPEAL OF NEW YORK STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER PAUL R. PLANTE:
Should the head of Janitorial Services for the Rensselaer County Office Building have the unimpeded
"constitutional" authority, 24/7, to hinder a New York State licensed professional engineer
in the performance of his duties, who at the time in question was investigating alleged
professional misconduct in the County of Rensselaer by Rensselaer County State Actor Appellees Carl Richard
Aiken, P.E., and Kevin Joseph McGrath, L.S. in connection with a Rensselaer County Department of Health
sewage system construction permit issued to appellee Jeffrey Pelletier, by having the unrestrained right to
have PLAINTIFF incarcerated at will in the secure mental hospital of Holt's choice, by the simple expedient of
Holt calling Fiorino at Samaritan Hospital, and putting in a request for a 9.45 order to be faxed over to Holt at
the Rensselaer County Office Building, so Holt can then have the New York State Police seize PLAINTIFF
for transport to wherever Holt directs them to go?
Obama Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor said YES, OF COURSE HE SHOULD HAVE THAT POLITICAL POWER AND AUTHORITY ....
And so ...
Please cite where you found that quote of hers.
Dear Arneoker ....
This was an appeal ....
An appeal in federal appeals court is based on QUESTIONS OF LAW ....
The QUESTIONS OF LAW come from the persons involved in the appeal, not the judges ....
The judges are presented with QUESTIONS OF LAW, and that is what they decide, no matter what is written in the decision ....
They can talk about their vacation in that decision, or their hairdresser, or whatever, and that changes nothing ....
EACH APPEAL PRESENTS UNIQUE QUESTIONS OF LAW!
In this case, the QUESTION OF LAW that Sonia Sotomayor was asked to decide is as follows:
Should the head of Janitorial Services for the Rensselaer County Office Building have the unimpeded "constitutional" authority, 24/7, to hinder a New York State licensed professional engineer in the performance of his duties, who at the time in question was investigating alleged professional misconduct in the County of Rensselaer by Rensselaer County State Actor Appellees Carl Richard Aiken, P.E., and Kevin Joseph McGrath, L.S. in connection with a Rensselaer County Department of Health sewage system construction permit issued to appellee Jeffrey Pelletier, by having the unrestrained right to have PLAINTIFF incarcerated at will in the secure mental hospital of Holt's choice, by the simple expedient of Holt calling Fiorino at Samaritan Hospital, and putting in a request for a 9.45 order to be faxed over to Holt at the Rensselaer County Office Building, so Holt can then have the New York State Police seize PLAINTIFF for transport to wherever Holt directs them to go?
end quotes
IT IS A YES OR NO QUESTION, Arneoker ....
There is no grey there at all ...
In upholding the actions of the Rensselaer County defendants and the Samaritan Hospital defendants, and in dismissing Plante's appeal, Sotomayor answered this QUESTION OF LAW in the AFFIRAMTIVE - YES, HE DOES AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT POWER, DESPITE ANY LAWS OR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS TO THE CONTRARY ...
POLICY, Arneoker ....
Sotomayor said it right out loud in public ....
IN NEW YORK STATE, SHE IS THE ONE THAT SETS POLICY ....
And this is the policy she set in the Plante case:
The head of Janitorial Services for the Rensselaer County Office Building DOES have the unimpeded "constitutional" authority, 24/7, to hinder a New York State licensed professional engineer in the performance of his duties, who at the time in question was investigating alleged professional misconduct in the County of Rensselaer by Rensselaer County State Actor Appellees Carl Richard Aiken, P.E., and Kevin Joseph McGrath, L.S. in connection with a Rensselaer County Department of Health sewage system construction permit issued to appellee Jeffrey Pelletier, by having the unrestrained right to have PLAINTIFF incarcerated at will in the secure mental hospital of Holt's choice, by the simple expedient of Holt calling Fiorino at Samaritan Hospital, and putting in a request for a 9.45 order to be faxed over to Holt at the Rensselaer County Office Building, so Holt can then have the New York State Police seize PLAINTIFF for transport to wherever Holt directs them to go!
And so ...
I think what you are citing is the argument of the lawyer for Plante. I asked you to quote Sotomayor. I have to conclude that there is no such quote as you implied. And no, I do not take your word for it that this lawyer has stated the issue properly. He or she was trying to win a case, if it were a weak case then the motive would hardly be to state the issue properly.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.