Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: BUSH APPOINTEE in Northern District of New York
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Judicial System
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 23 2006, 04:57 PM)
SO ...

The relevance is ....

That when he tossed the federal civil rights suit ....

BASED UPON A "RECONSTRUCTED RECORD" .....

That omitted all of what PLAINTIFF had incorporated by reference ....

And all of what ATTORNEYS SHAWN NASH, NELSON SHEINGOLD, and "DONNIE BOB" FORD ....

KNEW WAS IN THAT RECORD ....

JUDGE SHARPE VIOLATED THAT STANDARD OF REVIEW ....

KNOWINGLY ....

AND WILFULLY ...

And so ....

There is the relevance. .....

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 10 2005, 08:12 AM)
"Bush's Judges Already Making Their Mark"

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - No need to wait until President Bush appoints a Supreme Court justice to see how he will make his mark on the federal judiciary.

But already it is clear that these judges make up a solidly conservative crowd that tends to lean Bush's way on the big issues of the day.

"When the president talks about strict construction, everyone knows what he's talking about."

Overall, in his four-plus years in office, Bush has pushed a Republican-leaning federal judiciary farther to the right with more than 200 appointments to appellate and district courts.

By the end of his second term, Bush could eclipse Presidents Clinton and Reagan in the number of judges selected ....

And leave an ideological imprint on the courts for generations to come.

Since 1968, when Nixon was elected, Republican presidents have appointed 1,040 judges; Democrats have named 625.

The cumulative effect, said political scientist Donald Songer of the University of South Carolina, is that "the last three Republican presidents' nominees control virtually the whole judiciary."

People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, titled its 2004 study of Bush's judicial appointees "Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears."

It concluded that Bush appointees already have moved to limit significantly congressional authority and protection of individual rights.

"For many, many of the nominees in the lower courts, the Bush administration has been decidedly pushing toward judges with a pretty firm right-wing ideology," said Elliot Mincberg, the group's legal director.


Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, said that when it comes to the courts, Bush "gets it" in a way that even his father and Reagan did not.

His nominees "understand the problems with the way the Constitution has been interpreted and will go about fixing that in their own decisions," she said.

And once again ....

Good morning, America ....

And the candid world, as well ....

And for those of you who are just stopping by for the first time ....

Wondering what we are talking about in here ...

Right now ...

Upon reflection ...

I would say ...

That what we are doing in here ....

IS making a "REAL-TIME" demonstration ....

Of exactly how easy it WAS ....

For a relatively small group of determined individuals ....

TO DEFEAT OUR CONSTITUTION HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ...

AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AS WELL ...

Without a shot being fired ....

Or the need to "go to war" against OUR America ....

To do that ....

Rather ....

It was accomplished ....

RIGHT OUT IN PLAIN SIGHT, REALLY ....

By the real simple expedient ....

Of simply nullifying it ...

RENDERING ITS PROVIONS NULL AND VOID .....

BY THE AGENCY ....

OF A PEN ....

IN THE HAND ...

OF A MAN .....

THAT GEORGE W. BUSH ....

AND THE REPUBLICAN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES ....

PUT INTO A FEDERAL JUDGESHIP UP HERE ...

TO DO EXACTLY THAT ....

STRIKE DEAD THE PROVISIONS ....

OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ....

WHICH USED TO PROVIDE ....

FOR PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ....

BECAUSE ....

NOW WE DON'T HAVE ANY ....

WHICH IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS DEMONSTRATING ....

WITH DOCUMENTATION .....

FROM AN ACTUAL SET OF CIVIL RIGHTS PROCEEDINGS ....

IN FEDERAL COURT ...

FOR THE NORTHEN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ...

WHERE A MAN'S LIFE ...

AND LIVELIHOOD ...

AND LIBERTY ...

WERE SIMPLY STRIPPED FROM HIM ...

BY THIS BUSH-APPOINTEE ...

WITH THE BLESSINGS OF THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ABOVE HIM ....

FOR THE "CRIME" ....

OF HAVING INTEGRITY ...

IN A CORRUPT REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED "STATE" ....

AND FOR THE FURTHER "CRIME" ....

OF USING HIS GOD-GIVEN INTELLIGENCE ....

AND HIS EDUCATION ....

AS AN ENGINEER ...

TO QUESTION ....

WHY WE MUST LIVE IN A CORRUPT STATE ...

HERE IN OUR AMERICA ...

WHEN OUR LAWS AND HISTORY AND CONSTITUTIONS ....

WERE INTENDED TO PROTECT US FROM THAT .....

AND FOR USING ....

HIS GOD-GIVEN INTELLIGENCE ....

AND HIS EDUCATION ....

AS AN ENGINEER ...

AND OUR LAWS AND HISTORY AND CONSTITUTIONS ....

TO ATTACK THAT CORRUPTION .....

THIS MAN WAS CRUSHED ....

ALONG WITH THE PROTECTION OF OUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ....

WHICH HAVE BEEN STRIPPED FROM US ...

BY THIS BUSH-APPOINTEE'S MARCH 31, 2005 DECISION IN THIS MATTER ....

AS IF THEY NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE ....

WITHOUT ANY FANFARE WHATSOEVER ...

NO MUSS AND FUSS WITH HAVING TO HAVE PUBLIC DISCUSSION ...

AND DEBATE ....

ON WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE A CONSTITUTION ...

OR WHAT ROLE A CONSTITUTION MIGHT PLAY IN OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT ....

NO ...

NONE OF THAT ...

JUST "WRITE IT DEAD" ....

THROUGH THE AGENCY ....

OF A FEDERAL JUDGE'S PEN ....

And that is that ...

Slick ...

VERY SLICK, IN FACT ....

AND CLEAN .....

IF YOU ARE AN ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST, OF COURSE ....

And that is the point ...

OF WHAT THIS WENDY LONG ....

COUNSEL FOR THE CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION NETWORK .....

IS TALKING ABOUT ....

WHEN SHE SAYS .....

WHEN IT COMES TO THE COURTS ....

GEORGE W. BUSH "GETS IT" .....

IN A WAY ....

THAT HIS FATHER AND RONALD REAGAN DID NOT ....

AND THAT GEORGE W. BUSH'S JUDGES ....

"UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS ...."

"WITH THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION ...."

"HAS BEEN INTERPRETED ..."

"AND WILL GO ABOUT ..."

"FIXING THAT ..."

"IN THEIR OWN DECISIONS ...."

In this case under discussion in here ....

WHICH IS A REAL CASE ...

Involving real people ....

From up in the State of New York ....

Where REPUBLICAN Governor George Pataki ...

A "BUSH SOLDIER" ....

HOLDS SWAY .......

The "PROBLEM" with the way the United States Constitution has been interpreted ....

IS THAT IS PROVIDES FOR "CHECKS AND BALANCES" ....

ON OUR GOVERNMENT ....

THAT RUB ...

AND CHAFE ....

AND BIND ....

ON THOSE ....

WHO ARE "THE GOVERNMENT" .....

And so ....

In this case ...

WHICH WE HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION FOR ....

AND HENCE ...

A BASIS TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION ....

BASED ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN OPINION ...

AND EMOTION ....

BUSH-APPOINTEE GARY L. SHARPE ....

"FIXED THAT" .....

SIMPLY BY ALTERING FACTS .....

AND IGNORING THE LAW ....

AND THE CONSTITUTION ...

WITH IMPUNITY ....

SINCE AS A FEDERAL JUDGE ...

HE IS AN "UNTOUCHABLE" .....

And so ....

And I suppose a sub-topic in here ...

Would be ...

The NECESSARY ROLE .....

THAT JUDGES ...

AND LAWYERS ...

AND THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ....

ALL PLAY .....

IN MAINTAINING AND PROMOTING ....

CORRUPT GOVERNMENT .....

HERE IN OUR AMERICA ....

WITH "CORRUPT" MEANING GOVERNMENT .....

FOR THE "BENEFIT" ....

OF A SMALL GROUP ...

AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LARGER GROUP ...

WHO UP HERE ...

ARE SIMPLY CUT OUT OF THE "PROCESS" OF GOVERNMENT ...

BY JUDICIAL DECREE ...

AND BY THREATS ....

AND INTIMIDATION ....

AND COERCION ...

WHICH THE COURTS WERE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT US FROM ....

IN A NON-CORRUPT "STATE" ....

WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT ....

OF, BY AND FOR ....

THE PEOPLE ....

WHICH CONCEPT ...

RUNS COUNTER ...

TO THE IDEOLOGY ....

THAT GEORGE W. BUSH ....

AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ...

HAVE IMPOSED UPON US ...

BY JUDICIAL DECREE ...

UP HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

And so .....
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 3 2006, 05:54 PM)
"Livyjr, again, please pardon the interruption, but when New York State RESPONDENT Barbara A. Soldano makes reference in her March 6, 2002 AFFIDAVIT to another RESPONDENT'S DECISION TO DENY PLAINTIFF ACCESS TO PARTICULAR CLINICAL RECORDS, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MENTAL HYGIENE LAW §33.16©(4), to whom is she referring; and would that individual be one of the DEFENDANTS in the federal proceedings under discussion in here?"

And for the best answer to that question ....

As well as a graphic demonstration ...

Of how the Office ....

Of New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer ....

Began loading up the record in this matter ....

Right from the get-go ...

With outright falsehoods ....

Such as the outright falsehood sworn to by New York State RESPONDENT Barbara A. Soldano in PARAGRAPH #10 of her March 6, 2002 AFFIDAVIT ....

That on August 22, 2001 ...

PLAINTIFF had allegedly been transported to the Samaritan Hospital GULAG ...

By the New York State Police ....

That PLAINTIFF was never afforded a full and fair opportunity to rebut ....

Let us go back to the March 6, 2002 AFFIDAVIT of Barbara A. Soldano ....

To paragraph #9 ....

Where we have as follows ....

And so ...

9. Exhibit B contains a statement by "the designee of the Director of Community Services for Rensselaer", WHOSE NAME WAS REDACTED FROM THE FORM, that "it has been reported to me that PLAINTIFF 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 him/herself or others."

THE FORM FURTHER DIRECTS THE NEW YORK STATE POLICE TO TAKE INTO CUSTODY AND TRANSPORT HIM TO SAMARITAN HOSPITAL OR THE VETERANS' ADMINSITRATION HOSPITAL.

10. APPARENTLY, PURSUANT TO THE "9.45 ORDER", PETITIONER PLAINTIFF WAS BROUGHT TO SAMARITAN HOSPITAL ON AUGUST 22, 2001.

At some subsequent time, according to documentation provided by petitioner PLAINTIFF to the COMMITTEE, petitioner PLAINTIFF CONTACTED NORTHEAST PRIMARY CARE NETWORK, WHICH OPERATES SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, IN ORDER TO OBTAIN COPIES OF CLINICAL RECORDS.

11. NORTHEAST PRIMARY CARE NETWORK PROVIDED PETITIONER WITH THE TWO REDACTED DOCUMENTS, WHICH PETITIONER LATER FORWARDED TO THE COMMITTEE AND WHICH ARE ANNEXED AS EXHIBITS A AND B.

12. APPARENTLY IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S VERBAL REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF THE REDACTED NAMES, BERNADETTE HALLAM, A VICE PRESIDENT AT NORTHEAST PRIMARY CARE NETWORK, WROTE TO PETITIONER ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2001.

THE LETTER STATED AS FOLLOWS:

"As you noted, I HAVE BLOCKED OUT THE NAMES of all parties noted in the documents.

"AT THIS TIME, I DO NOT SEE A VALUE IN RELEASING THIS INFORMATION."

In accordance with Section 18 of the New York State Public Health Law and or Section 33.16 of the Mental Health Law, PORTIONS OF REQUESTED INFORMATION CAN BE WITHHELD BASED UPON OUR DETERMINATION THAT THE RELEASE OF THIS INFORMATION COULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL AND IDENTIFIABLE HARM TO OTHERS.


And so ....

The other NEW YORK STATE RESPONDENT that New York State RESPONDENT Barbara A. Soldano is referring to in her March 6, 2002 AFFIDAVIT .....

Which affidavit was submitted to New York State Supreme Court for Rensselaer County by Ms. Ullman .....

In support of her successful bid in that court to:

1) Keep from PLAINTIFF pertinent information as to the identities of those who were involved in the August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN ......

So as to "BURN UP" the statute of limitations for those involved ....

Whose identities were being kept "CONFIDENTIAL" .....

By the Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York ....

And .....

2) To keep the sworn testimony of the Albany, New York Police officer out of the record in connection with the PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN ......

Both of which were to PLAINTIFF's detriment .....

In the State of New York ...

Where the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS working against PLAINTIFF ....

WAS ONLY FOUR MONTHS ....

Was Bernadette Hallam ....

VICE PRESIDENT for BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES for Northeast Health .....

Who was also a "STATE ACTOR DEFENDANT" ....

In the federal civil rights lawsuit under discussion in this thread ....

And so ....

*

"Livyjr, if you are still here, could you answer me one more question?"

"My point of confusion has to do with all of these different judges in here."

"I can't keep straight how they are all involved."

"SPECIFICALLY, HOW IS THIS NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT JUDGE GEORGE B. CERESIA, JR. INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER?"

Yes, I am still here ....

And yes ....

Keeping track of all these different judges ....

And lawyers ....

Can be confusing ....

And so .....

For the answer to this question ....

We need to go back ....

To what is called ...

THE PROCESS OF LAW ....

Which in and of itself ....

Can be quite tricky ...

And so ....

WHEN BERNADETTE ROTTER HALLAM OF NORTHEAST HEALTH ....

REFUSED TO GIVE THE PLAINTIFF ....

THE IDENTITIES ....

OF THOSE WHO WERE INVOLVED ....

IN THE AUGUST 22, 2001 ABDUCTION ATTEMPT ON THE PLAINTIFF ....

SHE WRAPPED HERSELF .......

AND THE PERPETRATORS ....

ALL UP IN RIGHTEOUSNESS ....

AND PROTECTION OF LAW ....

BY INVOKING .....

SECTION 33.16 OF THE NEW YORK STATE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW .....

ON THE SPECIOUS GROUNDS ....

THAT PORTIONS OF REQUESTED INFORMATION ....

COULD BE WITHHELD ....

BASED UPON HER DETERMINATION .....

THAT THE RELEASE OF THIS INFORMATION ....

COULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTED ....

TO CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL AND IDENTIFIABLE HARM TO OTHERS ....

Which meant ....

That AFTER August 22, 2001 ....

NORTHEAST HEALTH .....

WAS CHOOSING ....

TO TREAT PLAINTIFF ....

As though he really were mentally ill and dangerous ....

And the 9.45 order as being therefore legitimately issued ....

And so ....

By doing that ....

LIKE A FIDDLER ....

Bernadette Rotter Hallam ....

Started a "tune" ....

Which PLAINTIFF had to "dance" to ...

OR RISK A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST HIMSELF ....

And so ....

PLAINTIFF was bound ....

By BERNADETTE ROTTER HALLAM's actions ...

Specifically ....

Her invoking the protection ....

Of Section 33.16 of the New York State Mental Hygiene Law .....

TO HAVE TO FOLLOW ....

THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEDURES ....

Outlined in that body of law ...

And so ....

When New York State RESPONDENT Barbara A. Soldano ....

Upheld BERNADETTE ROTTER HALLAM's REFUSAL ....

To divulge the names of the PERPETRATORS of the August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKEDOWN ....

That forced PLAINTIFF into an appeal to New York State Supreme Court for Rensselaer County ....

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE NEW YORK STATE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW DICTATES MUST HAPPEN, IN THE CASE OF SUCH REFUSAL BY BARBARA A. SOLDANO ....

Which appeal landed in front of Judge George B. Ceresia, Jr. ....

And so ...

That is how he became involved in this matter ...

And here ...

It must be understood ...

That PLAINTIFF simply had to dance this dance ....

In New York State Supreme Court for Rensselaer County ....

For if he walked away ....

Without exercising these appeal rights ...

Which are governed by New York State Law ....

Not federal law ...

And then tried to bring on this matter in federal court ....

That failure to EXHAUST REMEDY ....

In New York State ....

According to New York State's laws ....

Would likely have been fatal to PLAINTIFF ...

In federal court .....

Where his failure to appeal ...

Would have been taken as an admission, of sorts, against him, as to the alleged "legitimacy" ....

Of the actions ...

Of the 8-22-01 PERPETRATORS ....

And so .....
Livyjr
Subornation of perjury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Subornation of perjury is a legal term describing the act of an attorney who presents testimony (or an affidavit) the attorney knows is materially false to a judge or jury as if it were factual.

Generally, the knowledge that the testimony is materially false must rise above mere suspicion to what a reasonable attorney would have believed in the circumstances.

For example, the attorney cannot be wilfully blind to the fact that their witness is giving false testimony.

An attorney who actively encourages a witness to give false testimony is clearly guilty of suborning perjury.

It can occur in either a civil or criminal case.


Allowing the presentation of false testimony does not rise to the level of subornation unless the attorney uses the material part of the testimony to make the case.

For example, if the attorney does not refer to the false testimony in argument, the perjury may have occurred but the attorney has not suborned it.

Subornation of perjury is not a civil wrong, but can lead to criminal charges.

It is also an offence for which an attorney can be disbarred or otherwise disciplined.

Under American criminal law, subornation of perjury occurs when anyone--not just a lawyer--encourages a witness to perjure himself.

Violators can face a maximum of five years in prison.


Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subornation_of_perjury
Livyjr
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

GUIDANCE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

October 1997

Criminal Resource Manual 1752

Subornation of Perjury

To establish a case of subornation of perjury, a prosecutor must demonstrate that perjury was committed; that the defendant procured the perjury corruptly, knowing, believing or having reason to believe it to be false testimony; and that the defendant knew, believed or had reason to believe that the perjurer had knowledge of the falsity of his or her testimony.

To secure a conviction for subornation of perjury, the perjury sought must actually have been committed.

United States v. Hairston, 46 F.3d 361, 376 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 124 (1995).

The underlying perjury must be proved under the standards required by the applicable perjury statute.

Thus, if section 1621 applies to the underlying perjury, the two witness rule must be met, but not if section 1623 applies to the underlying perjury.

United States v. Gross, 511 F.2d 910, 915 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 924 (1975).

Physical coercion need not be proven in prosecutions for subornation of perjury.

United States v. Heater, 63 F.3d 311, 320 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 796 (1996).

Conspiracy to suborn perjury may be prosecuted irrespective of whether perjury has been committed.

The two witness rule does not apply in conspiracy prosecutions.

Solicitation of perjured testimony also may be prosecuted as obstruction of justice irrespective of whether the perjured testimony took place.


United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386, 1395 (11th Cir. 1984).

Because the crime of subornation of perjury is distinct from that of perjury, the suborner and perjurer are not accomplices; however, a person who causes a false document to be introduced through an innocent witness can be held liable as a principal under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b).

United States v. Walser, 3 F.3d 380, 388 (11th Cir. 1993).

The attorney's ethical obligations when confronted by a client who wishes to testify falsely are discussed at length in Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986).

See also Rules 1-102, 4-101 and 7-109 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons 1, 4, and 7, and Ethical Consideration 7-26.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_readi...e9/crm01752.htm
Livyjr
"Subornation of Perjury : A Definition"
By Leo Katz

03/16/98
The Wall Street Journal
Page A23

The chief and most persistent charge leveled against President Clinton in connection with the latest scandal is that he suborned perjury -- by trying to persuade Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp to give false testimony about his sex life.

But although subornation of perjury seems like a pretty straightforward crime, as a legal matter there are some peculiar things about it that are worth noting.

Subornation of perjury is part of a family of offenses generally grouped under the heading "obstruction of justice": tampering with evidence, threatening informants, bribing jurors, hindering investigators.

It may seem self-evident that we should make these things crimes, but it really isn't.

Think about a murderer who throws his gun into the river after knocking off his target; or think about a rapist who warns his victim and maybe some innocent onlooker not to tell anyone "or else."

What they are doing of course "obstructs justice."

They have quite literally tampered with evidence, threatened witnesses, suborned perjury.


Still, no one would dream of finding them guilty of such crimes.

The reason?

There is no investigation or prosecution that they are obstructing.

It is only if they wait to dispose of their weapons or to threaten their witnesses until such an investigation has begun that they become guilty of these crimes.

By the same token, if Mr. Clinton had told a prospective lover prior to the Paula Jones lawsuit that he would get involved with her only if she promised the utmost discretion -- including lying to the authorities about it, if need be -- he would, I'm pretty sure, be legally safe.

Now you might think that this just shows there is a loophole in the law.

Maybe you think we really should extend the "obstruction of justice" offenses to include people who do their obstructing right after the crime or whatever it is that they are trying to cover up.

But if you follow that logic to its bitter end, you will be driven to charge a murderer who avoids leaving fingerprints on his gun by wearing gloves with obstruction of justice as well -- or even the rapist who wears a mask.

You would be driven to find Mr. Clinton guilty of obstruction even if all he had done was to arrange his trysts with such discretion that no one would have a clue as to who his partners might be.

The real lesson of my examples may be that "coverups" aren't quite the moral outrage that the law pretends they are.

The law's attitude here reminds me of that old Tom Lehrer song called "The Irish Ballad" about a girl who systematically polishes off her mother, father, sister and brother.

When in the final stanza the police finally catch up with her, she freely confesses to everything.

Because, as the last line of the song tells us, "Lying she knew was a sin."


There is a second interesting oddity about the subornation of perjury charge against the president.

Whatever it is that Mr. Clinton said to Ms. Lewinsky, he is unlikely to have expressly asked her to lie.

What is more likely is that he hinted, implied, insinuated.

Even the infamous talking-points memo Ms. Lewinsky passed to Ms. Tripp doesn't ever directly recommend lying.

That just happens to be its upshot.

With most crimes, such indirection would be irrelevant.

If a Mafia don tells his hit man that "it would be better if X disappeared," he would still be guilty of soliciting murder.

But when it comes to perjury, courts are awfully literal-minded.

In one famous perjury case, the Supreme Court acquitted a defendant who, when asked whether he ever had a Swiss bank account, replied that his company did.

In fact, he did too, but by this devious reply he managed to mislead the lawyer on the other side into thinking he did not.

Since what he said was literally true, the Supreme Court held it wasn't perjury.

In another case, a defendant took advantage of the questioning lawyer's slip of the tongue.

The lawyer asked the witness whether he had ever made a delivery to Spade Bank, when he really meant to say Spade Building.

The alert witness answered no, which was true -- but of course only literally.

As the court saw it, that didn't qualify as perjury either.

In other words, we are not willing to convict someone of perjury who indirectly rather than directly lied.

But that would make it a little strange -- not impossible, not illogical, just strange --if we convicted someone of soliciting perjury when all he did was to indirectly rather than directly solicit someone to lie.

There is a final interesting oddity about the subornation charge.

Perjury requires not merely a lie, but a "material" lie.

If the president had merely asked Ms. Lewinsky to lie about the fact that -- let us say -- he wears a toupee, presumably he wouldn't be guilty of anything.

Since the judge in the Paula Jones case excluded all evidence concerning Ms. Lewinsky, any lie she told is not likely to qualify as material.

That doesn't mean, however, that the president is off the hook.

The prosecution might think of charging him with attempted subornation of perjury.

After all, he didn't know that the lie he was soliciting was immaterial.

The problem with charging the president with a criminal attempt here is that he was attempting the impossible.

He was attempting to solicit perjury from a witness who was incapable of committing perjury because her testimony wasn't material!

Now sometimes when someone is attempting the impossible, he is still guilty of criminal attempt: If I try to pick someone's pocket, not realizing it's empty, I am guilty of attempted larceny even though I was attempting the impossible.

There are other kinds of impossible attempts, however, for which courts refuse to convict.

Suppose I happen to be one of those people who think that anytime he tells a lie in court it's perjury.

(I don't realize the lie has to be material.)

I then tell a lie about something totally inconsequential: I shave two years off my actual age.

Am I attempting perjury just because that's what I think I'm doing?

No court would convict me.

They would explain that I was attempting a "legally impossible crime."

Whether they would say the same thing about the president's actions is a murky question.

Just the kind of oddity law professors like to put on their final exams.

I'll be sure to remember it for that purpose.

---

Mr. Katz is a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania.

http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/oth1/subornation.htm
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 10 2005 @ 08:12 AM)
"Bush's Judges Already Making Their Mark"

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - No need to wait until President Bush appoints a Supreme Court justice to see how he will make his mark on the federal judiciary.

But already it is clear that these judges make up a solidly conservative crowd that tends to lean Bush's way on the big issues of the day.

"When the president talks about strict construction, everyone knows what he's talking about."

Overall, in his four-plus years in office, Bush has pushed a Republican-leaning federal judiciary farther to the right with more than 200 appointments to appellate and district courts.

By the end of his second term, Bush could eclipse Presidents Clinton and Reagan in the number of judges selected ....

And leave an ideological imprint on the courts for generations to come.

Since 1968, when Nixon was elected, Republican presidents have appointed 1,040 judges; Democrats have named 625.

The cumulative effect, said political scientist Donald Songer of the University of South Carolina, is that "the last three Republican presidents' nominees control virtually the whole judiciary."

People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, titled its 2004 study of Bush's judicial appointees "Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears."

It concluded that Bush appointees already have moved to limit significantly congressional authority and protection of individual rights.

"For many, many of the nominees in the lower courts, the Bush administration has been decidedly pushing toward judges with a pretty firm right-wing ideology," said Elliot Mincberg, the group's legal director.

Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, said that when it comes to the courts, Bush "gets it" in a way that even his father and Reagan did not.

His nominees "understand the problems with the way the Constitution has been interpreted and will go about fixing that in their own decisions," she said.

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 24 2006, 04:40 PM)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

GUIDANCE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

October 1997 

Criminal Resource Manual 1752 

Subornation of Perjury

The attorney's ethical obligations when confronted by a client who wishes to testify falsely are discussed at length in Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986).

 
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_readi...e9/crm01752.htm
*

And while we are on the subject ....

Of George W. Bush's federal court nominees .....

TO INCLUDE GARY. L. SHARPE .....

OF THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .....

"Understanding" these alleged and supposed problems ....

With the way the Constitution has been interpreted ....

BY THOSE WHO HAVE GONE BEFORE THEM ....

SUCH AS A BAN .....

ON THE USE OF PERJURED TESTIMONY .......

BY ATTORNEYS AT LAW ....

WHICH WOULD HAVE SERVED ...

TO HOBBLE ....

THE DEFENSE LAWYERS ....

IN THIS MATTER UNDER DISCUSSION HEREIN .....

SAID DEFENSE LAWYERS ....

INCLUDING NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ELIOT SPITZER ...

And "FIXING" that BAN ....

In their own decisions .....

U.S. Supreme Court

NIX v. WHITESIDE, 475 U.S. 157 (1986)

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 84-1321.

Argued November 5, 1985
Decided February 26, 1986

In preparing for his Iowa state-court trial on a murder charge, respondent consistently told his attorney that although he had not actually seen a gun in the victim's hand when he stabbed the victim, he was convinced that the victim had a gun.

Respondent's companions who were present during the stabbing told counsel that they had not seen a gun, and no gun was found.

Counsel advised respondent that the existence of a gun was not necessary to establish a claim of self-defense, and that only a reasonable belief that the victim had a gun nearby was necessary even though no gun was actually present.

However, during preparation for direct examination shortly before trial, respondent for the first time told counsel that he had seen "something metallic" in the victim's hand.

When asked about this, respondent said: "If I don't say I saw a gun, I'm dead."

On respondent's insisting that he would testify that he saw "something metallic," counsel told him that if he testified falsely, it would be counsel's duty to advise the court that he felt respondent was committing perjury, and that counsel probably would be allowed to impeach that testimony and would seek to withdraw from representation if respondent insisted on committing perjury.

Respondent ultimately testified as originally contemplated, admitting on cross-examination that he had not actually seen a gun in the victim's hand.

After the jury found respondent guilty, respondent moved for a new trial, claiming that he had been deprived of a fair trial by counsel's admonitions not to state that he saw a gun or "something metallic."

The court denied the motion after a hearing, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that counsel's actions were not only permissible, but were required under Iowa law.


Respondent then sought federal habeas corpus relief, alleging that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel by his attorney's refusal to allow him to testify as he proposed.

The District Court denied relief, but the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that an intent to commit perjury, communicated to counsel, does not alter a defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel, and that counsel's threatened violation of his client's confidences violated the "effective representation" standards set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668.

Held:

The Sixth Amendment right of a criminal defendant to assistance of counsel is not violated when an attorney refuses to cooperate with the defendant in presenting perjured testimony at his trial. Pp. 164-176.


(a) Strickland v. Washington, supra, held that to obtain relief by way of federal habeas corpus on a claim of a deprivation of effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, the movant must establish both serious attorney error and prejudice.

The Sixth Amendment inquiry is into whether the attorney's conduct was "reasonably effective."

A court must be careful not to narrow the wide range of attorney conduct acceptable under the Sixth Amendment so restrictively as to constitutionalize particular standards of professional conduct and thereby intrude into a state's proper authority to define and apply the standards of professional conduct applicable to those it admits to practice in its courts. Pp. 164-166.

(b) Counsel's conduct here fell within the wide range of professional responses to threatened client perjury acceptable under the Sixth Amendment.

Counsel's duty of loyalty to, and advocacy of, the defendant's cause is limited to legitimate, lawful conduct compatible with the very nature of a trial as a search for truth.

Although counsel must take all reasonable lawful means to attain his client's objectives, counsel is precluded from taking steps or in any way assisting the client in presenting false evidence or otherwise violating the law.

Moreover, accepted norms require that a lawyer disclose his client's perjury and frauds upon the court.

Iowa's Code also expressly permits withdrawal from representation as an appropriate response of an attorney when the client threatens to commit perjury. Pp. 166-171.


© The Court of Appeals' holding is not supported by the record since counsel's action, at most, deprived respondent of his contemplated perjury.

Whatever the scope of a constitutional right to testify, it is elementary that such a right does not extend to testifying falsely, and the right to counsel includes no right to have a lawyer who will cooperate with planned perjury.

There was no breach of professional duty in counsel's admonition to respondent that he would disclose respondent's perjury to the court. Pp. 171-175.

(d) As a matter of law, counsel's conduct here cannot establish the prejudice required for relief under the Strickland inquiry.

The "conflict of interests" involved was one imposed on the attorney by the client's proposal to commit the crime of fabricating testimony.

This is not the kind of conflict of interest that would render the representation constitutionally infirm. Pp. 175-176.

744 F.2d 1323, reversed. [475 U.S. 157, 159]

BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 176.

BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 177.

STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 190.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 24 2006, 04:52 PM)
"Subornation of Perjury : A Definition"

By Leo Katz

03/16/98
The Wall Street Journal
Page A23

Subornation of perjury is part of a family of offenses generally grouped under the heading "obstruction of justice":

* tampering with evidence;

* threatening informants;

* bribing jurors;

* hindering investigators.


The real lesson of my examples may be that "coverups" aren't quite the moral outrage that the law pretends they are.

Mr. Katz is a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania.


http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/oth1/subornation.htm
*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 25 2006, 05:48 AM)
U.S. Supreme Court

NIX v. WHITESIDE, 475 U.S. 157 (1986)

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 84-1321.

Argued November 5, 1985
Decided February 26, 1986

Counsel's duty of loyalty to, and advocacy of, the defendant's cause is limited to legitimate, lawful conduct compatible with the very nature of a trial as a search for truth.

Although counsel must take all reasonable lawful means to attain his client's objectives, counsel is precluded from taking steps or in any way assisting the client in presenting false evidence or otherwise violating the law.

Moreover, accepted norms require that a lawyer disclose his client's perjury and frauds upon the court.

Whatever the scope of a constitutional right to testify, it is elementary that such a right does not extend to testifying falsely, and the right to counsel includes no right to have a lawyer who will cooperate with planned perjury.

BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 176.

BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 177.

STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 190.

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 19 2006, 05:46 AM)
Gary L. Sharpe

Resumé
 
Education: 1970 - 1971 University of Buffalo, B.A. degree, cum laude
 
1971 - 1974 Cornell Law School, J.D. degree
 
Bar Admittance: 1975 New York
 
Experience:

1974 - 1981 Broome County District Attorney’s Office, Senior Assistant District Attorney
 
1978 - 1982 Binghamton University and Broome Community College, Adjunct Professor
 
1981 - 1982 New York State Attorney General’s Office, Special Assistant Attorney General
 
1982 - 1997 United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of New York, Supervisory AUSA & AUSA, 1982-1992

Interim United States Attorney, 1992-1994

Senior Litigation Counsel, 1994-1997
 
1997 - present United States District Court, Northern District of New York, United States Magistrate Judge


http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/sharperesume.htm
*

"Livyjr, like you, I am an older American, and so, I have had to do my duty, a time or two, serving on juries, including two GRAND JURIES, and while I won't speak to any specifics, I will say that I agree with you, when you say that as a juryman or jurywoman, YOU HAVE TO BE A GOOD LISTENER, AND YOU CANNOT BE HASTY IN YOUR JUDGEMENTS, ESPECIALLY WITH A SOMEWHAT CONVOLUTED CASE AS THIS ONE CLEARLY IS, THANKS TO THE TACTICAL CHICANERY OF SOME VERY POWERFUL LAWYERS WHO OBVIOUSLY PACK SOME CLOUT WITH THEIR FELLOW LAWYERS WHO WERE THE VARIOUS JUDGES IN HERE, AND MOST ESPECIALLY THIS GARY L. SHARPE, WHO WAS THE FEDERAL COURT JUDGE WHO THREW OUT THIS CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT AFTER ALTERING THE FACTS."

"AND THAT BRINGS ME TO MY SERIES OF QUESTIONS IN HERE FOR YOU, WHICH ARE BASED UPON A PREMISE THAT IT WAS GARY L. SHARPE WHO WAS ACTUALLY SUBORNING THE PERJURY IN THIS CASE, AND THAT IT WAS THE ATTORNEYS WHO WERE THEN PROVIDING HIM WITH THAT PERJURY, WHICH WOULD MAKE GARY L. SHARPE LIABLE TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR DISCIPLINE AS A LAWYER, SINCE HE IS A MEMBER OF THE BAR IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY FROM HIS RESUME."

"SO, LIVYJR, MY FIRST QUESTION FOR YOU IS THIS:"

BY THE TIME THIS MATTER WENT UP TO THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, WERE THERE ANY PERTINENT QUESTIONS OF FACT OUTSTANDING AS TO WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN ACTUALITY AT THE SAMARITAN HOSPITAL IN TROY, NEW YORK ON AUGUST 22, 2001?

And that answer is .....

NO .....

As to the WHAT ....

And here ...

Let us back up and say ....

That with respect to an investigation ...

That is going to potentially lead to some type of litigation ...

And it must be recalled in this case ...

That Rensselaer County Criminal Court Justice Patrick McGrath ....

In a writing that was in the possession ...

Of federal District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe ....

At the time Judge Sharpe tossed the case ...

Based upon an altered record ....

That required him ...

To let perjured testimony into the record before him ....

The subornation ....

Justice McGrath .....

Had let judge Sharpe ...

Know of Justice McGrath's concerns ....

That violations of state and federal criminal statutes had likely occurred here ....

With the false imprisonment of PLAINTIFF on August 22, 2001 ....

So, in this case ...

An investigation ....

Into alleged criminal conduct ...

Must include five things ...

* WHO

* WHAT

* WHEN

* WHY

* WHERE

In this case, while there were outstanding factual questions on WHO was involved, and perhaps WHY, the WHAT, WHEN and WHERE factual issues were well settled ....

And so ....

For Bush-appointee Gary L. Sharpe to toss this case .....

Based upon an altered record .....

WHICH HE WOULD KNOW WAS HAPPENING ...

Since he had the full record before him right at the start of these proceedings ....

There would have had to be some kind of "meeting of the minds" ...

Between Judge Sharpe ....

And the ATTORNEYS who were going to supply the alleged perjured testimony ....

As to how that was all going to proceed ....

And so .....
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 25 2006, 01:06 PM)
"Livyjr, like you, I am an older American, and so, I have had to do my duty, a time or two, serving on juries, including two GRAND JURIES, and while I won't speak to any specifics, I will say that I agree with you, when you say that as a juryman or jurywoman, YOU HAVE TO BE A GOOD LISTENER, AND YOU CANNOT BE HASTY IN YOUR JUDGEMENTS, ESPECIALLY WITH A SOMEWHAT CONVOLUTED CASE AS THIS ONE CLEARLY IS, THANKS TO THE TACTICAL CHICANERY OF SOME VERY POWERFUL LAWYERS WHO OBVIOUSLY PACK SOME CLOUT WITH THEIR FELLOW LAWYERS WHO WERE THE VARIOUS JUDGES IN HERE, AND MOST ESPECIALLY THIS GARY L. SHARPE, WHO WAS THE FEDERAL COURT JUDGE WHO THREW OUT THIS CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT AFTER ALTERING THE FACTS."

"AND THAT BRINGS ME TO MY SERIES OF QUESTIONS IN HERE FOR YOU, WHICH ARE BASED UPON A PREMISE THAT IT WAS GARY L. SHARPE WHO WAS ACTUALLY SUBORNING THE PERJURY IN THIS CASE, AND THAT IT WAS THE ATTORNEYS WHO WERE THEN PROVIDING HIM WITH THAT PERJURY, WHICH WOULD MAKE GARY L. SHARPE LIABLE TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR DISCIPLINE AS A LAWYER, SINCE HE IS A MEMBER OF THE BAR IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY FROM HIS RESUME."

"SO, LIVYJR, MY FIRST QUESTION FOR YOU IS THIS ......"

"Bush ignores laws he inks, vexing Congress"

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

39 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A bill becomes the rule of the land when Congress passes it and the president signs it into law, right?

Not necessarily, according to the White House.

A law is not binding when a president issues a separate statement saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard it on national security and constitutional grounds.

That's the argument a Bush administration official is expected to make Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has demanded a hearing on a practice he considers an example of the administration's abuse of power.

"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," Specter said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick."


Apparently, enough to challenge many more statutes passed by Congress than any other president, Specter's committee says.

The White House does not dispute that, but notes that Bush is hardly the first chief executive to issue them.

"Signing statements have long been issued by presidents, dating back to Andrew Jackson all the way through President Clinton," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday.

Specter's hearing is about more than the statements.

He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power — from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.

But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws.

Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., a former state judge.

"There's less here than meets the eye," Cornyn said.

"The president is entitled to express his opinion."

"It's the courts that determine what the law is."

But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process.

In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.

Instead, he has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.

"It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed," said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues.

"This raises profound rule of law concerns."

"Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?"


Signing statements don't carry the force of law, and other presidents have issued them for administrative reasons, such as instructing an agency how to put a certain law into effect.

They usually are inserted quietly into the federal record.

Bush's signing statement in March on Congress's renewal of the Patriot Act riled Specter and others who labored for months to craft a compromise between Senate and House versions, and what the White House wanted.

Reluctantly, the administration relented on its objections to new congressional oversight of the way the FBI searches for terrorists.

Bush signed the bill with much flag-waving fanfare.

Then he issued a signing statement asserting his right to bypass the oversight provisions in certain circumstances.

Specter isn't sure how much Congress can do to check the practice.

"We may figure out a way to tie it to the confirmation process or budgetary matters," he said.

end quotes

"Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?"

NOT UP HERE ....

IN REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI'S ....

CORRUPT ...

REPUBLICAN ....

EMPIRE ....

OF NEW YORK WE DON'T .....

Maybe somewhere else ....

But not up here ....

And so .....

If anyone knows of some place ...

In the United States ....

Where there might still be ....

A functioning code of federal laws .....

You might want to let this professor above here ...

And the rest of us know ....

Before we all begin to believe ...

That we are living ...

In NAZI GERMANY ....

Or STALINIST RUSSIA ....

Or some other pestilential hell-hole ....

WITHOUT JUSTICE ....

AND WITHOUT RULE OF LAW ...

With a mean small man for its dictator ....

Instead of the United States ....

And so ......
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 25 2006, 01:06 PM)
"AND THAT ....."

"BRINGS ME ..."

"TO MY SERIES OF QUESTIONS IN HERE FOR YOU ...."

"WHICH ARE BASED UPON A PREMISE ..."

"THAT IT WAS GARY L. SHARPE ...."

"WHO WAS ACTUALLY SUBORNING THE PERJURY IN THIS CASE ..."

"AND THAT IT WAS THE ATTORNEYS ...."

"WHO WERE THEN PROVIDING HIM WITH THAT PERJURY ...."

"WHICH WOULD MAKE GARY L. SHARPE ...."

"LIABLE ...."

"TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK ..."

"FOR DISCIPLINE ...."

"AS A LAWYER ...."

"SINCE HE IS A MEMBER ...."

"OF THE BAR ...."

"IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ...."

"SO, LIVYJR, MY FIRST QUESTION FOR YOU IS THIS ...."

BY THE TIME THIS MATTER WENT UP TO THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, WERE THERE ANY PERTINENT QUESTIONS OF FACT OUTSTANDING AS TO WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN ACTUALITY AT THE SAMARITAN HOSPITAL IN TROY, NEW YORK ON AUGUST 22, 2001?

And that answer is .....

NO .....

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 27 2006, 05:59 AM)
"Bush ignores laws he inks, vexing Congress"

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A bill becomes the rule of the land when Congress passes it and the president signs it into law, right?

Not necessarily, according to the White House.

A law is not binding when a president issues a separate statement saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard it on national security and constitutional grounds.

That's the argument a Bush administration official is expected to make Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has demanded a hearing on a practice he considers an example of the administration's abuse of power.

"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," Specter said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick."


In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.

Instead, he has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.

"It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed," said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues.

"This raises profound rule of law concerns."

"Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?"

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 25 2006, 05:48 AM)
And while we are on the subject ....

Of George W. Bush's federal court nominees .....

TO INCLUDE GARY. L. SHARPE .....

OF THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .....

"Understanding" these alleged and supposed problems ....

With the way the Constitution has been interpreted ....

BY THOSE WHO HAVE GONE BEFORE THEM ....

SUCH AS A BAN .....

ON THE USE OF PERJURED TESTIMONY .......

BY ATTORNEYS AT LAW ....

WHICH WOULD HAVE SERVED ...

TO HOBBLE ....

THE DEFENSE LAWYERS ....

IN THIS MATTER UNDER DISCUSSION HEREIN .....

SAID DEFENSE LAWYERS ....

INCLUDING NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ELIOT SPITZER ...

And "FIXING" that BAN ....

In their own decisions .....

U.S. Supreme Court

NIX v. WHITESIDE, 475 U.S. 157 (1986)

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 84-1321.

Argued November 5, 1985
Decided February 26, 1986

In preparing for his Iowa state-court trial on a murder charge, respondent consistently told his attorney that although he had not actually seen a gun in the victim's hand when he stabbed the victim, he was convinced that the victim had a gun.

After the jury found respondent guilty, respondent moved for a new trial, claiming that he had been deprived of a fair trial by counsel's admonitions not to state that he saw a gun or "something metallic."

The court denied the motion after a hearing, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that counsel's actions were not only permissible, but were required under Iowa law.

Respondent then sought federal habeas corpus relief, alleging that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel by his attorney's refusal to allow him to testify as he proposed.

The District Court denied relief, but the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that an intent to commit perjury, communicated to counsel, does not alter a defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel, and that counsel's threatened violation of his client's confidences violated the "effective representation" standards set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668.   

Held:

The Sixth Amendment right of a criminal defendant to assistance of counsel is not violated when an attorney refuses to cooperate with the defendant in presenting perjured testimony at his trial. Pp. 164-176.

Counsel's duty of loyalty to, and advocacy of, the defendant's cause is limited to legitimate, lawful conduct compatible with the very nature of a trial as a search for truth.

Although counsel must take all reasonable lawful means to attain his client's objectives, counsel is precluded from taking steps or in any way assisting the client in presenting false evidence or otherwise violating the law.

Moreover, accepted norms require that a lawyer disclose his client's perjury and frauds upon the court.

© The Court of Appeals' holding is not supported by the record since counsel's action, at most, deprived respondent of his contemplated perjury.


744 F.2d 1323, reversed. [475 U.S. 157, 159] 

BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 176.

BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 177.

STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 190.

*

"Livyjr, I am a young person who has recently moved to a large city, and so, I have no experience of courtroom proceedings, nor do my friends, who are mostly in the same situation as I am, young and new to the city, and so, we have do not have the experience that this older reader above here has, that allows him to look at this evidence, and see a picture clearly that seems to be staring us right in the face, but still eludes us, at the same time."

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS QUESTION ABOVE HERE WITH RESPECT TO THE MARCH 31, 2005 DECISION OF FEDERAL COURT JUDGE GARY L. SHARPE:

BY THE TIME THIS MATTER WENT UP TO THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, WERE THERE ANY PERTINENT QUESTIONS OF FACT OUTSTANDING AS TO WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN ACTUALITY AT THE SAMARITAN HOSPITAL IN TROY, NEW YORK ON AUGUST 22, 2001?


Well ...

The best way to answer that question ....

Is to go above here ....

To get these words ....

From that United States Supreme Court DECISION right above here, to wit ....

Counsel's duty of loyalty to ....

And advocacy of ....

The defendant's cause .....

Is limited .....

To legitimate .....

Lawful .....

Conduct .....

Compatible with ....

The very nature .....

Of a trial ....

As a search for truth
.


And so ...

IS IT?

OR ISN'T IT?

The "trial" ....

As a "search for truth", I mean ...

AND ARE THERE ANY EXCEPTIONS?

WHICH ANSWER ...

We know ...

From this discussion ...

TO BE YES .....

IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ...

IN 2005 ....

CONTRARY TO ANYTHING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAD TO SAY ABOUT IT ....

BACK IN 1986 ......

IT HAS BEEN HELD ...

BY THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ...

IN NEW YORK CITY ...

THAT IN FACT, SOME TRIALS IN NEW YORK STATE ....

WILL NOT BE SEARCHES FOR TRUTH ....

AT ALL ...


TO THE CONTRARY ....

THEY SHALL BE COVER-UPS ....

WITH THE AID ....

AND ASSISTANCE ...

OF THE COURT ...

And so ....

That ruling of the federal District Court for the Northern District of New York ....

In this case ....

On March 31, 2005 ....

That was AFFIRMED by the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals .....

In December of 2005 ....

TOOK FROM PLAINTIFF ...

SOMETHING WHICH WAS GUARANTEED .....

TO ALL AMERICANS ....

BY THAT 1986 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION ABOVE HERE ...

And so ....

AS TO THE "RECORD" ....

THAT HAD TO BE ALTERED ....

IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ...

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .....

SO THAT THE DEFENDANTS COULD "PREVAIL" ....

As in that United States Supreme Court case above here ...

By the time this matter went up ....

To the federal District Court ...

For the Northen District of New York ....

THERE WAS REALLY NOTHING MORE TO BE SAID ...

BECAUSE IT HAD ALL BEEN SAID UNDER OATH ....

IN NEW YORK STATES SUPREME COURT ...

FOR RENSSELAER COUNTY ...

WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ....

ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ....

OF THE FEDERAL COURT ITSELF .....

And so ....

That is really what this older reader was commenting on ....

HOW OBVIOUSLY CHEESY ....

AND PATENTLY ABSURD ....

THIS WHOLE COVER-UP ATTEMPT REALLY WAS ....

AND YET ...

IT STILL SUCCEEDED ...

And so .....

AND THAT IS BECAUSE ...

IN THIS CASE ...

THE DEFENSE LAWYERS ...

WERE SUCCESSFUL ...

IN VIOLATING ....

PLAINTIFF'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ACCESS TO A JURY ...

BY GETTING THIS MATTER ....

BEFORE A FEDERAL JUDGE ...

WHO WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE ....

THAT PLAINTIFF HAD THAT RIGHT ....

And so .....

When one has served as a JUROR ....

And especially a GRAND JUROR ....

Where people's fates are in your hands ....

All I can say is ...

That one ends up with ...

A much better understanding ....

And appreciation ....

OF THE SAFEGUARDS ....

That are built into OUR system of law ...

And so ...

When those SAFEGUARDS ....

Are so obviously missing ....

As they are in here .....

IT IS OBVIOUS ...

To one who has seen ....

Or participated in ....

A trial ....

That was a real search for truth ......

INSTEAD OF AN OBVIOUS FARCE ....

And so ....
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 25 2006, 05:48 AM)
U.S. Supreme Court

NIX v. WHITESIDE, 475 U.S. 157 (1986)

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 84-1321.

Argued November 5, 1985
Decided February 26, 1986

Held:

The Sixth Amendment right of a criminal defendant to assistance of counsel is not violated when an attorney refuses to cooperate with the defendant in presenting perjured testimony at his trial. Pp. 164-176.


A court must be careful not to narrow the wide range of attorney conduct acceptable under the Sixth Amendment so restrictively as to constitutionalize particular standards of professional conduct and thereby intrude into a state's proper authority to define and apply the standards of professional conduct applicable to those it admits to practice in its courts. Pp. 164-166.

Counsel's duty of loyalty to, and advocacy of, the defendant's cause is limited to legitimate, lawful conduct compatible with the very nature of a trial as a search for truth.

Although counsel must take all reasonable lawful means to attain his client's objectives, counsel is precluded from taking steps or in any way assisting the client in presenting false evidence or otherwise violating the law.

Moreover, accepted norms require that a lawyer disclose his client's perjury and frauds upon the court.

Whatever the scope of a constitutional right to testify ....

It is elementary ....

That such a right ...

Does not extend ....

To testifying falsely ....

And the right to counsel ....

Includes no right ....

To have a lawyer ....

Who will cooperate ....

With planned perjury
.


744 F.2d 1323, reversed. [475 U.S. 157, 159] 

BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 176.

BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 177.

STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 190.

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 27 2006, 05:01 PM)
"Livyjr, I am a young person who has recently moved to a large city, and so, I have no experience of courtroom proceedings, nor do my friends, who are mostly in the same situation as I am, young and new to the city, and so, we have do not have the experience that this older reader above here has, that allows him to look at this evidence, and see a picture clearly that seems to be staring us right in the face, but still eludes us, at the same time."

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS QUESTION ABOVE HERE WITH RESPECT TO THE MARCH 31, 2005 DECISION OF FEDERAL COURT JUDGE GARY L. SHARPE:

BY THE TIME THIS MATTER WENT UP TO THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, WERE THERE ANY PERTINENT QUESTIONS OF FACT OUTSTANDING AS TO WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN ACTUALITY AT THE SAMARITAN HOSPITAL IN TROY, NEW YORK ON AUGUST 22, 2001?


Well ...

By the time this matter went up ....

To the federal District Court ...

For the Northen District of New York ....

THERE WAS REALLY NOTHING MORE TO BE SAID ...

BECAUSE IT HAD ALL BEEN SAID UNDER OATH ....

IN NEW YORK STATES SUPREME COURT ...

FOR RENSSELAER COUNTY ...

WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ....

ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ....

OF THE FEDERAL COURT ITSELF .....

And so ....

That is really what this older reader was commenting on ....

HOW OBVIOUSLY CHEESY ....

AND PATENTLY ABSURD ....

THIS WHOLE COVER-UP ATTEMPT REALLY WAS ....

AND YET ...

IT STILL SUCCEEDED ...

And so .....

"Attorney Ordered to Disclose Letters Written to Expert Witness"

John Caher
New York Law Journal
10-20-2003

In a ruling that underscores the tension between the work-product doctrine and disclosure, a Northern District judge in New York has adopted a bright-line rule and ordered a plaintiff to disclose letters her attorney wrote to an expert witness.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Gary L. Sharpe said that while courts nationwide have failed to reach consensus on the issue, he is joining those concluding that the expert disclosure requirement of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is "paramount" and "has primacy" over the time-honored doctrine that generally precludes discovery of attorney-generated work product.

"Absent disclosure, effective cross-examination or rebuttal is severely hindered because lawyers cannot anticipate an expert's approach or the data upon which the expert relied," Magistrate Judge Sharpe wrote in an apparent case of first impression in the Northern District.

"Thus, the discovery process fails to accomplish its goals of narrowing the issues and avoiding surprise."


The opinion released last week arises within the framework of Ann Baum v. Village of Chittenango, 5:00-CV-1516, a wrongful discharge case near Syracuse.

Plaintiff Ann Baum disclosed the report of her expert, a psychologist.

Chittenango, the municipal defendant, also sought letters Baum's attorney had written to the psychologist describing the history and nature of her alleged injuries.

Magistrate Judge Sharpe said the letters must be disclosed.

At the heart of the matter is the work-product doctrine, as described by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), and Rule 26, which has been amended twice since Hickman to address disclosure.


Hickman generally stands for the proposition that work product generated by an attorney in anticipation of litigation should not be discoverable.

The U.S. Supreme Court expressed concern that if those materials were readily available to opposing counsel "an attorney's thoughts, heretofore inviolate, would not be his own."

Rule 26 was amended in 1970 to codify the work-product doctrine and make clear that while trial preparation materials were due special protection, they were not categorically immune from disclosure.

It was again amended in 1993 to address practical differences in its application.

Still, courts are divided on whether the work-product doctrine shields information a lawyer provides to an expert witness.

"[T]his court agrees with [the] assessment that policy reasons support a bright-line rule of disclosure," Magistrate Judge Sharpe wrote.

He said he is mindful of the competing interests at stake, but notes that attorneys can always protect their work by not disclosing it in the first instance.

"Obviously, that tact is less conducive to a productive relationship between attorney and expert, but it is nonetheless a choice," Magistrate Judge Sharpe said.

"On the other hand, experts have become a daily occurrence in federal courtrooms, and it is essential that a jury be able to evaluate their opinions on the basis of the information supplied them as they formulated these opinions."

James P. Evans of O'Hara & O'Connell in Syracuse represents the plaintiff.

John T. McCann of Hancock & Estabrook in Syracuse appeared for the defendants.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 17 2005, 07:45 AM)
HAVING BEEN DIRECTLY HARMED IN HIS PERSON AND IN HIS PROPERTY BY THE ACTIONS OF DEFENDANTS ON AUGUST 22, 2001, PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING HEREIN TO SEEK REDRESS IN FEDERAL COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

As an initial point, plaintiff herein claims standing in the within action pursuant to the three-prong test outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 558 (1992), which test was enumerated by the Supreme Court approximately eleven (11) years before the Complaint in this instant matter was filed with the Clerk of the Northern District of New York on June 18, 2003:

"Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements."

"First, the plaintiff must have suffered an 'injury in fact' - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756, Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975), Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740-741, n.16 (1972), and (b) 'actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical'', Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983))."

"Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of - the injury has to be 'fairly .... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.'  Simon v. Eastern K. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976)."

"Third, it must be 'likely', as opposed to merely 'speculative', that the injury will be 'redressed by a favorable decision.' Id., at 38, 43." (emphasis added)
               
A. Necessary Injury in Fact

"Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential."

"Only when the whole proceedings leading to the pinning of an unsavory label on a person are aired can oppressive results be prevented."

Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 435 (1971)

In the instant matter.....

Based upon sworn admissions ....

In a November 10, 2003 affirmation .....

To this Court ....

From David E. Rook .....

Bar Roll No. 507846 ......

Of the law firm, Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP ....

20 Corporate Woods .....

6th Floor ....

Albany, New York 12211 .....

Attorneys for ....

Defendants Northeast Health, Inc. ....

* Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York ....

* Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342 .....

* John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415 .....

* Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, and .....

* Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662 .....

It is both clear ....

And uncontrovertible ....

That on August 22, 2001 .....

The defendants herein ....

Acting in concert ....

In a malicious fashion

With intent to cause harm

To plaintiff ....

And his property .....

Did first .....

Unlawfully ....

And unconstitutionally ....

Brand ....

Plaintiff herein ....

As a dangerous mental patient ....

Under color of New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.01, 9.39 & 9.45 ....

AND DID THEN ...

"Cloaked" in their "statutory authority" .....

In clear violation of Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 435 (1971) .....

POST ....

The false .....

And malicious branding .....

Of plaintiff ....

As alleged fact ....

With the New York State Police ....

* The Federal Veterans' Administration Police ....

* The United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York, and ...

* The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation ....

As well as ....

With the general population .....

Of the Town of Poestenkill ....

The County of Rensselaer .....

And the State of New York ....

To plaintiff's continued harm ....

And detriment .....

Herein.

"Livyjr, I have been trying to determine what lawyers made out sworn statements in connection with this matter, and I came across this mention of a November 10, 2003 affirmation to the Federal Court from David E. Rook, Bar Roll No. 507846, of the law firm, Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP, 20 Corporate Woods, 6th Floor, Albany, New York 12211, Attorneys for Defendants Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342, John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415, Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662, BUT I CANNOT FIND THE AFFIRMATION ITSELF!"

DID YOU POST IT, AND IF NOT, COULD YOU POST ANYTHING IN IT THAT IS RELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE OF ALLEGED PERJURY AND ALLEGED SUBORNATION OF PERJURY IN THIS MATTER?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)

DAVID E. ROOK, ESQUIRE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AFFIRMS AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am an attorney and counselor at law associated with the law offices of Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP, attorneys representing the Defendants Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342, John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415, Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS") herein, AND AS SUCH, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS HERETOFORE HAD HEREIN.

6. As described more thoroughly in Samaritan Defendants' MEMORANDUM OF LAW, PLAINTIFF'S "AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 42 USCS § 1983" should be dismissed.

7. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FAILS TO MEET THE PLEADING STANDARDS SET FORTH AT FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b) and 10(b).

8. Despite affording GREAT LIBERALITY to PLAINTIFF as a pro se litigant, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT fails to set forth ANY SET OF FACTS that would entitle him to RELIEF FROM ANY NAMED DEFENDANT and more specifically from any of the SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS.

9. PLAINTIFF APPEARS TO SUFFER FROM A HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS.

HIS ALLEGATIONS COUPLED WITH DOCUMENTS APPENDED TO HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT SUGGEST PLAINTIFF BECAME INCREASINGLY AGITATED ULTIMATELY RESULTING IN THREATS BEING MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF TO VARIOUS PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PRIVATE CITIZENS.

10. THE PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AND DOCUMENTS SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT HE WAS REFERRED TO THE STAFF OF SAMARITAN HOSPITAL AND UPON RECEIVING INFORMATION ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR AND HISTORY FROM RELIABLE SOURCES EXERCISED THEIR STATUTORY AUTHORITY UNDER NYSMHL §9.39 and §9.40 TO CERTIFY AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" TO SAMARITAN HOSPITAL'S SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.

11. Dr. Braaten signed the certificate for emergency admission upon information provided to him by a registered professional nurse, Ms. FIORINO.

The allegations in the COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATE OF EMERGENCY ADMISSION signed by DR. BRAATEN reveal the PLAINTIFF'S admission to be an emergency admission and not an involuntary commitment.

The procedures and due process safeguards in New York's REGULATORY SCHEME for mental health admissions differ depending upon whether the PLAINTIFF is secured under an emergency admission or an involuntary commitment.

12. ANY ACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN by the SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS were taken under the AUTHORITY of NYS Mental Hygiene Law and were taken FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND SOCIETY AT LARGE.

Furthermore, all of the actions taken by the Samaritan Defendants in connection with PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY ADMISSION are privileged by NYS Mental Hygiene Law.

ANY ATTEMPT TO CHARACTERIZE PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS SUPPORTING A CLAIM FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT MUST FAIL DUE TO THIS PRIVILEGE.

THE EXISTENCE OF THE PRIVILEGE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, MAY BE DETERMINED BY PRESUMING PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS TO BE TRUE AND REFERENCING THE DOCUMENTS APPENDED TO HIS COMPLAINT.

13. PLAINTIFF APPEARS TO ALLEGE SOME KIND OF DECEIT BY INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS TO SECURE THIS EMERGENCY ADMISSION.

PLAINTIFF REPEATEDLY REFERS TO THE CREATION AND REPORTING OF A "FALSE PERSONA" AND "FALSE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES".

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT DOES NOT CONTAIN A SINGLE REFERENCE TO WHAT WAS "FALSE" OR THE SPECIFICS CONCERNING THE COMMUNICATION OF WHAT WAS "FALSE".

THIS FAILURE OF THE PLEADING IS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE PLEADING'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 9(b) OR SUPPORT ANY POTENTIAL CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON FRAUD OR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION.

DATED: November 10, 2003
Albany, New York

David E. Rook
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 28 2006, 05:26 PM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)

DAVID E. ROOK, ESQUIRE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AFFIRMS AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am an attorney ....

And counselor at law ....

Associated with the law offices of Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP ....

Attorneys representing the Defendants Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342, John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415, Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS") herein ....

AND AS SUCH .....

I AM FULLY FAMILIAR ....

WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES .....

PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS ....

HERETOFORE HAD HEREIN ......

9. PLAINTIFF APPEARS TO SUFFER FROM A HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS.

DATED: November 10, 2003
            Albany, New York

David E. Rook

*

"Livyjr, I believe that I know this answer, but being mindful of admonitions to never assume, I will ask you the question, anyway ....."

WHEN THIS "GOLD JOHNSON" LAWYER DAVID E. ROOK, ESQUIRE, TELLS FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GARY L. SHARPE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT HE, ROOK, IS "FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS HERETOFORE HAD HEREIN", IS HE MAKING REFERENCE TO THE "LISA ULLMAN FILE", AND THE PROCEEDINGS IN NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT FOR RENSSELAER IN 2001 and 2002?

YES ....

He most certainly is .....

And here ...

It must be remembered ....

That in those proceedings ....

Which occurred before Northeast Health's "INSURANCE" brought the "GOLD JOHNSONS" on board, of whom this DAVID E. ROOK is one ......

Northeast Health was being represented in those proceedings .....

By ROBERT N. SWIDLER, ESQUIRE .....

The CORPORATE LAWYER ....

Who was present at the December 18, 2002 CONFERENCE ....

In New York State Supreme Court ...

For Rensselaer County ....

Where "GOLD JOHNSON" lawyer and partner "Donnie Bob" Ford was also present ...

To take the "hand off" .....

From Swidler ....

As this case made its way ...

From the New York State Supreme Court for Rensselaer County ...

To federal District Court for the Northern District of New York ...

As a federal civil rights matter ....

And so .....

Being a part of Donnie Bob's "TEAM" of "SPECIALISTS" who were brought in by the "INSURANCE" for Northeast Health .....

To kill this case .....

In federal district court .....

Before it ever got going ....

TO KEEP IT FROM BEING BROUGHT BEFORE A JURY OF ANY KIND ....

This "GOLD JOHNSON" lawyer DAVID E. ROOK ......

Would also have been in possession ...

Of everything that CORPORATE ATTORNEY SWIDLER had in his file in connection with this matter .....

Which would have had to include statements from the "SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS" ....

Since they were Swidler's clients .....

As much as they were Lisa Ullman's RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR ...

AS "AGENTS" ....

OR "ACTORS" ....

OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ...

And so ....

With that file in his possession ....

This "GOLD JOHNSON" ATTORNEY ROOK ....

Was in possession ...

Of the August 22, 2001 MEDICAL REPORT ...

Of Stratton VA Doctor Billy Cox ....

Where Dr. Cox ...

MAKES IT INCANDESCENTLY CLEAR .....

THAT AS OF AUGUST 22, 2001 ....

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ASSOCIATED .....

IN ANY WAY ...

WITH ANY MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS ....

NOR WAS HE IN NEED OF ANY MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT .....

SO THAT WHEN "GOLD JOHNSON" ATTORNEY ROOK .....

FALSELY INFORMED ...

BUSH-APPOINTEE GARY L. SHARPE ....

ON NOVEMBER 10, 2003 .....

THAT "PLAINTIFF APPEARS TO SUFFER FROM A HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS" .....

"GOLD JOHNSON" ATTORNEY ROOK .....

WOULD HAVE KNOWN ...

THAT HE WAS MAKING .....

AN INTENTIONALLY FALSE ....

OR INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING MATERIAL STATEMENT ....

IN A SWORN INSTRUMENT ....

WHEN HE TOLD FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GARY L. SHARPE ....

ON NOVEMBER 10, 2003 ....

THAT "PLAINTIFF APPEARS TO SUFFER FROM A HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS" ......

WHICH FALSE STATEMENT ....

IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE ....

THAT THIS "GOLD JOHNSON" LAWYER ROOK COULD PROFFER ...

SINCE HE HAD NONE ...

And so ....
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Mar 3 2006, 07:21 AM)
The "PROTECTION GAME" ......

How politicians protect themselves from scrutiny ...

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

"A gavel for Donohue? - Lieutenant governor confirms her name has been submitted by Gov. Pataki for federal district judge" 
 
By ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Friday, March 3, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post pays $165,200 a year.


She makes $151,500 as lieutenant governor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We've been in close touch."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donohue has embraced that role without complaint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Apr 21 2005, 01:12 PM)
The REPUBLICANS in Rensselaer County were represented in Federal Court in this just concluded matter by Tommy O'Connor, who is the brother to REPUBLICAN New York State Lieutenant Governor Mary Donohue O'Connor, and so .....

"Donohue nominated for federal judgeship - Lieutenant governor faces scrutiny of Senate panel after selection by Bush for $165,200 position"

By MARC PARRY, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Thursday, June 29, 2006

Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue was nominated Wednesday to a lifetime appointment on a federal bench, the White House announced.

The Bush Administration submitted Donohue's name to the Senate for a lifetime seat on the U.S. District Court bench in the Northern District, to fill a vacancy created by Chief Judge Frederick Scullin Jr.


"It is an honor to be nominated by the President for this important position," Donohue said Wednesday night through her spokeswoman, Karin Kennett.

The federal judgeship pays $165,200 a year.

She makes $151,500 as lieutenant governor.

The Times Union reported in March that the former Rensselaer County district attorney was under consideration for the appointment after Gov. George Pataki put her name forward.

On Wednesday, the White House released a statement listing Donohue and 17 other nominees it had sent to the Senate to fill a range of judicial vacancies and other positions.

The Troy native now has to answer a lengthy questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee that asks, among other things, about her general background, experience and judicial philosophy.

She also will appear before the committee for a hearing, though it's unclear if that will happen before Congress recesses in August.

If approved by the committee, the nomination goes to the full Senate for a vote.

"Over the next few weeks, we'll be looking closely at Mary Donohue's nomination, which was formally sent to the Senate today," Sen. Charles Schumer, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.

The New York Democrat added, "I look forward to receiving her answers to the committee's questionnaire and her hearing, and I will make a decision on her nomination after reviewing the full record."

Donohue, a former teacher and Albany Law School graduate, was elected the region's first female district attorney in 1992.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 30 2006, 04:48 AM)
"Donohue nominated for federal judgeship - Lieutenant governor faces scrutiny of Senate panel after selection by Bush for $165,200 position" 
 
By MARC PARRY, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Thursday, June 29, 2006

Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue was nominated Wednesday to a lifetime appointment on a federal bench, the White House announced.

The Bush Administration submitted Donohue's name to the Senate for a lifetime seat on the U.S. District Court bench in the Northern District, to fill a vacancy created by Chief Judge Frederick Scullin Jr.

"Over the next few weeks, we'll be looking closely at Mary Donohue's nomination, which was formally sent to the Senate today," Sen. Charles Schumer, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.

The New York Democrat added, "I look forward to receiving her answers to the committee's questionnaire and her hearing, and I will make a decision on her nomination after reviewing the full record."

And so that that RECORD shall be as full as possible:

AN OPEN LETTER ......

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RE: THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION OF NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: JUNE 30, 2006


SIR:

In an article entitled "A gavel for Donohue? - Lieutenant governor confirms her name has been submitted by Gov. Pataki for federal district judge" by ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union, first published, Friday, March 3, 2006, it is reported that REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue is up for an appointment to a federal judgeship after REPUBLICAN Gov. George Pataki submitted her name to the Bush administration.

In that same article, which is public domain, it is reported, and admitted by FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE that in her present public employment as REPUBLICAN Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE has little real responsibility, and that she personally has embraced the public role of being a CHEERLEADER for REPUBLICAN George Pataki without complaint.

QUESTION 1: HOW DOES SUCH WILLING SUBSERVIENCE TO REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI SPEAK TO HER ABILITY TO BE INDEPENDENT AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

That March 3, 2006 Times Union article further reports that as a "CHEERLEADER" for REPUBLICAN George Pataki, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE "attends ribbon cuttings, lectures at schools, heads task forces and never forgets to credit Pataki for everything."

QUESTION 2: HOW DOES THIS EXPERIENCE SERVE TO HELP PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

It is then reported in that March 3, 2006 Times Union article that during her present term of public service in the State of New York, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE "has generally managed to keep a low profile during her time in office, with more attention paid to her ever-changing hairstyle than her public pronouncements.

QUESTION 3: HOW DO YOU SEE THIS TYPE OF PUBLIC SERVICE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS A CHEERLEADER FOR REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI AS SERVING TO PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE FOR THE SOLEMN TASK OF INTERPRETING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

That March 3, 2006 Times Union article then reports that the reason for the NOMINATION of FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR by President George W. Bush was as a favor to REPUBLICAN New York State Governor George Pataki, to wit:

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

QUESTION 4: HOW WOULD THE APPOINTMENT OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO THE FEDERAL BENCH AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SERVE TO PROTECT OUR CONSTUTUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIALS, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL NORTHEN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

Sincerely ......

If any of you out there in OUR America .....

Or the world for that matter ....

Are concerned ....

As are we up here ...

In Rensselaer County ...

In the State of New York ....

With the INDEPENDENCE ....

And INTEGRITY ....

OF OUR FEDERAL JUDICIARY ...

WHO ARE APPOINTED FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES ....

And you wish to make comments ....

To Senator Schumer ....

Or anyone else in OUR government for that matter ....

And all of the news media ....

Here in OUR America as well ....

ON THIS JUDICIAL NOMINATION .....

Click on this URL to take action now

http://capwiz.com/congressorg/pyv/electors/

Then look to your left ....

And click on CONGRESS ....

Then type in the name of Charles Schumer ....

Or whomever ....

And look by his name on his individual page for how to contact him ....

Which is a neat service ...

Where you scroll down to the bottom of the choices ...

And click on "compose your own letter" .....

Where you can simply "paste in" these questions above here ....

If you have no questions ...

Or comments ...

Of your own ....

And if .....

IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE ....

You wish to bring this thread ....

To the attention ...

Of Senator Schumer ....

Or anyone else ....

That URL is ....

http://commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/...php/t24721.html

And so ....
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 10 2005, 08:12 AM)
"Bush's Judges Already Making Their Mark"

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - No need to wait until President Bush appoints a Supreme Court justice to see how he will make his mark on the federal judiciary.

"When the president talks about strict construction, everyone knows what he's talking about."


Overall, in his four-plus years in office, Bush has pushed a Republican-leaning federal judiciary farther to the right with more than 200 appointments to appellate and district courts.

By the end of his second term, Bush could eclipse Presidents Clinton and Reagan in the number of judges selectedand leave an ideological imprint on the courts for generations to come.

The cumulative effect, said political scientist Donald Songer of the University of South Carolina, is that "the last three Republican presidents' nominees control virtually the whole judiciary."

People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, titled its 2004 study of Bush's judicial appointees "Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears."

It concluded that Bush appointees already have moved to limit significantly congressional authority and protection of individual rights.

"For many, many of the nominees in the lower courts, the Bush administration has been decidedly pushing toward judges with a pretty firm right-wing ideology," said Elliot Mincberg, the group's legal director.


Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, said that when it comes to the courts, Bush "gets it" in a way that even his father and Reagan did not.

His nominees "understand the problems with the way the Constitution has been interpreted and will go about fixing that in their own decisions," she said.

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 30 2006, 03:18 PM)
And so that that RECORD shall be as full as possible:

AN OPEN LETTER ......

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RE: THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION OF NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: JUNE 30, 2006

SIR:

In an article entitled "A gavel for Donohue? - Lieutenant governor confirms her name has been submitted by Gov. Pataki for federal district judge" by ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union, first published, Friday, March 3, 2006, it is reported that REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue is up for an appointment to a federal judgeship after REPUBLICAN  Gov. George Pataki submitted her name to the Bush administration.

In that same article, which is public domain, it is reported, and admitted by FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE that in her present public employment as REPUBLICAN Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE has little real responsibility, and that she personally has embraced the public role of being a CHEERLEADER for REPUBLICAN George Pataki without complaint.

QUESTION 1: HOW DOES SUCH WILLING SUBSERVIENCE TO REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI SPEAK TO HER ABILITY TO BE INDEPENDENT AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

That March 3, 2006 Times Union article further reports that as a "CHEERLEADER" for REPUBLICAN George Pataki, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE "attends ribbon cuttings, lectures at schools, heads task forces and never forgets to credit Pataki for everything."

QUESTION 2: HOW DOES THIS EXPERIENCE SERVE TO HELP PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

It is then reported in that March 3, 2006 Times Union article that during her present term of public service in the State of New York, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE "has generally managed to keep a low profile during her time in office, with more attention paid to her ever-changing hairstyle than her public pronouncements.

QUESTION 3: HOW DO YOU SEE THIS TYPE OF PUBLIC SERVICE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS A CHEERLEADER FOR REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI AS SERVING TO PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE FOR THE SOLEMN TASK OF INTERPRETING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

That March 3, 2006 Times Union article then reports that the reason for the NOMINATION of FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR by President George W. Bush was as a favor to REPUBLICAN New York State Governor George Pataki, to wit:

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

QUESTION 4: HOW WOULD THE APPOINTMENT OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO THE FEDERAL BENCH AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SERVE TO PROTECT OUR CONSTUTUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIALS, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL NORTHEN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

To contact all of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee ....

Concerning this NOMINATION ....

Of Pataki-CHEERLEADER MARY DONOHUE ....

To be ....

A lifelong appointment .....

To the Federal Bench ....

Here in OUR America ....

Click on this URL .....

http://capwiz.com/congressorg/pyv/electors/

And then ....

Look to the left ....

And click on the word CONGRESS ....

And when that screen comes up ....

Scroll down a bit ....

And you will see the word JUDICIARY ....

Click on that ....

And each member comes up .....

So that you can contact each one of them ...

As I have done ...

And so ...

And to find all of the media ...

In the United States ...

With a real handy section ...

That allows you to message all of them ....

Through your home computer ...

At no cost to yourself ....

Other than time ...

Scroll down from the word CONGRESS ....

And find MEDIA GUIDE ....

And when you click on that ....

You will get a map of the United States ....

So you can pick out what states you are interested in contacting ...

And that is that .....

POWER TO WE, THE PEOPLE ....

As the Nation's FOUNDERS intended it to be ....

And so ....
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 30 2006, 03:18 PM)
AN OPEN LETTER ......

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RE: THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION OF NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: JUNE 30, 2006

SIR:

In an article entitled "A gavel for Donohue? - Lieutenant governor confirms her name has been submitted by Gov. Pataki for federal district judge" by ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union, first published, Friday, March 3, 2006, it is reported that REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue is up for an appointment to a federal judgeship after REPUBLICAN  Gov. George Pataki submitted her name to the Bush administration.

In that same article, which is public domain, it is reported, and admitted by FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE that in her present public employment as REPUBLICAN Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE has little real responsibility, and that she personally has embraced the public role of being a CHEERLEADER for REPUBLICAN George Pataki without complaint.

QUESTION 1: HOW DOES SUCH WILLING SUBSERVIENCE TO REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI SPEAK TO HER ABILITY TO BE INDEPENDENT AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

That March 3, 2006 Times Union article further reports that as a "CHEERLEADER" for REPUBLICAN George Pataki, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE "attends ribbon cuttings, lectures at schools, heads task forces and never forgets to credit Pataki for everything."

QUESTION 2: HOW DOES THIS EXPERIENCE SERVE TO HELP PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

It is then reported in that March 3, 2006 Times Union article that during her present term of public service in the State of New York, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE "has generally managed to keep a low profile during her time in office, with more attention paid to her ever-changing hairstyle than her public pronouncements.

QUESTION 3: HOW DO YOU SEE THIS TYPE OF PUBLIC SERVICE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS A CHEERLEADER FOR REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI AS SERVING TO PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE FOR THE SOLEMN TASK OF INTERPRETING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

That March 3, 2006 Times Union article then reports that the reason for the NOMINATION of FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR by President George W. Bush was as a favor to REPUBLICAN New York State Governor George Pataki, to wit:

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

QUESTION 4: HOW WOULD THE APPOINTMENT OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO THE FEDERAL BENCH AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SERVE TO PROTECT OUR CONSTUTUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIALS, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL NORTHEN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

Sincerely ......

If any of you out there in OUR America .....

Or the world for that matter ....

Are concerned ....

As are we up here ...

In Rensselaer County ...

In the State of New York ....

With the INDEPENDENCE ....

And INTEGRITY ....

OF OUR FEDERAL JUDICIARY ...

WHO ARE APPOINTED FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES ....

And you wish to make comments ....

To Senator Schumer ....

Or anyone else in OUR government for that matter ....

And all of the news media  ....

Here in OUR America as well ....

ON THIS JUDICIAL NOMINATION .....

Click on this URL to take action now

http://capwiz.com/congressorg/pyv/electors/

Then look to your left ....

And click on CONGRESS ....

Then type in the name of Charles Schumer ....

Or whomever ....

And look by his name on his individual page for how to contact him ....

Which is a neat service ...

Where you scroll down to the bottom of the choices ...

And click on "compose your own letter" .....

Where you can simply "paste in" these questions above here ....

If you have no questions ...

Or comments ...

Of your own ....

And if .....

IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE ....

You wish to bring this thread ....

To the attention ...

Of Senator Schumer ....

Or anyone else ....

That URL is ....

http://commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/...php/t24721.html

And so ....

*

By putting this public announcement .....

That REPUBLICAN George W. Bush .....

President of the United States of America .....

Has NOMINATED .....

REPUBLICAN Mary O'Connor Donohue .....

To be a federal district court judge ...

In the federal Northern District of New York ....

In the news .....

JUST BEFORE ....

THE FOURTH OF JULY ....

THE REPUBLICANS ....

Who are backing this JUDICIAL NOMINATION ....

SOUGHT TO AVOID .....

PUBLIC SCRUTINY .....

OF THIS MOCKERY .....

BY HAVING NEWS ....

OF THE NOMINATION ....

HIT THE PAPERS ....

JUST BEFORE ...

A MAJOR HOLIDAY ...

WHEN PEOPLE ...

NORMALLY ...

GET OUT OF TOWN ...

FOR A VACATION ...

AND SO ...

GENERALLY ...

DO NOT HAVE THEIR MINDS .....

ON THE NEWS ....

AS THEY ARE GETTING READY TO LEAVE ....

And so ...

IF YOU WISH TO AVOID PUBLIC SCRUTINY .....

Well ...

Let's face it ...

That is an ideal way to do so .....

If there is going to be some type of public notice .....

That you would otherwise ....

Not have control over ...

And so ....

Up until the advent of this FORUM .....

WHICH GIVES A VOICE ....

TO THE COMMONEST ....

OF COMMON MAN .....

THIS TACTIC ...

WOULD HAVE WORKED ...

TO THEIR ADVANTAGE ...

And so .....

TODAY ...

WITH THIS FORUM .....

AVAILABLE TO US ....

WE CAN ...

KEEP THIS ISSUE ....

ALIVE ....

UNTIL AFTER ....

THE FOURTH OF JULY ....

WHEN PEOPLE ARE BACK IN TOWN ....

TO SEE THAT THIS MOCKERY .....

GETS ALL THE PUBLIC SCRUTINY .....

THAT IT RIGHTLY ....

AND PROPERLY ....

DESERVES ....

GIVEN THAT THIS IS A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT ....

And so ....

We shall ...
Livyjr
And in that short space of time ....

USING THAT URL ABOVE HERE ....

And their MEDIA GUIDE ....

I was able to copy .....

This OPEN LETTER ....

TO SENATOR SCHUMER ....

To TWENTY NEWSPAPERS .....

OUTSIDE OF ALBANY, NEW YORK .....

But within ...

The bounds ....

Of the federal NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .....

To bring this issue to their attention ....

DESPITE THE FOURTH OF JULY HOLIDAY ....

And so ....

DISPATCHING ....

OUR CITIZENSHIP DUTIES ........

TODAY ...

IS JUST THAT SIMPLE ...

And so ....
lenal
clap.gif clap.gif clap.gif clap.gif clap.gif clap.gif


Great effort Livy,jr. That tactic of timing release of items the republicans don't want scrutinied is common practice in controlling the news cycle. Glad you are giving it a solid puncture.

lenal
:julyfourth:
Livyjr
QUOTE(lenal @ Jul 2 2006, 07:37 PM)
clap.gif  clap.gif  clap.gif  clap.gif  clap.gif  clap.gif
Great effort Livyjr.

That tactic of timing release of items the republicans don't want scrutinied is common practice in controlling the news cycle.

Glad you are giving it a solid puncture.


lenal
:julyfourth:
*

lenal, thanks very much for the feedback ...

And the words of encouragement ....

And for using the term "news cycle" .....

For that is what it is ....

A "cycle" ...

Based upon the time ....

That we are likely to "retain" something .....

Before we forget that ...

As if it were never important ...

In the first place ...

And move on to the next "issue of the instant" ....

And by manipulating the timing .....

Of the "release" ....

Of "news items" .....

Like in the period ...

Just before a major national holiday ....

When people's minds ...

Are on the holiday ....

And what that means to them ...

And not the news ...

Which can adversely impact their lives ....

While they are on holiday ....

The "POWERS THAT ARE" ....

And wish to stay that way ....

In this case ...

The REPUBLICANS ....

With this incredible nomination ....

Of PATAKI CHEERLEADER Mary Donohue ....

To be a federal district court judge ...

Here in the federal Northern District of New York .....

Can guarantee ....

That the "news cycle" .....

Will be ...

About one day long ...

And then ...

At least by the "old math" .....

Which is that in existence ...

Before this FORUM gave us a voice ...

To equal things out ...

Here in OUR OWN COUNTRY ....

The "news" that Mary Donohue ....

Had been nominated ...

By George W. Bush ....

And the REPUBLICAN PARTY ...

To be a federal district court judge ...

AS A JOKE ON US ...

THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA .....

TO MOCK US FOR OUR POWERLESSNESS ....

Would be forgotten by now ....

And so ....

As the FOURTH OF JULY looms large on the horizon .....

The DAY of OUR INDEPENDENCE from TYRANNY .....

OUR NATION'S BIRTHDATE .....

I say ...

Thank you for this FORUM .....

And for what it gives us ...

IN TERMS OF A VOICE ....

To continue that hope of freedom ...

And liberty ...

That began ...

Back in 1776 ...

With the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ...

And so .....
Livyjr
AN ALTERNATE OPEN LETTER ......

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RE: THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION OF NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: JULY 3, 2006


SIR:

In an article entitled "A gavel for Donohue? - Lieutenant governor confirms her name has been submitted by Gov. Pataki for federal district judge" by ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union, first published, Friday, March 3, 2006, it was reported that REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue is up for an appointment to a federal judgeship after REPUBLICAN Gov. George Pataki submitted her name to the Bush administration.

In that article, it was reported that:

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

Subsequently, in an article entitled "Donohue nominated for federal judgeship - Lieutenant governor faces scrutiny of Senate panel after selection by Bush for $165,200 position" by MARC PARRY, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union, first published Thursday, June 29, 2006, it was reported that the White House had nominated New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue to a lifetime appointment on a federal bench.

That Thursday, June 29, 2006 Times Union article then quotes Your Office as follows:

"Over the next few weeks, we'll be looking closely at Mary Donohue's nomination, which was formally sent to the Senate today," Sen. Charles Schumer, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.

The New York Democrat added, "I look forward to receiving her answers to the committee's questionnaire and her hearing, and I will make a decision on her nomination after reviewing the full record."


QUESTION 1: WAS YOUR OFFICE NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OF THIS NOMINATION BY REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI THAT HE WANTED TO GIVE A FEDERAL JUDGESHIP TO MARY DONOHUE SO THAT REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

QUESTION 2: DOES YOUR OFFICE CONSIDER THAT A "PROPER USE" OF A JUDICIAL SEAT ON THE BENCH IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: GIVING ONE TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE SO THAT REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

QUESTION 3: DOES YOUR OFFICE INTEND TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S NOMINATION OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE FOR A SEAT ON THE BENCH IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHEN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A POLITICAL FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SO THAT REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

QUESTION 4: HOW WOULD THE APPOINTMENT OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO THE FEDERAL BENCH AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SERVE TO PROTECT OUR CONSTUTUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIALS, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?


Sincerely ......

If any of you out there in OUR America .....

Or the world for that matter ....

Are concerned ....

As are we up here ...

In Rensselaer County ...

In the State of New York ....

With the INDEPENDENCE ....

And INTEGRITY ....

OF OUR FEDERAL JUDICIARY ...

WHO ARE APPOINTED FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES ....

And you wish to make comments ....

To Senator Schumer ....

Or anyone else in OUR government for that matter ....

And all of the news media ....

Here in OUR America as well ....

ON THIS JUDICIAL NOMINATION .....

Click on this URL to take action now

http://capwiz.com/congressorg/pyv/electors/

Then look to your left ....

And click on CONGRESS ....

Then scroll down until you come to JUDICIARY ....

And when you click on that ....

The names of all of the members of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee will come up .....

Including the name Charles Schumer ....

And when you click on those names ....

Their individual page will come up ...

And under their picture ...

You will see SEND A MESSAGE ....

And just click on that ....

And paste a copy of this OPEN LETTER in the body of your letter ...

If you don't have words of your own to express your concerns with ....

And so ...

STRIKE A BLOW ....

FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE ....

THIS INDEPENDENCE DAY ....

JUST SAY NO ....

TO REPUBLICAN GEORGE W. BUSH ....

HANDING OUT ...

FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS ....

TO UNQUALIFIED PERSONS ....

LIKE PATAKI-CHEERLEADER MARY DONOHUE ....

AS POLITICAL FAVORS ...

TO POLITICALLY-CONNECTED PEOPLE ...

LIKE REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI ...

OF NEW YORK STATE ....

And so ...
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 3 2006, 04:20 PM)
And so ...

STRIKE A BLOW ....

FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE ....

THIS INDEPENDENCE DAY ....

JUST SAY NO ....

TO REPUBLICAN GEORGE W. BUSH ....

HANDING OUT ...

FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS ....

TO UNQUALIFIED PERSONS ....

LIKE PATAKI-CHEERLEADER MARY DONOHUE ....

AS POLITICAL FAVORS ...

TO POLITICALLY-CONNECTED PEOPLE ...

LIKE REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI ...

OF NEW YORK STATE ....

And so ...

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 7 2005, 04:51 PM)
From the ANNOTATIONS to the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution from http://www.findlaw.com

Annotations p. 1   

TRIAL BY JURY IN CIVIL CASES

The Right and the Characteristics of the Civil Jury

History

--On September 12, 1787, as the Convention was in its final stages, Mr. Williamson of North Carolina ''observed to the House that no provision was yet made for juries in Civil cases and suggested the necessity of it.''

The comment elicited some support and the further observation that because of the diversity of practice in civil trials in the States it would be impossible to draft a suitable provision.

When on September 15 it was moved that a clause be inserted in Article III, Sec. 2, to guarantee that ''a trial by jury shall be preserved as usual in civil cases,'' this objection seems to have been the only one urged in opposition and the motion was defeated.

The omission, however, was cited by many opponents of ratification and ''was pressed with an urgency and zeal . . . well-nigh preventing its ratification.''

A guarantee of right to jury in civil cases was one of the amendments urged on Congress by the ratifying conventions and it was included from the first among Madison's proposals to the House.

It does not appear that the text of the proposed amendment or its meaning was debated during its passage.   

Composition and Functions of Civil Jury.

--Traditionally, the Supreme Court has treated the Seventh Amendment as preserving the right of trial by jury in civil cases as it ''existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted.''

The right was to ''a trial by a jury of twelve men, in the presence and under the superintendence of a judge empowered to instruct them on the law and to advise them on the facts and (except in acquittal of a criminal charge) to set aside their verdict if in his opinion it is against the law or the evidence.''

Decision of the jury must be by unanimous verdict.

In Colgrove v. Battin, 10 however, the Court by a five-to-four vote held that rules adopted in a federal district court authorizing civil juries composed of six persons were permissible under the Seventh Amendment and congressional enactments.

By the reference in the Amendment to the ''common law,'' the Court thought, ''the Framers of the Seventh Amendment were concerned with preserving the right of trial by jury in civil cases where it existed at common law, rather than the various incidents of trial by jury.''   

The Amendment has for its primary purpose the preservation of ''the common law distinction between the province of the court and that of the jury, whereby, in the absence of express or implied consent to the contrary, issues of law are resolved by the court and issues of fact are to be determined by the jury under appropriate instructions by the court.''

But it ''does not exact the retention of old forms of procedure'' nor does it ''prohibit the introduction of new methods of ascertaining what facts are in issue'' or new rules of evidence.

Those matters which were tried by a jury in England in 1791 are to be so tried today and those matters which, as in equity, were tried by the judge in England in 1791 are to be so tried today, and when new rights and remedies are created ''the right of action should be analogized to its historical counterpart, at law or in equity, for the purpose of determining whether there is a right of jury trial,'' unless Congress has expressly prescribed the mode of trial.   

Courts in Which the Guarantee Applies.

--The Amendment governs only courts which sit under the authority of the United States, including courts in the territories and the District of Columbia, and does not apply generally to state courts.

But when a state court is enforcing a federally created right, of which the right to trial by jury is a substantial part, the States may not eliminate trial by jury as to one or more elements.

Happy Birthday, America ....

Say ...

Do you know ....

Where OUR civil rights ...

Have gone?
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 4 2006, 05:21 AM)
Happy Birthday, America ....

Say ...

Do you know ....

Where OUR civil rights ...

Have gone?

*

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

rain of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.


He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.


He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.

A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren.

We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.

We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.

We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.

We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 4 2006, 05:21 AM)
Happy Birthday, America ....

Say ...

Do you know ....

Where OUR civil rights ...

Have gone?

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 10 2005, 08:12 AM)
"Bush's Judges Already Making Their Mark"

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Overall, in his four-plus years in office, Bush has pushed a Republican-leaning federal judiciary farther to the right with more than 200 appointments to appellate and district courts.

By the end of his second term, Bush could eclipse Presidents Clinton and Reagan in the number of judges selectedand leave an ideological imprint on the courts for generations to come.

While many of the Bush appointees are replacing jurists named by previous Republican presidents, toward the end of his term Bush could have more opportunities to replace some of the Clinton judges, which would have even greater impact.

The cumulative effect, said political scientist Donald Songer of the University of South Carolina, is that "the last three Republican presidents' nominees control virtually the whole judiciary."

People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, titled its 2004 study of Bush's judicial appointees "Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears."

It concluded that Bush appointees already have moved to limit significantly congressional authority and protection of individual rights.

"For many, many of the nominees in the lower courts, the Bush administration has been decidedly pushing toward judges with a pretty firm right-wing ideology," said Elliot Mincberg, the group's legal director.


Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, said that when it comes to the courts, Bush "gets it" in a way that even his father and Reagan did not.

His nominees "understand the problems with the way the Constitution has been interpreted and will go about fixing that in their own decisions," she said.

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 3 2006, 04:20 PM)
If any of you out there in OUR America .....

Or the world for that matter ....

Are concerned ....

As are we up here ...

In Rensselaer County ...

In the State of New York ....

With the INDEPENDENCE ....

And INTEGRITY ....

OF OUR FEDERAL JUDICIARY ...

WHO ARE APPOINTED FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES ....

And you wish to make comments ....

To the members of the United States Senate JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ....

Or anyone else in OUR government for that matter ....

And all of the news media  ....

Here in OUR America as well ....

ON THIS JUDICIAL NOMINATION .....

Click on this URL to take action now

http://capwiz.com/congressorg/pyv/electors/

Then look to your left ....

And click on CONGRESS ....

Then scroll down until you come to JUDICIARY ....

And when you click on that ....

The names of all of the members of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee will come up .....

And when you click on those names ....

Their individual page will come up ...

And under their picture ...

You will see SEND A MESSAGE ....

And just click on that ....

And paste a copy of this OPEN LETTER in the body of your letter ...

If you don't have words of your own to express your concerns with ....

And so ...

STRIKE A BLOW ....

FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE ....

THIS INDEPENDENCE DAY ....

JUST SAY NO ....

TO REPUBLICAN GEORGE W. BUSH ....

HANDING OUT ...

FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS ....

TO UNQUALIFIED PERSONS ....

LIKE PATAKI-CHEERLEADER MARY DONOHUE ....

AS POLITICAL FAVORS ...

TO POLITICALLY-CONNECTED PEOPLE ...

LIKE REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI ...

OF NEW YORK STATE ....


And so ...

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 4 2006, 05:42 AM)
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.


For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

July 5, 2006

TO: Newspapers of the State of Iowa

SUBJECT: GEORGE PATAKI'S PET FEDERAL JUDGE


MESSAGE:

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM IOWA CHARLES GRASSLEY, MEMBER, UNITED STATES SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RE: THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION OF NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: JUNE 30, 2006

SIR:

In an article entitled "A gavel for Donohue? - Lieutenant governor confirms her name has been submitted by Gov. Pataki for federal district judge" by ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union, first published, Friday, March 3, 2006, it is reported that REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue is up for an appointment to a federal judgeship after REPUBLICAN Gov. George Pataki submitted her name to the Bush administration.

In that same article, which is public domain, it is reported, and admitted by FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE that in her present public employment as REPUBLICAN Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE has little real responsibility, and that she personally has embraced the public role of being a CHEERLEADER for REPUBLICAN George Pataki without complaint.

QUESTION 1: HOW DOES SUCH WILLING SUBSERVIENCE TO REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI SPEAK TO HER ABILITY TO BE INDEPENDENT AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

That March 3, 2006 Times Union article further reports that as a "CHEERLEADER" for REPUBLICAN George Pataki, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE "attends ribbon cuttings, lectures at schools, heads task forces and never forgets to credit Pataki for everything."

QUESTION 2: HOW DOES THIS EXPERIENCE SERVE TO HELP PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

It is then reported in that March 3, 2006 Times Union article that during her present term of public service in the State of New York, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE "has generally managed to keep a low profile during her time in office, with more attention paid to her ever-changing hairstyle than her public pronouncements."

QUESTION 3: HOW DO YOU SEE THIS TYPE OF PUBLIC SERVICE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS A CHEERLEADER FOR REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI AS SERVING TO PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE FOR THE SOLEMN TASK OF INTERPRETING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

That March 3, 2006 Times Union article then reports that the reason for the NOMINATION of FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR by President George W. Bush was as a favor to REPUBLICAN New York State Governor George Pataki, to wit:

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

QUESTION 4: HOW WOULD THE APPOINTMENT OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO THE FEDERAL BENCH AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SERVE TO PROTECT OUR CONSTUTUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIALS, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL NORTHEN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

Sincerely,
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 3 2006, 04:20 PM)
And so ...

STRIKE A BLOW ....

FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE ....

THIS INDEPENDENCE DAY ....

JUST SAY NO ....

TO REPUBLICAN GEORGE W. BUSH ....

HANDING OUT ...

FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS ....

LIKE THEY WERE CANDY ....

TO UNQUALIFIED PERSONS ....

LIKE PATAKI-CHEERLEADER MARY DONOHUE ....

AS POLITICAL FAVORS ...

TO POLITICALLY-CONNECTED PEOPLE ...

LIKE REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI ...

OF NEW YORK STATE ....

And so ...

*

Today ...

I received an e-mail from Senator Biden .....

Thanking me ....

For bringing this matter ....

Of the MARY DONOHUE JUDICIAL NOMINATION ....

To his attention ....

As Senator Biden is on the Senate Judiciary Committee .....

And will have to act on this NOMINATION ....

ONE WAY ....

OR ...

THE OTHER ....

And I received another e-mail ...

Concerning this NOMINATION ....

From Senator Schumer, as well ....

And so .....

Will that make a difference?

It already has ...

Just by making them aware ...

That there is ONE PERSON out here ...

In OUR AMERICA ....

WHO STILL GIVES A DAMN ...

ABOUT INTEGRITY ...

IN OUR GOVERNMENT ...

And so ....
Livyjr
For most of us, I suspect ....

The federal court system ...

Is a complete mystery .....

Who the judges are ...

How they got to be judges .....

What they do ...

As federal court judges ....

And that is because ....

For most of us, probably .....

In a lifetime ...

We will never have any dealings with a federal court ...

And so ....

We are ignorant ...

Of something ....

Because it is not on OUR radar .....

In OUR lives ...

Which are busy with other things ...

And so ...

And in my own experience, anyway ....

When we are being educated ....

As children .....

About OUR form of government ....

And OUR place in it ...

The court system always seems to get ...

Short shrift ....

Compared to the office of president ....

And the Congress ...

And so ...

OUT OF SIGHT ...

OUT OF MIND .....

And then ....

One day ...

There you are .....

Not as a criminal ...

Not as a tax evader ....

Not as a terrorist ....

BUT AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN ....

With a grievance ....

For which you seek redress ....

THROUGH THE LAW ....

As a law-abiding American citizen would do ....

And so ....

SHOULD THE FEDERAL COURT JUDGE THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED ....

TO YOUR CASE ....

TAKE YOUR RIGHT ....

TO REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE SERIOUSLY?

SHOULD THE FEDERAL COURT JUDGE KNOW THE LAW?

SHOULD THE FEDERAL COURT JUDGE FOLLOW THE LAW .....

TO THE LETTER, REGARDLESS OF YOUR "STATUS"?

Or "CLASS"?

And should "CLASS" Matter ....

In a federal court ...

HERE IN OUR AMERICA ...

IF YOU ARE WITHIN ...

YOUR RIGHTS ...

AS THOSE RIGHTS ...

HAVE BEEN DETERMINED ....

BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT?

OR IS IT ABOUT "CLASS" ......

And status .....

Being the real measures .....

OF JUSTICE ......

Here in OUR America ....

And so ....

For anyone just stopping by .....

Curious as to what this thread is about ....

It is about these questions ...

Particularly ...

This last one ...

About what passes for JUSTICE ....

Here in OUR America ...

Being dependant ...

Not on the law .....

Not on the facts ...

BUT UPON YOU!

Who you are ...

What your pedigree is ...

HOW MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE CONTRIBUTED ....

DO YOU HAVE POWERFUL PEOPLE PROTECTING YOU ....

OR NOT .....

And ANSWERS ....

To those questions ...

Based on a real federal court case .....

From the State of New York ....

Where a CONSERVATIVE federal district court judge ...

Appointed by George W. Bush ....

Granted "PROTECTION" ........

To politically powerful individuals ....

In REPUBLICAN-controlled Rensselaer County ....

In the State of New York ....

By the expedient .....

Of simply changing facts ....

And discarding evidence .....

IN A FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS MATTER ....

Where those politically powerful people ...

Were defendants .....

And so ....

The WAY THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ....

Versus ....

THE WAY THAT THEY ARE ....

And so .....
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 28 2006, 05:26 PM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)

DAVID E. ROOK, ESQUIRE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AFFIRMS AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am an attorney and counselor at law associated with the law offices of Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP, attorneys representing the Defendants Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342, John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415, Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS") herein, AND AS SUCH, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS HERETOFORE HAD HEREIN.

6. As described more thoroughly in Samaritan Defendants' MEMORANDUM OF LAW, PLAINTIFF'S "AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 42 USCS § 1983" should be dismissed.

7. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FAILS TO MEET THE PLEADING STANDARDS SET FORTH AT FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b) and 10(b).

8. Despite affording GREAT LIBERALITY to PLAINTIFF as a pro se litigant, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT fails to set forth ANY SET OF FACTS that would entitle him to RELIEF FROM ANY NAMED DEFENDANT and more specifically from any of the SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS.

9. PLAINTIFF APPEARS TO SUFFER FROM A HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS.

HIS ALLEGATIONS COUPLED WITH DOCUMENTS APPENDED TO HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT SUGGEST PLAINTIFF BECAME INCREASINGLY AGITATED ULTIMATELY RESULTING IN THREATS BEING MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF TO VARIOUS PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PRIVATE CITIZENS.

10. THE PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AND DOCUMENTS SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT HE WAS REFERRED TO THE STAFF OF SAMARITAN HOSPITAL AND UPON RECEIVING INFORMATION ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR AND HISTORY FROM RELIABLE SOURCES EXERCISED THEIR STATUTORY AUTHORITY UNDER NYSMHL §9.39 and §9.40 TO CERTIFY AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" TO SAMARITAN HOSPITAL'S SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.

11. Dr. Braaten signed the certificate for emergency admission upon information provided to him by a registered professional nurse, Ms. FIORINO.

The allegations in the COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATE OF EMERGENCY ADMISSION signed by DR. BRAATEN  reveal the PLAINTIFF'S admission to be an emergency admission and not an involuntary commitment.

The procedures and due process safeguards in New York's REGULATORY SCHEME for mental health admissions differ depending upon whether the PLAINTIFF is secured under an emergency admission or an involuntary commitment.

12. ANY ACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN by the SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS were taken under the AUTHORITY of NYS Mental Hygiene Law and were taken FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND SOCIETY AT LARGE.

Furthermore, all of the actions taken by the Samaritan Defendants in connection with PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY ADMISSION are privileged by NYS Mental Hygiene Law.

ANY ATTEMPT TO CHARACTERIZE PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS SUPPORTING A CLAIM FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT MUST FAIL DUE TO THIS PRIVILEGE.

THE EXISTENCE OF THE PRIVILEGE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, MAY BE DETERMINED BY PRESUMING PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS TO BE TRUE AND REFERENCING THE DOCUMENTS APPENDED TO HIS COMPLAINT.

13. PLAINTIFF APPEARS TO ALLEGE SOME KIND OF DECEIT BY INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS TO SECURE THIS EMERGENCY ADMISSION.

PLAINTIFF REPEATEDLY REFERS TO THE CREATION AND REPORTING OF A "FALSE PERSONA" AND "FALSE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES".

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT DOES NOT CONTAIN A SINGLE REFERENCE TO WHAT WAS "FALSE" OR THE SPECIFICS CONCERNING THE COMMUNICATION OF WHAT WAS "FALSE".

THIS FAILURE OF THE PLEADING IS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE PLEADING'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 9(b) OR SUPPORT ANY POTENTIAL CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON FRAUD OR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION.

DATED: November 10, 2003
            Albany, New York

David E. Rook

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Apr 6 2006, 05:45 PM)
And here ...

Another reader is asking whether there is any definitive documentary evidence in the record .....

Outside of the McNally Transcript .....

Which was in connection with unconstitutional criminal proceedings against PLAINTIFF in Rensselaer County Court .....

Which would show that a public official in Rensselaer County used or attempted to use the PLAINTIFF's DICIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS in Rensselaer County to discredit PLAINTIFF before any New York State agenices employing other licensed professionals ....

To protect someone ....

Who was under investigation by PLAINTIFF for Public Health Law or Sanitary Code violations involving fraudulent Rensselaer County Health Department paperwork ....

And that answer again is in the affirmative ...

And this piece of documentary evidence on Town of Poestenkill stationary is the link between the County of Rensselaer .....

And Gary James "JIMMY DAWG" Horton .....

The REPUBLICAN "enforcer" who ran PLAINTIFF down on December 29, 1989 .....

And was then protected in court by the Office of the Rensselaer County District Attorney ....

Until the Statute of Limitations had ran out ...

And old "JIMMY DAWG" could no longer be prosecuted ...

For what was a "freebie" hit-and run vehicular assault .....

In the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, State of New York ...

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Apr 27 2005, 06:12 PM)
Appeals should be out in the open, is what I think, anyway, which is to say, there should be witnesses to what transpires there that day, as was the case here in Rensselaer County back on November, 30, 1992, when we MUTE WITNESSES were assembled in Rensselaer County Court to hear what we thought was going to be "argument" in another "appeal" involving this same PLAINTIFF!

And this appeal argument on November 30, 1992 was quite important, to all of us, because it involved the "PRECURSER" intimidation tactic employed against this same PLAINTIFF by Rensselaer County, only that time using false criminal charges, which ultimately backfired against Rensselaer County, as this appeal transcript clearly demonstrates, because of the strong "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" provisions that are built in to the New York State Criminal Procedure Law to protect the innocent from malicious prosecution for political purposes by the "modern state"!

The COLLOQUY from that appeal on November 30, 1992 between Rensselaer County Court Judge M. Andrew Dwyer and Assistant Rensselaer County District Attorney Ricahrd McNally who had been hounding the PLAINTIFF through the criminal courts of Rensselaer County since 1990 on false testimony and manufactured evidence, is as follows:

JUDGE: There is a MOTION on, that I might as well dispose of first.

That is PEOPLE v. PLAINTIFF.

Apparently, it is pro se.

Mr. McNally, are you here for the PEOPLE?

This is a legal question.

I don't see that argument is necessary!

MR. McNALLY: This is a Motion to Dismiss!

JUDGE: A Motion to Reargue a Motion to Dismiss!

MR. McNALLY: I have no position, other than to say, the Court, in its previous position, left me without any recourse other than to not oppose a Motion to Dismiss, in my opinion!

JUDGE: That is your position?

MR. McNALLY: That is my position!

JUDGE: THEN YOU CONSENT TO THE DISMISSAL?

MR. McNALLY: I do, Judge, based upon the fact that the Court, in its previous Decision, left me with an untenable position at trial!

JUDGE: How closely did you read the decision?

MR. McNALLY: Very!

JUDGE: The District Attorney consented?

MR. McNALLY: It was the Court's opinion at trial that there was other evidence out there, and I can affirm that there IS NOT OTHER EVIDENCE ON WHICH TO BASE A PROSECUTION AND THE COURT RULED THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT, AND I HAVE NO OTHER EVIDENCE!

JUDGE: And you take the position that you have no further evidence, at all?

MR. McNALLY: No further evidence, Judge!

JUDGE: Then it is dismissed!

(Whereupon, matter concluded)

- Exhibit F, Original Complaint in Federal District Court for Northern District of New York

*

"Livyjr, is FEDERAL JUDICIAL NOMINEE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE linked to this matter in any way, other than by simply being the sister of ATTORNEY Tommy O'Connor, the lawyer for REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino and her co-defendants in this federal civil rights matter under discussion in here?"

YES .....

FEDERAL JUDICIAL NOMINEE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE is directly linked ....

To this federal civil rights matter ....

BY PARAGRAPH 10 .....

Of the November 10, 2003 ......

AFFIRMATION .....

Of DAVID E. ROOK, ESQUIRE .....

The Gold Johnson Attorney ....

For the Northeast Health defendants ....

IN THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS MATTER .....

In the federal District Court .....

For the Northern District of New York ....

Where attorney Rook states:

THE PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AND DOCUMENTS SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT HE WAS REFERRED TO THE STAFF OF SAMARITAN HOSPITAL AND UPON RECEIVING INFORMATION ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR AND HISTORY FROM RELIABLE SOURCES EXERCISED THEIR STATUTORY AUTHORITY UNDER NYSMHL §9.39 and §9.40 TO CERTIFY AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" TO SAMARITAN HOSPITAL'S SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.

As the Rensselaer County District Attorney .....

Right after Assistant Rensselaer County District Attorney Richard McNally ....

Was forced by the PLAINTIFF ....

On November 30, 1992 .....

To have to confess .....

To Rensselaer County Criminal Court Judge M. Andrew Dwyer ....

That he, McNally, had no evidence .....

On which to try PLAINTIFF ...

Other than the perjured testimony ....

Of Gary James "JIMMY DAWG" Horton .....

And his wife .....

Which McNally had suborned ...

For a criminal trial .....

Of PLAINTIFF ....

In Brunswick Town Court .....

Which trial .....

McNally won .....

Based on the PERJURED TESTIMONY ....

Of "JIMMY DAWG" Horton ...

And his wife ...

THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ...

TOSSED OUT ...

As EVIDENCE .....

Along with PLAINTIFF'S CONVICTION ..

On APPEAL

By Rensselaer County Criminal Court judge M. Andrew Dwyer .....

Which left McNally in an untenable position at trial .....

BECAUSE HIS PERJURED TESTIMONY THAT HE HAD SUBORNED ....

HAD BEEN EXPOSED .....

BY THE PLAINTIFF ....

AND REJECTED .....

By Judge Dwyer ....

And so .....

Mary O'Connor Donohue ....

Was the Rensselaer County District Attorney .....

Whose office allegedly covered up that perjury ...

And subornation of perjury ...

As well as the hit-and-run assault .....

Which was never prosecuted ....

When PLAINTIFF brought the MCNALLY TRANSCRIPT ...

To that Office .....

For prosecution ....

And so ....

When Attorney Rook .....

On November 10, 2003 .....

Stated under penalty of perjury .....

To FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .....

That PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AND DOCUMENTS SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT HE WAS REFERRED TO THE STAFF OF SAMARITAN HOSPITAL AND UPON RECEIVING INFORMATION ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR AND HISTORY FROM RELIABLE SOURCES ......

That HISTORY .....

Of necessity ....

By virtue of the MCNALLY TRANSCRIPT in the record in this matter .....

Brings the role .....

That FEDERAL JUDICIAL NOMINEE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE played .....

In helping to create that history .....

Into this proceeding ......

As a fact question ....

WHICH WAS FOR A JURY TO DECIDE .....

ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION .....

As it was written .....

Before this March 31, 2005 Bush-appointee decision .....

Under discussion in here ....

WHICH STRIPPED FROM US ...

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ...

TO HAVE A JURY TRIAL IN THIS MATTER .....

DESPITE THE CLEAR DEMAND FOR SUCH ...

By the PLAINTIFF ....

And so ....
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Mar 29 2006, 06:58 PM)
October 13, 1988

Dr. Ian T. Loudon, M.D.
Regional Health Director
State of New York Department of Health
Albany Regional Office
Building 7A
State Office Building Campus
Albany, New York 12226

Dear Dr. Loudon,

As of October 13, 1988, our Director of Environmental Health/Associate Public Health Engineer has been placed on a paid leave of absence status for thirty working days.

A copy of my memorandum to the County Executive on this matter, which cites contributing factors, is attached hereto.

Although there are other options available for dealing with this issue .....

I HAVE HOPES THAT THE LEAST PAINFUL AND MOST HUMANITARIAN APPROACH HAS BEEN INITIALLY TAKEN.

WHETHER PLAINTIFF SEES IT THAT WAY OR NOT, I CAN'T SAY.

Kenneth Van Praag
Rensselaer County Public Health Director

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 7 2006, 04:35 PM)
"Livyjr, is FEDERAL JUDICIAL NOMINEE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE linked to this matter in any way, other than by simply being the sister of ATTORNEY Tommy O'Connor, the lawyer for REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino and her co-defendants in this federal civil rights matter under discussion in here?"

YES .....

FEDERAL JUDICIAL NOMINEE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE is directly linked ....

To this federal civil rights matter ....

BY PARAGRAPH 10 .....

Of the November 10, 2003 ......

AFFIRMATION .....

Of DAVID E. ROOK, ESQUIRE .....

The Gold Johnson Attorney ....

For the Northeast Health defendants ....

IN THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS MATTER .....

In the federal District Court .....

For the Northern District of New York ....

Where attorney Rook states:

THE PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AND DOCUMENTS SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT HE WAS REFERRED TO THE STAFF OF SAMARITAN HOSPITAL AND UPON RECEIVING INFORMATION ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR AND HISTORY FROM RELIABLE SOURCES EXERCISED THEIR STATUTORY AUTHORITY UNDER NYSMHL §9.39 and §9.40 TO CERTIFY AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" TO SAMARITAN HOSPITAL'S SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.

And that is what we are talking about in here, right now ...

HISTORY ...

Both as it happened ...

And then ...

As it was altered to be ...

By the pen ...

Of a federal district court judge ...

Appointed by George W. Bush .....

To "interpret" .....

The United States Constitution ...

In the manner ...

That George W. Bush ...

And the Republican Party want it to be interpreted ...

As opposed to the way that it is written ...

And has been interpreted .....

For going onto 200 years now .....

And in this case ...

That interpretation ...

Given the United States Constitution .....

By this Bush-appointee .....

Both provides for ...

And sanctions ...

An escalating program ....

Of "APPROACHES" .....

To deal with DISSENT ........

That become MORE PAINFUL ...

And LESS HUMANITARIAN .....

As is required ...

TO CRUSH THAT DISSENT .....

Here in the State of New York ...

Where REPUBLICAN LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE .....

Whose Office was involved ......

In "keeping quiet" .....

Or "hushing up" .....

Perjury ...

By a "HIT-AND-RUN" driver in Rensselaer County ....

In the State of New York ....

That was SUBORNED .....

By an Assistant Rensselaer County District Attorney ......

As Rensselaer County "officials" .....

Determined ....

That they were going to have to resort to ...

MORE PAINFUL ...

AND LESS HUMANITARIAN METHODS .....

To close the mouth ...

Of the PLAINTIFF in this matter .....

In order to keep him ...

From giving testimony ...

And evidence ...

Of corruption ...

In Rensselaer County ...

And New York State government ...

To a GRAND JURY ...

Pursuant to the provisions ....

Of the New York State Constitution ....

And so ...

A RETROSPECTIVE, you might say ...

That is relevant to OUR times ...

Where George W. Bush ...

Has nominated .....

REPUBLICAN LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE .....

Of the State of New York .....

To be a federal district court judge over us ....

Up here in the federal Northern District of New York ...

For the rest of OUR lives .....

And so ....

If approved .....

That selection ...

Would guarantee ....

That for the rest of OUR lives ....

IF WE CHOOSE TO DISSENT ...

In a lawful manner ...

What our REPUBLICAN-controlled government is doing to us ...

As was the case with the PLAINTIFF herein .....

On August 22, 2001 .....

WHEN HE ENDED UP BEING INCARCERATED ...

IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILTY ...

FOR DARING TO REGISTER HIS DISSENT ....

With REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino .....

That we will be assured ..

Of being subjected ...

To MORE PAINFUL ...

And LESS HUMANITARIAN TREATMENT ....

OURSELVES ...

Just as the PLAINTIFF in this matter was ...

And so .....

History in the making ...

Right exactly now ...

And you were there ...

By virtue of reading these words ...

And so .....
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 30 2006, 03:18 PM)
AN OPEN LETTER ......

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RE: THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION OF NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: JUNE 30, 2006

SIR:

In an article entitled "A gavel for Donohue? - Lieutenant governor confirms her name has been submitted by Gov. Pataki for federal district judge" by ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union, first published, Friday, March 3, 2006, it is reported that REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue is up for an appointment to a federal judgeship after REPUBLICAN  Gov. George Pataki submitted her name to the Bush administration.

In that same article, which is public domain, it is reported, and admitted by FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE that in her present public employment as REPUBLICAN Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE has little real responsibility, and that she personally has embraced the public role of being a CHEERLEADER for REPUBLICAN George Pataki without complaint.

QUESTION 1: HOW DOES SUCH WILLING SUBSERVIENCE TO REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI SPEAK TO HER ABILITY TO BE INDEPENDENT AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?


That March 3, 2006 Times Union article further reports that as a "CHEERLEADER" for REPUBLICAN George Pataki, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE "attends ribbon cuttings, lectures at schools, heads task forces and never forgets to credit Pataki for everything."

QUESTION 2: HOW DOES THIS EXPERIENCE SERVE TO HELP PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

It is then reported in that March 3, 2006 Times Union article that during her present term of public service in the State of New York, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE "has generally managed to keep a low profile during her time in office, with more attention paid to her ever-changing hairstyle than her public pronouncements.

QUESTION 3: HOW DO YOU SEE THIS TYPE OF PUBLIC SERVICE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS A CHEERLEADER FOR REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI AS SERVING TO PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE FOR THE SOLEMN TASK OF INTERPRETING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

That March 3, 2006 Times Union article then reports that the reason for the NOMINATION of FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR by President George W. Bush was as a favor to REPUBLICAN New York State Governor George Pataki, to wit:

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

QUESTION 4: HOW WOULD THE APPOINTMENT OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO THE FEDERAL BENCH AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SERVE TO PROTECT OUR CONSTUTUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIALS, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL NORTHEN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

Sincerely ......

If any of you out there in OUR America .....

Or the world for that matter ....

Are concerned ....

As are we up here ...

In Rensselaer County ...

In the State of New York ....

With the INDEPENDENCE ....

And INTEGRITY ....

OF OUR FEDERAL JUDICIARY ...

WHO ARE APPOINTED FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES ....

And you wish to make comments ....

To Senator Schumer ....

Or anyone else in OUR government for that matter ....

And all of the news media  ....

Here in OUR America as well ....

ON THIS JUDICIAL NOMINATION .....

Click on this URL to take action now

http://capwiz.com/congressorg/pyv/electors/

Then look to your left ....

And click on CONGRESS ....

Then type in the name of Charles Schumer ....

Or whomever ....

And look by his name on his individual page for how to contact him ....

Which is a neat service ...

Where you scroll down to the bottom of the choices ...

And click on "compose your own letter" .....

Where you can simply "paste in" these questions above here ....

If you have no questions ...

Or comments ...

Of your own ....

And if .....

IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE ....

You wish to bring this thread ....

To the attention ...

Of Senator Schumer ....

Or anyone else ....

That URL is ....

http://commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/...php/t24721.html

And so ....

*

"Donohue still an unknown"

GOSHEN - Mary Donohue came out of nowhere to become Gov. George Pataki's choice for lieutenant governor, so it's not surprising even Republican leaders are still getting to know her.

"Her middle initial is O - Mary O. Donohue," Rockland County Sheriff James Kralik said recently, explaining why he had just mistakenly called her "Mary O'Donohue" at a campaign stop here with other Hudson Valley sheriffs endorsing Pataki.

"That's the way they gave (her name) to me, so I assumed it was O'Donohue," Kralik added.

If Donohue noticed Kralik's gaffe - which was understandable, since few outside of upstate Rensselaer County knew she even existed until Pataki entered the picture - she didn't let it show.

Freckle-faced, perpetually smiling and slender as a runway model thanks to working out with weights at the YMCA and spending hours on an exercise treadmill, Donohue oozes self-confidence as only a former school teacher, district attorney and state Supreme Court justice can.


"Violent criminals do have a place in our society," she said, standing before the Orange County jail and talking about her "98% conviction rate" as DA from 1992-96.

"And that place is in prison."

"A 98% conviction rate?"

"That's amazing," a radio reporter gushed after the press conference.

That kind of response indicates why Republicans clearly think Donohue, blonde and 51, who has only held elected office since 1992, is star material - and a team player compared to current Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey Ross, who switched to the Democratic Party after Pataki dumped her from his reelection ticket last year.

Her rise comes despite grumblings from Democrats that her previous career as a judge and district attorney have been overhyped, and that she's short on substance, experience and independence.

"She's devoid of the ability to have an original thought ..."

"She'll do exactly what she's told," said one Democrat who has watched her career and, like others in Rensselaer County, would not speak for attribution.


They are reluctant to have their names attached to any criticism because even Democrats privately admit Donohue is a sure bet to be elected lieutenant governor next month, when Pataki is expected to easily win a second term by defeating Democratic challenger Peter Vallone.

That will put her in line to become governor if Pataki leaves office before his second term is up in 2002, and on the short list of potential GOP successors.

Republicans still smarting from Ross's rebellious streak can't say enough good things about Donohue, especially her rapport with voters in Rensselaer County.

"Each time (she ran) her numbers just went up and she blew the opposition away," Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, said this spring when GOP sources confirmed she was Pataki's pick.

"I think she will be a terrific running mate."

Working a roomful of senior citizens in Orange County in a style that contrasts with Pataki's more reserved persona, she hammered home that idea, saying she and Pataki both believe in "bringing the money back to the people, not creating a government expanding because of the people's money."

Later, she portrayed herself as Pataki described her: a working mother, a teacher, a prosecutor, and a judge.

"I represent the spectrum," she said later.

"I've been a taxpayer for a long time... (my resume) covers a good representation of the people across the state.

As for why she gave up a 14-year judicial term, "the opportunity to work with the governor across the state and make a difference in a direct way with people across the state is something that's part of me," she said.

Still, who exactly is Mary O. Donohue?

Born Mary O'Connor, she grew up Irish Catholic in Troy, a great 19th century industrial center that produced most of the horseshoes used by the Union army in the Civil War.

But the iron foundries are long gone and Troy's main business for the past 50 years has been lawyers and politics - making an indelible mark on Donohue's upbringing.

Donohue's father was Tom O'Connor, a prominent attorney, judge and bon vivant about whom stories are still told, including one about the time he was spotted jogging down the street in his skivvies, just a few blocks from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

"I'm going out for the RPI track team," he said, or at least that's how the story is still told in Troy's taverns.

By KYLE HUGHES, Gannett News Service

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ny/ny006.htm
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 3 2006, 04:20 PM)
AN ALTERNATE OPEN LETTER ......

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RE: THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION OF NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: JULY 3, 2006

SIR:

In an article entitled "A gavel for Donohue? - Lieutenant governor confirms her name has been submitted by Gov. Pataki for federal district judge" by ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union, first published, Friday, March 3, 2006, it was reported that REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue is up for an appointment to a federal judgeship after REPUBLICAN  Gov. George Pataki submitted her name to the Bush administration.

In that article, it was reported that:

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

Subsequently, in an article entitled "Donohue nominated for federal judgeship - Lieutenant governor faces scrutiny of Senate panel after selection by Bush for $165,200 position" by MARC PARRY, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union, first published Thursday, June 29, 2006, it was reported that the White House had nominated New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue to a lifetime appointment on a federal bench.

That Thursday, June 29, 2006 Times Union article then quotes Your Office as follows:

"Over the next few weeks, we'll be looking closely at Mary Donohue's nomination, which was formally sent to the Senate today," Sen. Charles Schumer, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.

The New York Democrat added, "I look forward to receiving her answers to the committee's questionnaire and her hearing, and I will make a decision on her nomination after reviewing the full record."


QUESTION 1: WAS YOUR OFFICE NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OF THIS NOMINATION BY REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI THAT HE WANTED TO GIVE A FEDERAL JUDGESHIP TO MARY DONOHUE SO THAT REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

QUESTION 2: DOES YOUR OFFICE CONSIDER THAT A "PROPER USE" OF A JUDICIAL SEAT ON THE BENCH IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: GIVING ONE TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE SO THAT REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

QUESTION 3: DOES YOUR OFFICE INTEND TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S NOMINATION OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE FOR A SEAT ON THE BENCH IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHEN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A POLITICAL FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SO THAT REPUBLICAN  NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

QUESTION 4: HOW WOULD THE APPOINTMENT OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO THE FEDERAL BENCH AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SERVE TO PROTECT OUR CONSTUTUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIALS, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?


Sincerely ......

If any of you out there in OUR America .....

Or the world for that matter ....

Are concerned ....

As are we up here ...

In Rensselaer County ...

In the State of New York ....

With the INDEPENDENCE ....

And INTEGRITY ....

OF OUR FEDERAL JUDICIARY ...

WHO ARE APPOINTED FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES ....

And you wish to make comments ....

To Senator Schumer ....

Or anyone else in OUR government for that matter ....

And all of the news media  ....

Here in OUR America as well ....

ON THIS JUDICIAL NOMINATION .....

Click on this URL to take action now

http://capwiz.com/congressorg/pyv/electors/

Then look to your left ....

And click on CONGRESS ....

Then scroll down until you come to JUDICIARY ....

And when you click on that ....

The names of all of the members of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee will come up .....

Including the name Charles Schumer ....

And when you click on those names ....

Their individual page will come up ...

And under their picture ...

You will see SEND A MESSAGE ....

And just click on that ....

And paste a copy of this OPEN LETTER in the body of your letter ...

If you don't have words of your own to express your concerns with ....

And so ...

STRIKE A BLOW ....

FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE ....

THIS INDEPENDENCE DAY ....

JUST SAY NO ....

TO REPUBLICAN GEORGE W. BUSH ....

HANDING OUT ...

FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS ....

TO UNQUALIFIED PERSONS ....

LIKE PATAKI-CHEERLEADER MARY DONOHUE ....

AS POLITICAL FAVORS ...

TO POLITICALLY-CONNECTED PEOPLE ...

LIKE REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI ...

OF NEW YORK STATE ....

And so ...

*

Lt. Governor Mary O. Donohue (NY)

Current Office: Lt. Governor
First Elected: 11/03/1998
Last Elected: 11/05/2002
Next Election: 2006
Party: Republican

Background Information
Gender: Female
Family: 2 Children: Sarah, Justin.
Birth date:
Birthplace: Rensselaer County, NY
Home City:
Religion:

Education:
JD, Albany Law School of Union University, 1983
MS, Education, Russell Sage College
BA, College of New Rochelle.

Professional Experience:
District Attorney, Rensselaer County, New York, 1992-1996
Assistant Rensselaer County Attorney, 1990-1992

Private Law Practice, 1988-1992
Associate Attorney, O'Connell and Aronowitz, P.C., 1983-1988
Law Clerk/Intern, United State Attorney's Office
Staff member, Senator Joseph Bruno
Teacher.

Political Experience:
Lieutenant Governor, State of New York, 1998-present
State Supreme Court Justice, New York State, Third Judicial District, 1996-1998.

Contact Information

Capitol Web Address:
http://www.state.ny.us/governo ...
Capitol Web Mail Address:
http://161.11.3.75/ltgov

Capitol Address
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224-0341
Phone: 518-474-8390
Fax:
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 30 2006 @ 03:18 PM)
AN OPEN LETTER ......

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RE: THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION OF NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: JUNE 30, 2006

SIR:

It is then reported ....

In that March 3, 2006 Times Union article .....

That during her present term of public service in the State of New York ....

FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE ....

"Has generally managed to keep a low profile during her time in office ....."

"With more attention paid to her ever-changing hairstyle ...."

"Than her public pronouncements ......."


QUESTION: HOW DO YOU SEE THIS TYPE OF PUBLIC SERVICE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS A CHEERLEADER FOR REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI AS SERVING TO PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE FOR THE SOLEMN TASK OF INTERPRETING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 10 2006, 05:37 PM)
"Donohue still an unknown"

GOSHEN - Mary Donohue came out of nowhere to become Gov. George Pataki's choice for lieutenant governor, so it's not surprising even Republican leaders are still getting to know her.

As for why she gave up a 14-year judicial term, "the opportunity to work with the governor across the state and make a difference in a direct way with people across the state is something that's part of me," she said.


By KYLE HUGHES, Gannett News Service

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ny/ny006.htm
*

"Pataki Has Emergency Appendix Surgery"

By JENNIFER MEDINA and ANAHAD O'CONNOR

Published: February 17, 2006

ALBANY, Feb. 16 — Gov. George E. Pataki underwent emergency surgery early Thursday morning to remove his appendix and was expected to remain in the hospital until Saturday, doctors said.

Dr. Wiji Ratnathicam, the senior attending surgeon at the hospital in Westchester County, said, "The governor is in good spirits."

There were no complications, and Mr. Pataki, 60, was in some pain but resting at Hudson Valley Hospital Center in Westchester County, doctors said.

They said Mr. Pataki's appendix was perforated.

The governor checked himself into the hospital around 1 a.m. after complaining of abdominal pain for nearly 24 hours.

"He's doing absolutely great," said his wife, Libby, who accompanied the governor to the hospital.

"He's a little sore, but he's mentally there."

The governor is likely to work from home for the next 10 days, his doctors and aides said.

He was also canceling a speech scheduled for Friday morning in New Hampshire, his aides said.

Mr. Pataki, who is not seeking re-election but is considering a run for president, has made appearances in recent months in Iowa and New Hampshire, two states with early presidential contests.

Mrs. Pataki said that when the governor awoke on Wednesday, he "had a rotten stomachache, and he assigned it to a flu bug going around."

She added, "He's not one to dwell on physical discomforts."

He canceled an appearance at a news conference on Wednesday with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

After resting at home much of the morning, Mr. Pataki went to his New York City office that afternoon and worked until about 7 p.m.

He then went to a Midtown book party for Edward Hayes, a prominent Manhattan lawyer who has published a memoir.

Mr. Hayes said the governor did not appear to be in pain and spent about half an hour at the party, at the McManus Midtown Democratic Association on West 44th Street.

"He looked great, I swear, I heard no complaints," Mr. Hayes said.

"Maybe he was a little pale, but it was a dark room."

David M. Catalfamo, a spokesman for the governor who traveled with him to the city on Wednesday, said the governor was in discomfort.

"He didn't look like he was doing too well," he said.

Mr. Pataki was still in pain at 1 a.m., and his doctor recommended going to the hospital, in Cortlandt Manor, near his Garrison home.

His wife and security guards accompanied him.

After a series of tests, doctors confirmed that Mr. Pataki had appendicitis, and the surgery began around 5:45 a.m., lasting about an hour.

"The governor is in good spirits," said Dr. Wiji Ratnathicam, the senior attending surgeon at the hospital.

"He is a little tired, as all of us are, because we've been up all night."

Mr. Pataki received calls wishing him well from President Bush; Joseph L. Bruno, the leader of the State Senate; and Mr. Bloomberg, all fellow Republicans.

"They're all kidding around," Mrs. Pataki said, adding that Mr. Pataki was telling nurses, "Don't let anyone bring flowers, I prefer dark chocolate."

The governor was scheduled to be in New York City and Albany next week, although the Legislature will be in winter recess.

Mr. Catalfamo said Mr. Pataki had been meeting at the hospital with his chief of staff, John P. Cahill, and would continue to talk with him regularly next week.

"He's perfectly capable of conducting business at home," Mr. Catalfamo said.

"I'm not expecting that he's going to miss a beat here, so far as doing what's required for expected state business."

During the surgery, while Mr. Pataki was under anesthesia, Lt. Gov. Mary O. Donohue was technically in charge of the state from about 5:45 to 7 a.m.

Ms. Donohue, who was awake for most of her time at the helm, spent her brief administration at her home in Rensselaer County, near Albany, said Kevin Quinn, a spokesman for the governor.

Ms. Donohue, who is perhaps the least-known statewide elected official, did not even know she was the acting governor until the surgery was over, Mr. Quinn said.

The transfer of power is automatic under the State Constitution.

Her powers would have become operational only if a decision required a governor's action.

Nothing came up, Mr. Quinn said.


Michael Cooper contributed reporting for this article.

More Articles in New York Region >
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 3 2006, 04:20 PM)
AN OPEN LETTER ......

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RE: THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION OF NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: JULY 3, 2006

SIR:

In an article entitled "A gavel for Donohue? - Lieutenant governor confirms her name has been submitted by Gov. Pataki for federal district judge" by ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union, first published, Friday, March 3, 2006, it was reported that REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue is up for an appointment to a federal judgeship after REPUBLICAN  Gov. George Pataki submitted her name to the Bush administration.

In that article, it was reported that:

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

Subsequently, in an article entitled "Donohue nominated for federal judgeship - Lieutenant governor faces scrutiny of Senate panel after selection by Bush for $165,200 position" by MARC PARRY, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union, first published Thursday, June 29, 2006, it was reported that the White House had nominated New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue to a lifetime appointment on a federal bench.

That Thursday, June 29, 2006 Times Union article then quotes Your Office as follows:

"Over the next few weeks, we'll be looking closely at Mary Donohue's nomination, which was formally sent to the Senate today," Sen. Charles Schumer, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.

The New York Democrat added, "I look forward to receiving her answers to the committee's questionnaire and her hearing, and I will make a decision on her nomination after reviewing the full record."


QUESTION: DOES YOUR OFFICE CONSIDER THAT A "PROPER USE" OF A JUDICIAL SEAT ON THE BENCH IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: GIVING ONE TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE SO THAT REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 8 2006, 05:52 AM)
And that is what we are talking about in here, right now ...

HISTORY ...

Both as it happened ...

And then ...

As it was altered to be ...

By the pen ...

Of a federal district court judge ...

Appointed by George W. Bush .....

To "interpret" .....

The United States Constitution ...

In the manner ...

That George W. Bush ...

And the Republican Party want it to be interpreted ...

As opposed to the way that it is written ...

And has been interpreted .....

For going onto 200 years now .....

And so ...

A RETROSPECTIVE, you might say ...

That is relevant to OUR times ...

Where George W. Bush ...

Has nominated .....

REPUBLICAN LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE .....

Of the State of New York .....

To be a federal district court judge over us ....

Up here in the federal Northern District of New York ...

For the rest of OUR lives .....

And so ....

If approved .....

That selection ...

Would guarantee ....

That for the rest of OUR lives ....

IF WE CHOOSE TO DISSENT ...

In a lawful manner ...

What our REPUBLICAN-controlled government is doing to us ...

As was the case with the PLAINTIFF herein .....

On August 22, 2001 .....

WHEN HE ENDED UP BEING INCARCERATED ...

IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILTY ...

FOR DARING TO REGISTER HIS DISSENT ....

With REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino .....

That we will be assured ..

Of being subjected ...

To MORE PAINFUL ...

And LESS HUMANITARIAN TREATMENT ....

OURSELVES ...

Just as the PLAINTIFF in this matter was ...

And so .....

History in the making ...

Right exactly now ...

And you were there ...

By virtue of reading these words ...

And so .....

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 10 2006, 05:37 PM)
"Donohue still an unknown"

GOSHEN - Mary Donohue came out of nowhere to become Gov. George Pataki's choice for lieutenant governor, so it's not surprising even Republican leaders are still getting to know her.

Freckle-faced, perpetually smiling and slender as a runway model thanks to working out with weights at the YMCA and spending hours on an exercise treadmill, Donohue oozes self-confidence as only a former school teacher, district attorney and state Supreme Court justice can.

Her rise comes despite grumblings from Democrats that her previous career as a judge and district attorney have been overhyped, and that she's short on substance, experience and independence.

"She's devoid of the ability to have an original thought ..."

"She'll do exactly what she's told," said one Democrat who has watched her career and, like others in Rensselaer County, would not speak for attribution.

They are reluctant to have their names attached to any criticism because even Democrats privately admit Donohue is a sure bet to be elected lieutenant governor next month, when Pataki is expected to easily win a second term by defeating Democratic challenger Peter Vallone.

That will put her in line to become governor if Pataki leaves office before his second term is up in 2002, and on the short list of potential GOP successors.

As for why she gave up a 14-year judicial term, "the opportunity to work with the governor across the state and make a difference in a direct way with people across the state is something that's part of me," she said.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ny/ny006.htm
*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 11 2006, 04:28 AM)
Lt. Governor Mary O. Donohue (NY)

Professional Experience:

Staff member, Senator Joseph Bruno

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 11 2006, 04:59 AM)
"Pataki Has Emergency Appendix Surgery"

By JENNIFER MEDINA and ANAHAD O'CONNOR

Published: February 17, 2006

ALBANY, Feb. 16 — Gov. George E. Pataki underwent emergency surgery early Thursday morning to remove his appendix and was expected to remain in the hospital until Saturday, doctors said.

Mr. Pataki received calls wishing him well from President Bush; Joseph L. Bruno, the leader of the State Senate; and Mr. Bloomberg, all fellow Republicans.

During the surgery, while Mr. Pataki was under anesthesia, Lt. Gov. Mary O. Donohue was technically in charge of the state from about 5:45 to 7 a.m.

Ms. Donohue, who was awake for most of her time at the helm, spent her brief administration at her home in Rensselaer County, near Albany, said Kevin Quinn, a spokesman for the governor.

Ms. Donohue, who is perhaps the least-known statewide elected official, did not even know she was the acting governor until the surgery was over, Mr. Quinn said.

The transfer of power is automatic under the State Constitution.

Her powers would have become operational only if a decision required a governor's action.

Nothing came up, Mr. Quinn said.

*

How "POWER" works .....

Here in OUR America ....

"McCain And The NY GOP"

July 11, 2006 at 5:31 pm

by Elizabeth Benjamin, Albany, New York Times Union

Thanks to the plethora of political blogs and the assiduousness of state Democratic Party spokesman Blake Zeff, you’ve probably already seen this new Esquire piece about U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Az., which includes a vingette about his visit here in May to give U.S. Rep. John Sweeney, R-Clifton Park, a fundraising boost.

Much has been made of the fact that Sweeney, a former executive director of the state GOP, pronounced the entire state of New York to be “in play” when it comes to this fall’s midterm House elections.

Other highlights have included Sweeney’s blaming of the “checked out” Gov. George Pataki, and McCain saying he doesn’t know anyone with a 29 percent approval rating who “thinks he can run for president.”

For the record, Pataki’s approval rating is higher now - it was up to 39 in a June Quinnipiac Poll.


Sweeney, once Pataki’s Labor commissioner, has been highly critical of the governor many times before.

The two have been on the outs for a while, due to a host of things, including the fact that Sweeney is still firmly in the camp of Bill Powers, the former state GOP chairman ousted by the Pataki camp in 2001 in favor of Alexander “Sandy” Treadwell, who is widely believed to covet Sweeney’s seat in Congress.

McCain, as is noted in the Esquire piece, hasn’t forgotten that Pataki - who, at least in his own mind, is now a McCain rival for the White House in 2008 - tried mightily to keep the senator off the presidential ballot in 2000.

An interesting part of the Esquire story that hasn’t been touched on is the part about Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, (or as he’s referred to in the piece: “old-school Joe Bruno”…”perhaps New York’s most powerful grassroots Republican”) who held a picnic McCain attended while he was in town.

Bruno—a strong-jawed, thirty-year senator—and about a thousand of his supporters have been waiting in a steady rain to shake McCain’s hand or touch him on the elbow."

"These folks will do whatever Bruno asks of them, and given the 'graciousness of today’s visit,' he is exactly the sort of man who will one day ask them to vote early and often for John McCain.”

It seems the senator really buys in to the idea of Bruno-as-top-dog-Republican in New York.

Yeah, that was great,” McCain says.

We won’t have to sue to get on the ballot this time around.”
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 3 2006, 04:20 PM)
AN ALTERNATE OPEN LETTER ......

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RE: THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION OF NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: JULY 3, 2006

SIR:

In an article entitled "A gavel for Donohue? - Lieutenant governor confirms her name has been submitted by Gov. Pataki for federal district judge" by ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union, first published, Friday, March 3, 2006, it was reported that REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue is up for an appointment to a federal judgeship after REPUBLICAN  Gov. George Pataki submitted her name to the Bush administration.

In that article, it was reported that:

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

Subsequently, in an article entitled "Donohue nominated for federal judgeship - Lieutenant governor faces scrutiny of Senate panel after selection by Bush for $165,200 position" by MARC PARRY, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union, first published Thursday, June 29, 2006, it was reported that the White House had nominated New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue to a lifetime appointment on a federal bench.

That Thursday, June 29, 2006 Times Union article then quotes Your Office as follows:

"Over the next few weeks, we'll be looking closely at Mary Donohue's nomination, which was formally sent to the Senate today," Sen. Charles Schumer, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.

The New York Democrat added, "I look forward to receiving her answers to the committee's questionnaire and her hearing, and I will make a decision on her nomination after reviewing the full record."


QUESTION: DOES YOUR OFFICE INTEND TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S NOMINATION OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE FOR A SEAT ON THE BENCH IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHEN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A POLITICAL FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SO THAT REPUBLICAN  NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

Sincerely ......

If any of you out there in OUR America .....

Or the world for that matter ....

Are concerned ....

As are we up here ...

In Rensselaer County ...

In the State of New York ....

With the INDEPENDENCE ....

And INTEGRITY ....

OF OUR FEDERAL JUDICIARY ...

WHO ARE APPOINTED FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES ....

And you wish to make comments ....

To Senator Schumer ....

Or anyone else in OUR government for that matter ....

And all of the news media  ....

Here in OUR America as well ....

ON THIS JUDICIAL NOMINATION .....

Click on this URL to take action now

http://capwiz.com/congressorg/pyv/electors/

Then look to your left ....

And click on CONGRESS ....

Then scroll down until you come to JUDICIARY ....

And when you click on that ....

The names of all of the members of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee will come up .....

Including the name Charles Schumer ....

And when you click on those names ....

Their individual page will come up ...

And under their picture ...

You will see SEND A MESSAGE ....

And just click on that ....

And paste a copy of this OPEN LETTER in the body of your letter ...

If you don't have words of your own to express your concerns with ....

And so ...

STRIKE A BLOW ....

FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE ....

THIS INDEPENDENCE DAY ....

JUST SAY NO ....

TO REPUBLICAN GEORGE W. BUSH ....

HANDING OUT ...

FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS ....

TO UNQUALIFIED PERSONS ....

LIKE PATAKI-CHEERLEADER MARY DONOHUE ....

AS POLITICAL FAVORS ...

TO POLITICALLY-CONNECTED PEOPLE ...

LIKE REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI ...

OF NEW YORK STATE ....

And so ...

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 12 2006, 06:56 AM)
"McCain And The NY GOP"

July 11, 2006 at 5:31 pm

by Elizabeth Benjamin, Albany, New York Times Union

An interesting part of the Esquire story that hasn’t been touched on is the part about Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, (or as he’s referred to in the piece: “old-school Joe Bruno”…”perhaps New York’s most powerful grassroots Republican”) who held a picnic McCain attended while he was in town.

Bruno—a strong-jawed, thirty-year senator—and about a thousand of his supporters have been waiting in a steady rain to shake McCain’s hand or touch him on the elbow."

"These folks will do whatever Bruno asks of them, and given the 'graciousness of today’s visit,' he is exactly the sort of man who will one day ask them to vote early and often for John McCain.”

It seems the senator really buys in to the idea of Bruno-as-top-dog-Republican in New York.

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 10 2006, 05:37 PM)
"Donohue still an unknown"

GOSHEN - Mary Donohue came out of nowhere to become Gov. George Pataki's choice for lieutenant governor, so it's not surprising even Republican leaders are still getting to know her.

Freckle-faced, perpetually smiling and slender as a runway model thanks to working out with weights at the YMCA and spending hours on an exercise treadmill, Donohue oozes self-confidence as only a former school teacher, district attorney and state Supreme Court justice can.


As for why she gave up a 14-year judicial term, "the opportunity to work with the governor across the state and make a difference in a direct way with people across the state is something that's part of me," she said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ny/ny006.htm
*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 11 2006, 04:28 AM)
Lt. Governor Mary O. Donohue (NY)

Professional Experience:

District Attorney, Rensselaer County, New York, 1992-1996

Assistant Rensselaer County Attorney, 1990-1992


Private Law Practice, 1988-1992

Associate Attorney, O'Connell and Aronowitz, P.C., 1983-1988

Law Clerk/Intern, United State Attorney's Office

Staff member, Senator Joseph Bruno

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Apr 17 2006, 06:24 AM)
METROLAND - The News Weekly Of The Capital Region

April 20, 1989


"Down For The County- Since becoming Rensselaer County Environmental Health Director, PLAINTIFF has taken the Sanitary Code very seriously - and it may be costing him his job"

by Stephen Leon

"Rensselaer County," says PLAINTIFF, "was a whorehouse; you could come in and do whatever you wanted to do."

PLAINTIFF is referring to the review process for subdivisions and sewage systems from roughly 1978 until his hiring (from 1982 until he came on in 1986, the county had no environmental health engineer at all).

The State DOH report, in more official-sounding language, backs up the essence of PLAINTIFF's claim.

"Whenever documentation could be found," the report says, "PLAINTIFF was found to be accurate in his statements of inappropriate code reviews ..."

"Realty subdivision plans were frequently approved after 1977 which did not meet the requirements of Article IX of the County Sanitary Code and the 'Variance Criteria Guideline' adopted by the County Board of health."

Also: "Based upon a review of the County's subdivisions and private water and sewage programs, it is clear that PLAINTIFF's concerns about its integrity are justified."

"THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT ARE THREATENED BY AN INORDINATE NUMBER OF SEWAGE SYSTEM FAILURES, WHICH ARE THE LEGACY OF MISMANAGED PROGRAMS IN PRIOR YEARS ......"

BUONO ALSO DISPUTES THE FINDING ON WINDFIELD ESTATES BECAUSE, HE SAYS, NOTHING HAS BEEN SOLD THERE YET.

But, counters PLAINTIFF, "the issue is offers - PUBLIC HEALTH LAW clearly says no offers for sale" prior to subdivision approval.

Lots at Windfield, he says, were advertised for sale prior to approval.

ONE OF THE DEVELOPERS OF WINDFIELD ESTATES IS REPUBLICAN STATE SENATOR JOSEPH BRUNO, described by some as a powerful figure in the REPUBLICAN PARTY in Rensselaer County.

IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT BRUNO MAY HAVE PRESSURED BUONO TO ABANDON PLAINTIFF.

BRUNO AND BUONO VIGOROUSLY DENY THE CHARGE.

BRUNO HAS, IN AT LEAST ONE INSTANCE, PUT PRESSURE ON THE COUNTY TO OVERRIDE PLAINTIFF: Bruno wrote a letter to Van Praag, dated July 12, 1988, ASKING VAN PRAAG TO RECONSIDER A DECISION BY PLAINTIFF NOT TO APPROVE A FILL SYSTEM ON A LOT in Defreestville's Teliska Acres, owned by Christopher Papa of East Greenbush.

THE LETTER PLAINTIFF SENT TO BRUNO IN RESPONSE PLAYS A KEY PART IN THE FINAL MOST CURIOUS CHAPTER OF THIS STORY.

NEW YORK STATE PENAL LAW ARTICLE 55 - CLASSIFICATION AND DESIGNATION OF OFFENSES

S 55.00 Applicability of article.


The provisions of this article govern the classification and designation of every offense, whether defined within or outside of this chapter.

S 55.05 Classifications of felonies and misdemeanors.

2. Misdemeanors. Misdemeanors are classified, for the purpose of sentence, into three categories as follows:

(a) Class A misdemeanors;

(b) Class B misdemeanors; and

© Unclassified misdemeanors.

S 55.10 Designation of offenses.

2. Misdemeanors.

(a) Each misdemeanor defined in this chapter is either a class A misdemeanor or a class B misdemeanor, as expressly designated in the section or article defining it.

(b) Any offense defined outside this chapter which is declared by law to be a misdemeanor without specification of the classification thereof or of the sentence therefor shall be deemed a class A misdemeanor.

© Except as provided in paragraph (b) of subdivision three, where an offense is defined outside this chapter and a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of fifteen days but not in excess of one year is provided in the law or ordinance defining it, such offense shall be deemed an unclassified misdemeanor.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jan 30 2006, 07:29 AM)
RENSSELAER COUNTY ASSOCIATE PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEER

This is a professional position involving responsibility for the planning, direction and supervision of the environmental health program of the Rensselaer County Department of Health.

The work involves providing advice and guidance to local officials and the general public in regard to environmental health problems and the measures necessary for improvements and compliance with legal requirements.

An incumbent provides leadership in the promotion of public health through application of environmental practices.

In addition, an employee is responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of the Public Health Law and local and State Sanitary Codes in relation to environmental matters.

Approved Civil Service Commission, December 13, 1979

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 12 2006, 04:26 PM)
NEW YORK STATE PENAL LAW ARTICLE 55 - CLASSIFICATION AND DESIGNATION OF OFFENSES

S 55.00 Applicability of article.

The provisions of this article govern the classification and designation of every offense, whether defined within or outside of this chapter.
 
2. Misdemeanors.

(a) Each misdemeanor defined in this chapter is either a class A misdemeanor or a class B misdemeanor, as expressly designated in the section or article defining it.

(b) Any offense defined outside this chapter which is declared by law to be a misdemeanor without specification of the classification thereof or of the sentence therefor shall be deemed a class A misdemeanor.

© Except as provided in paragraph (b) of subdivision three, where an offense is defined outside this chapter and a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of fifteen days but not in excess of one year is provided in the law or ordinance defining it, such offense shall be deemed an unclassified misdemeanor.

*

NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW

S 12-b. Wilful violation of health laws.

1. A person who wilfully violates or refuses or omits to comply with any lawful order or regulation prescribed by any local board of health or local health officer, is guilty of a misdemeanor ....

2. A person who wilfully violates any provision of this chapter, or any regulation lawfully made or established by any public officer or board under authority of this chapter, the punishment for violating which is not otherwise prescribed by this chapter or any other law, is punishable by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or by both.

S 12-c. Obstructing health officer in performance of his duty.

A person who wilfully opposes or obstructs a health officer or physician charged with enforcement of the health laws, in performing any legal duty, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 30 2006, 03:18 PM)
AN OPEN LETTER ......

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RE: THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION OF NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: JUNE 30, 2006

SIR:

In an article entitled "A gavel for Donohue? - Lieutenant governor confirms her name has been submitted by Gov. Pataki for federal district judge" by ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union, first published, Friday, March 3, 2006, it is reported that REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue is up for an appointment to a federal judgeship after REPUBLICAN  Gov. George Pataki submitted her name to the Bush administration.

In that same article, which is public domain, it is reported, and admitted by FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE that in her present public employment as REPUBLICAN Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE has little real responsibility, and that she personally has embraced the public role of being a CHEERLEADER for REPUBLICAN George Pataki without complaint.

QUESTION 1: HOW DOES SUCH WILLING SUBSERVIENCE TO REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI SPEAK TO HER ABILITY TO BE INDEPENDENT AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

That March 3, 2006 Times Union article further reports that as a "CHEERLEADER" for REPUBLICAN George Pataki, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE "attends ribbon cuttings, lectures at schools, heads task forces and never forgets to credit Pataki for everything."

QUESTION 2: HOW DOES THIS EXPERIENCE SERVE TO HELP PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

It is then reported in that March 3, 2006 Times Union article that during her present term of public service in the State of New York, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE "has generally managed to keep a low profile during her time in office, with more attention paid to her ever-changing hairstyle than her public pronouncements.

QUESTION 3: HOW DO YOU SEE THIS TYPE OF PUBLIC SERVICE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS A CHEERLEADER FOR REPUBLICAN GEORGE PATAKI AS SERVING TO PREPARE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE FOR THE SOLEMN TASK OF INTERPRETING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

That March 3, 2006 Times Union article then reports that the reason for the NOMINATION of FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR by President George W. Bush was as a favor to REPUBLICAN New York State Governor George Pataki, to wit:

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

QUESTION 4: HOW WOULD THE APPOINTMENT OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO THE FEDERAL BENCH AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SERVE TO PROTECT OUR CONSTUTUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIALS, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL NORTHEN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?

"GOP Senator Criticizes Appeals Court Nominee"

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 12, 2006; Page A05

A key Senate Republican clashed yesterday with President Bush's pick for a federal appeals court, taking aim at the nominee's past support for harsh interrogation methods at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

At a Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said that Pentagon General Counsel William J. Haynes II had pushed for the tactics over the objections of top uniformed military lawyers who considered the policy process a "sham."

The result, Graham told reporters after the hearing, was "legal confusion" that contributed to the scandal at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison -- and the attendant courts-martial and other career damage for those held responsible.

Noting that the U.S. commander in Iraq during Abu Ghraib, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, has seen his career stall, Graham said, "The question is whether enough things went wrong on [Haynes's] watch that he needs to be held accountable."


With Democrats united against Haynes, Graham's position is crucial because without his support Haynes could have a hard time getting out of the Judiciary Committee, which has 10 Republicans and nine Democrats.

Graham is also one of the Senate "Gang of 14" that has agreed to oppose filibusters of judicial nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."

While conservatives have accused Graham of waging a "silent filibuster" against the nominee, Graham insisted yesterday that "I'm not holding up any nomination."

In a lengthy opening statement, Haynes, 48, portrayed the Pentagon general counsel's role as similar to that of a large company's in-house lawyer.

He was responsible for identifying legal issues but not making policy, he said.

He began exploring the legality of harsher interrogation methods in the fall of 2002, Haynes said, after interrogators at Guantanamo reported that they were unable to crack a key al-Qaeda suspect, Mohamed al-Khatani, using conventional methods.

"I struggled over that question," Haynes noted, adding that he ultimately recommended against most of the proposed harsher tactics, while signing off on seven.

Haynes addressed the development of a memo that suggested it would be legal to subject some al-Qaeda prisoners to "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment.

Responding to charges that he essentially collaborated with Justice Department lawyers on the memo, then ran roughshod over military lawyers who objected, Haynes acknowledged that there had been "spirited discussions" at the Pentagon but that everyone received a fair hearing.

But Graham said that the military lawyers "went ballistic" when they saw the "torture memo," believing that it contradicted established military practices and could put soldiers who followed it in legal jeopardy.

When Haynes responded by creating a "working group" to discuss the issues, the lawyers considered it a "sham," Graham noted, because "all of their concerns -- none of it made it into the final product."

The clash between Graham, who is a reserve Air Force lawyer, and Haynes showed how much the political climate has changed in the past two years.


Haynes cleared the committee in 2004, before the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, with Graham's support, but his nomination was not approved by the full Senate before the end of the first Bush term.

The president renominated him last year for the Richmond-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

Now the administration is facing a tough legislative battle to rebuild its legal approach to terrorism policies after the Supreme Court rejected its proposed military commissions on June 29.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jan 30 2006, 07:29 AM)
RENSSELAER COUNTY ASSOCIATE PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEER

This is a professional position involving responsibility for the planning, direction and supervision of the environmental health program of the Rensselaer County Department of Health.

In addition, an employee is responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of the Public Health Law and local and State Sanitary Codes in relation to environmental matters.

Approved Civil Service Commission, December 13, 1979

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 13 2006, 05:06 AM)
NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW

S 12-c. Obstructing health officer in performance of his duty. 

A person who wilfully opposes or obstructs a health officer or physician charged with enforcement of the health laws, in performing any legal duty, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Mar 29 2006, 06:58 PM)
October 13, 1988

Dr. Ian T. Loudon, M.D.
Regional Public Health Director
State of New York Department of Health
Albany Regional Office
Building 7A
State Office Building Campus
Albany, New York 12226

Dear Dr. Loudon,

As of October 13, 1988, our Director of Environmental Health/Associate Public Health Engineer has been placed on a paid leave of absence status for thirty working days.

A copy of my memorandum to the County Executive on this matter, which cites contributing factors, is attached hereto.

Although there are other options available for dealing with this issue, I HAVE HOPES THAT THE LEAST PAINFUL AND MOST HUMANITARIAN APPROACH HAS BEEN INITIALLY TAKEN.

WHETHER PLAINTIFF SEES IT THAT WAY OR NOT, I CAN'T SAY.

Kenneth Van Praag
Rensselaer County Public Health Director

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Feb 1 2006, 05:30 PM)
MARCH 13, 1989

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY PERSONNEL DIRECTOR FELIX PUGLIESE, ALSO KNOWN AS, WITH RESPECT TO HIS ROLE AS A REPUBLICAN "ENFORCER" IN RENSSELAER COUNTY, "IRON FELIX", OR "THE IRON MAN"

Q: Do you recall meeting with the PLAINTIFF in the hall and having him discuss his suspension with you as you walked out to your car?

PUGLIESE: YES.

I recall ....

YES.

It occurred in the parking lot .....

And as I was proceeding to my car, PLAINTIFF asked me if he could speak to me for a few moments.

Q: PLAINTIFF told you that he had been suspended for 30 days?

PUGLIESE: I don't know that he told me he was suspended because I don't know if that's a fact.

I believe he had used the word "suspended", but the fact of the matter was at that point, he was on a leave of absence .....

So ...

If it was in that time frame ....

It wasn't during a suspension ...

It was during a leave of absence .....

Q: What did you tell him?

PUGLIESE: I can't be exact in all my words ....

But in general conversation ...

I indicated to him that in order for him to be terminated, which he had a concern about, he would have to be brought up on charges .....

That the charges would have to be given him in writing ...

That he would have an opportunity to respond to those charges ....

That in the interim of the hearing, he could be suspended without pay for up to thirty days .....

If a hearing was not conducted within the thirty-day limit that the Civil Service Law mandated that he be put back on the payroll ....

And that he may or may not be allowed to come to work after thirty days ....

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER YOU GAVE PLAINTIFF ANY ADVICE ABOUT WHETHER HE SHOULD TRY TO KEEP HIS JOB?

PUGLIESE: I told him that based upon what he had been telling me ....

I felt he was certainly putting himself into a GREAT PERSONAL NEGATIVE SITUATION .....

In that ....

IF HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID BEING CHARGED ....

HE SHOULD WORK IT OUT BETWEEN HIM AND HIS SUPERVISOR .....


And that, you know ....

HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER WAS GOING TO BE EXAMINED .....

*

NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW TITLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS; CONTROL AND ABATEMENT

S 1300. Nuisances; general powers of commissioner.

1. The commissioner shall have all necessary powers to make investigations and examinations into nuisances, or questions affecting the security of life and health in any locality.

2. The commissioner may from time to time employ competent persons to render sanitary service, and make or supervise practical and scientific investigations and examinations requiring expert skill, and prepare plans and reports relative thereto.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 13 2006, 03:08 PM)
NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW TITLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS; CONTROL AND ABATEMENT

S 1300. Nuisances; general powers of commissioner. 

1. The commissioner shall have all necessary powers to make investigations and examinations into nuisances, or questions affecting the security of life and health in any locality.

NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW TITLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS; CONTROL AND ABATEMENT

S 1303. Nuisances; local boards of health; general powers and duties.

1. Every local board of health and local health officer shall receive and examine into all complaints made by any inhabitant concerning nuisances, or causes of danger or injury to life and health within the health district, and may enter upon or within any place or premises where nuisances or conditions dangerous to life and health or which are the cause of nuisances existing elsewhere are known or believed to exist, and by its members or other persons designated for that purpose, inspect and examine the same.

2. The local board of health or local health officer having the powers of a local board of health shall furnish the owners, agents and occupants of the premises with a written statement of the results and conclusions of any examination conducted pursuant to the provisions of sections one thousand three hundred three to one thousand three hundred five, inclusive, of this chapter.

3. Every local board of health shall order the suppression and removal of all nuisances and conditions detrimental to life and health found to exist within the health district.

4. Whenever the commissioner shall by notice to the presiding officer of any local board of health, direct him to convene such local board to take certain definite proceedings concerning which the commissioner shall be satisfied that the action recommended by him is necessary for the public good, and is within the jurisdiction of such board of health, such presiding officer shall convene such local board of health, which shall take the action directed.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Apr 5 2006, 06:42 AM)
And here, a reader has stopped me to ask if I can point to anything at all that conclusively states that in the State of New York, licensed professional engineers are not supposed to be playing "politics" ....

By signing off on projects that do not meet the requirements of all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations .....

As the PLAINTIFF was being required to do in this matter by Rensselaer County as a CONDITION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT with the Rensselaer County Department of Health in 1988 ....

Or more specifically perhaps, can I point to anything that definitively states that in the State of New York, licensed professional engineers are supposed to act with integrity at all times .....

And my answer is yes, I believe that I can ....

As follows:

A local board of health may not confer immunity on a professional engineer from any of the Rules of the Board of Regents defining unprofessional conduct set forth in Part 29 of Title 8 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York (8 N.Y.C.R.R.).

Sections 6506, 6507, 6508 and 6509 of the New York State Education Law GIVE NO AUTHORITY to local boards of health in PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING OR DISCIPLINE MATTERS.

A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SHOULD NEVER COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT.

WHERE A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IS GIVEN DIRECTIONS THAT REQUIRE HIM OR HER TO COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT, IT REMAINS THE OBLIGATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER NOT TO COMMIT SUCH MISCONDUCT.

Nothing in the definition of the practice of engineering under section 7201 of the Education Law PERMITS AN EXEMPTION FROM PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINARY VIOLATIONS ON THE GROUNDS OF HAVING FOLLOWED ORDERS FROM A LOCAL HEALTH BOARD.

A professional engineer is ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE for his or her own professional work.

WHILE A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER MAY TAKE PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS FROM AN UNLICENSED PERSON, THE ENGINEER SHOULD NEVER FOLLOW ORDERS WHICH REQUIRE HIM OR HER TO COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT.

Again, it is the professional engineer's PERSONAL OBLIGATION NOT TO COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT.


Those words are taken directly from a June 11, 1991 letter on New York State Education Department stationary to us, the concerned citizens in this matter, from a Mr. Lance R. Plunkett, Senior Attorney, Regulations Review Unit, New York State Department of Education ....

Who was responding to us on behalf of Mr. Douglas Hasbrouck, Executive Secretary for the New York State Board for Engineering and Land Surveying in the State of New York ...

Where all of what transpired in this matter took place ....

My position in this thread ....

Is that this June 11, 1991 letter from the New York State Department of Education ...

Is clear and concise on its face ....

And unambiguous .....

And that it represents THE OFFICIAL STATED POLICY of the "State of New York" with respect to how licensed professional engineers must conduct themselves at all times in the State of New York ...

Regardless of POLITICAL PRESSURE .....

Or threats and intimidation ....

On the one hand .....

And regardless of a "lax regulatory environment" on the other ....

AND THAT IS WHERE THE ON-GOING DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER STEMS FROM ....

How "ABSOLUTE" is the law, really, when it does come right on down to the NITTY-GRITTY .....

Where a licensed engineer like PLAINTIFF is told by a powerful REPUBLICAN lawyer to "**** THE LAW, JUST DO WHAT YOU ARE BEING TOLD TO DO, OR YOUR SORRY *** IS GOING RIGHT ON OUT THE DOOR, AND I'LL PERSONALLY SEE THAT YOU NEVER WORK AS AN ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, EVER AGAIN!"

How "absolute" is the law .....

When a Bush-appointee federal district court judge in the federal Northern District of New York makes it very clear to all of us "honest folks" up here who believe in the "law" as stated in that June 11, 1991 letter ....

That that law is nothing but one great big joke ...

And so ....

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Mar 27 2006, 06:04 PM)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FD-302

Date of transcription 3/27/89

In addition to these violations, [DELETED BY FBI CENSORS] advised that Kenneth Van Praag, who is not an engineer, approved plans, which is in violation of state and county regulations.

Specifically, Van Praag approved 14 lots in the White Silo development.

The plans for this development were dated January 5, 1979, and were signed by [DELETED BY FBI CENSORS] on April 7, 1981.

On April 7, 1986, Van Praag signed another set of plans for the same development, although he is not qualified to do so.

According to [DELETED BY FBI CENSORS], these are violations of laws promulgated by the New York State Education Department, which licenses engineers and surveyors.


- From page 192 of the O'Connor BIBLE submitted to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in this matter on behalf of defendant REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino and her co-defendants, in or about November of 2005

*

For anyone just stopping by ....

And for our regular readers, as well ....

This thread .....

Is not about "POWER TO THE PEOPLE" .....

Because ...

In a constitutional form of government such as is supposed to exist in the United States .....

In theory, anyway ...

The "PEOPLE" are the "power" .....

Through the Constitution ...

And the laws, rules, and regulations which derive from it ...

And so .....

In a REPUBLIC such as OURS is supposed to be .....

The PEOPLE ...

ALREADY ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE ...

The "POWER" .....

And so ....

What this thread is exploring ......

Is how that "POWER" manifests itself ....

IN THE LAWS THAT ARE WRITTEN .....

Such as in the New York State Public Health Law above here ....

Which is intended ...

TO PROTECT LIFE, HEALTH, AND WELL-BEING .....

And how in turn .....

That "POWER" is being STRIPPED FROM the PEOPLE ......

As is the case in here .....

Where the person CHARGED with upholding the law .....

WAS CRUSHED ...

By the "state" ......

FOR DOING HIS JOB ....

UPHOLDING THE LAW .....

When the POLITICAL POWER in the "state" ....

Wanted it to be otherwise .....

Which is the essence of the "PROTECTION GAME" up here in the State of New York ....

A "PROTECTION GAME" ......

Which was in turn ....

ITSELF PROTECTED .....

By a federal district court judge appointed .....

To the federal Northern District of New York .....

By George W. Bush .....

TO ENFORCE GEORGE W. BUSH'S INTERPRETATION .....

Of the United States CONSTITUTION ......

Which interpretation .....

CLOSES THE COURTS OF THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

TO THE "PEOPLE" .....

As was the case herein ....

Where to toss the federal civil rights lawsuit under discussion in here ...

The federal judge ...

Simply took his judicial pen .....

And he changed the "FACTS" ......

So that what actually was ......

When the case went before him .....

Came back out .....

As something totally different ....

DESPITE ANY LAWS TO THE CONTRARY .....

And so ......

What this thread is now looking at .....

Is the background .....

Of laws ....

In the State of New York ....

Out of which this case came .....

Where a New York State licensed professional engineer .....

Investigating public nuisance .....

In Rensselaer County ....

In the State of New York .....

PURSUANT TO THE LAW .....

WAS INCARCERATED .....

IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILITY ....

AT THE STRATTON VA HOSPITAL ....

IN ALBANY, NEW YORK .....

Based upon a FALSE CERTIFICATION ....

Of alleged mental illness .....

By a CORPORATE DOCTOR .....

Licensed by the State of New York .....

At a hospital in the city of Troy, New York ...

That is licensed by the State of New York ...

And so ....

The very state agency .....

Whose commissioner .....

BY LAW IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

Shall have all necessary powers to make investigations and examinations into nuisances, or questions affecting the security of life and health in any locality ......

IS DEFEATING THAT LAW ......

TO PROTECT POLITICALLY-POWERFUL PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

By its participation .....

In a scheme .....

TO REMOVE EXPERT WITNESSES .....

AGAINST THESE PEOPLE ....

Known as the "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN" .....

Where doctors regulated by the New York State Department of Health .....

And its Commissioner .....

FALSELY CERTIFY .....

THOSE EXPERTS ....

As being mentally ill ...

And in need of incarceration ...

In a secure mental facility .....

WHEN THEY DO THEIR DUTY .....

Of investigating ......

And reporting on .....

Nuisances affecting the public health and safety .....

To the New York State Department of Health .....

Or a local health department .....

In this case .....

The corrupt Rensselaer County Department of Health .....

And so .....
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jan 9 2006, 04:17 PM)
"Pataki backs idea of 'Sen. Novello'" 
 
By MARC HUMBERT, Associated Press
First published: Thursday, January 5, 2006

ALBANY -- A possible bid by state Health Commissioner Dr. Antonia Novello, a former U.S. surgeon general, to challenge U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's re-election effort this year got a boost Wednesday from Republican Gov. George Pataki.

"She'd be a strong candidate if she chose to run," Pataki told The Associated Press shortly before delivering his 12th and final State of the State address.

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 13 2006, 03:08 PM)
NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW TITLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS; CONTROL AND ABATEMENT

S 1300. Nuisances; general powers of commissioner. 

1. The commissioner shall have all necessary powers to make investigations and examinations into nuisances, or questions affecting the security of life and health in any locality.

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 14 2006, 04:53 AM)
NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW TITLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS; CONTROL AND ABATEMENT

S 1303. Nuisances; local boards of health; general powers and duties.

1. Every local board of health and local health officer shall receive and examine into all complaints made by any inhabitant concerning nuisances, or causes of danger or injury to life and health within the health district ......

By the LAW .....

In the State of New York .....

Which law ...

Derives .....

From the New York State Constitution .....

The New York State Health Commissioner

Shall have .....

All necessary powers ....

To make investigations ....

And examinations ....

Into nuisances .....

Or questions .....

Affecting the security .....

Of life and health ....

In any locality ......

Including Rensselaer County ....

In the State of New York .....

And in the County of Rensselaer .....

PURSUANT TO THE LAW .....

The RENSSELAER COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH

SHALL receive .....

And examine into ....

ALL complaints .....

Made by any inhabitant .....

Concerning nuisances .....

Or causes of danger .....

Or injury ....

To life .....

And health ....

Within the Rensselaer County Health District .....

AND IF ANY OF US UP HERE IN RENSSELAER COUNTY .....

ATTEMPT .....

To bring evidence of nuisance .....

Before the New York State Health Commissioner ....

Or the Rensselaer County Board of Health .....

AS WAS THE CASE HERE .....

In August of 2001 .....

When the August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN went down ....

WE WILL FIND OURSELVES ....

FACING INCARCERATION .....

AS ALLEGED MENTAL PATIENTS ....

THANKS TO THE MARCH 31, 2005 DECISION OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT .....

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ...

That is under discussion in here ....

And so ....

BY PROVIDING COVER .....

TO THE DOCTOR ....

WHO FALSELY CERTIFIED .....

THE PLAINTIFF ....

AS BEING MENTALLY ILL .....

AND IN NEED ...

OF INCARCERATION ...

IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILITY ....

ON AUGUST 22, 2001 .....

THE NEW YORK STATE HEALTH COMMISSIONER .....

ANTONIA NOVELLO ....

WHO IS AN APPOINTEE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI ....

HAS STRIPPED US .....

OF THE PROTECTION .....

OF THE NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW .....

WITH RESPECT TO ...

INVESTIGATION ....

AND ABATEMENT ....

NUISANCES

OR CAUSES OF DANGER .....

OR INJURY ....

TO LIFE .....

AND HEALTH ....

IN OUR COMMUNITY ......

And so ....

That is what this thread is about .....

For those of you who are just stopping by .....

For the first time ......

And so ....
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 12 2006, 06:56 AM)
"McCain And The NY GOP"

July 11, 2006 at 5:31 pm

by Elizabeth Benjamin, Albany, New York Times Union

"These folks will do whatever Bruno asks of them, and given the 'graciousness of today’s visit,' he is exactly the sort of man who will one day ask them to vote early and often for John McCain.”

It seems the senator really buys in to the idea of Bruno-as-top-dog-Republican in New York.

Yeah, that was great,” McCain says.

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 20 2005, 06:16 AM)
And since we are talking about the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in here, and how it might affect OUR lives as ordinary American citizens, ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO OUR INDIVIDUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR OWN STATES OF RESIDENCE HERE IN OUR AMERICA, let's go right to the source itself to see what it really does say, before we continue on with this discussion on STANDING:

Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

Rights Guaranteed, Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection


Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 13 2006, 05:06 AM)
NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW

S 12-c. Obstructing health officer in performance of his duty. 

A person who wilfully opposes or obstructs a health officer or physician charged with enforcement of the health laws, in performing any legal duty, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 28 2006, 05:26 PM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)

DAVID E. ROOK, ESQUIRE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AFFIRMS AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am an attorney and counselor at law associated with the law offices of Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP, attorneys representing the Defendants Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342, John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415, Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS") herein, AND AS SUCH, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS HERETOFORE HAD HEREIN.

10. THE PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AND DOCUMENTS SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT HE WAS REFERRED TO THE STAFF OF SAMARITAN HOSPITAL AND UPON RECEIVING INFORMATION ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR AND HISTORY FROM RELIABLE SOURCES EXERCISED THEIR STATUTORY AUTHORITY UNDER NYSMHL §9.39 and §9.40 TO CERTIFY AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" TO SAMARITAN HOSPITAL'S SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.

12. ANY ACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN by the SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS were taken under the AUTHORITY of NYS Mental Hygiene Law and were taken FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND SOCIETY AT LARGE.

DATED: November 10, 2003
            Albany, New York

David E. Rook

*

By the LAW .....

As it is written .....

In the State of New York .....

Consistent with the provisions of section 3 ...

Of Article XVII of the New York State Constitution ...

Which states:

"The protection and promotion of the health of the inhabitants of the state ARE MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN and PROVISION THEREFOR SHALL BE MADE BY THE STATE and by such of its subdivisions and in such manner, and by such means AS THE LEGISLATURE SHALL FROM TIME TO TIME DETERMINE."

On October 12, 1988 .....

When he became disabled ...

And unable to work ...

As Rensselaer County Associate Public health Engineer ....

Due to complications ....

From an intentional back-hoe assault in 1988 ....

Which had nearly decapitated him .....

The PLAINTIFF in this matter under discussion in here .....

WAS CHARGED ...

WITH ENFORCEMENT .....

Of provisions .....

Of the NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW .....

Concerning NUISANCE .....

In the Rensselaer County Health District .....

And so ...

Was a HEALTH OFFICER .....

In the State of New York .....

So that ANY PERSON .....

Who wilfully opposed .....

Or obstructed him .....

And this would include REPUBLICAN New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno ......

And REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive John L. Buono .....

Who was the SURROGATE .....

And LIEGEMAN ....

Of "BIG JOE" Bruno .....

In Rensselaer County ...

In the State of New York ....

In performing any legal duty .....

WOULD HAVE BEEN .....

Guilty of a misdemeanor .......

And so .....

But of course .....

IN REAL LIFE ......

That is just theory ....

According to REPUBLICAN New York State Senator and MAJORITY LEADER Joseph ""BIG JOE" Bruno .....

Who had been charged himself ...

By the PLAINTIFF .....

In 1988 ...

With WILLFUL VIOLATION .....

Of the New York State Public Health Law .....

For offering for sale to the public .....

Lots in a subdivision that Joe Bruno was developing ....

In Rensselaer County .....

And so ...

THE PLAINTIFF HAD TO GO ...

LAWS TO THE CONTRARY BE DAMNED ...

Which they were, of course .....

And so ....

ANY "HISTORY" ....

Concerning PLAINTIFF ......

That GOLD JOHNSON Attorney David E. Rook ....

Submitted to ....

Bush-appointee Federal District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe ....

On November 10, 2003 .....

In his successful effort .....

To have PLAINTIFF's federal civil rights lawsuit .....

ON FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GROUNDS ....

Against Rook's CORPORATE CLIENTS .....

WHO HAD HAD .....

PLAINTIFF .....

INCARCERATED ....

In the secure mental facility ...

Of the Stratton VA Hospital ....

On August 22, 2001 ....

BASED ON NOTHING MORE ...

THAN A FALSE CERTIFICATION ....

OF ALLEGED MENTAL ILLNESS ....

BY JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN .....

A CORPORATE DOCTOR .....

IN SERVICE TO .....

NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. .....

IN TROY, NEW YORK ....

TOSSED OUT OF COURT ......

Would have had to include all of this ....

WHICH IT DID ......

And so ....

When he did toss the federal civil rights lawsuit ......

On March 31, 2005 .....

AFTER ALTERING THE FACTS ......

Bush-appointee Gary L. Sharpe .....

Knew exactly what he was about .....

And for whom ...

HE WAS PERFORMING THIS SERVICE ....

And so ...

That is what we are talking about in here .....

For those of you just stopping by ....

And so .....
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 16 2006, 06:56 AM)
By the LAW .....

As it is written .....

In the State of New York .....

Consistent with the provisions of section 3 ...

Of Article XVII of the New York State Constitution ...

Which states:

"The protection and promotion of the health of the inhabitants of the state ARE MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN  and PROVISION THEREFOR SHALL BE MADE BY THE STATE and by such of its subdivisions and in such manner, and by such means AS THE LEGISLATURE SHALL FROM TIME TO TIME DETERMINE."

On October 12, 1988 .....

When he became disabled ...

And unable to work ...

As Rensselaer County Associate Public health Engineer ....

Due to complications ....

From an intentional back-hoe assault in 1988 ....

Which had nearly decapitated him .....

The PLAINTIFF in this matter under discussion in here .....

WAS CHARGED ...

WITH ENFORCEMENT .....

Of provisions .....

Of the NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW .....

Concerning NUISANCE .....

In the Rensselaer County Health District .....

And so ...

Was a HEALTH OFFICER .....

In the State of New York .....

So that ANY PERSON .....

Who wilfully opposed .....

Or obstructed him .....

And this would include REPUBLICAN New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno ......

And REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive John L. Buono .....

Who was the SURROGATE .....

And LIEGEMAN ....

Of "BIG JOE" Bruno .....

In Rensselaer County ...

In the State of New York ....

In performing any legal duty .....

WOULD HAVE BEEN .....

Guilty of a misdemeanor .......

And so .....

But of course .....

IN REAL LIFE ......

That is just theory ....

According to REPUBLICAN New York State Senator and MAJORITY LEADER Joseph ""BIG JOE" Bruno .....


Who had been charged himself ...

By the PLAINTIFF .....

In 1988 ...

With WILLFUL VIOLATION .....

Of the New York State Public Health Law .....

For offering for sale to the public .....

Lots in a subdivision that Joe Bruno was developing ....

In Rensselaer County .....

And so ...

THE PLAINTIFF HAD TO GO ...

LAWS TO THE CONTRARY BE DAMNED ...

Which they were, of course .....

And so ....

ANY "HISTORY" ....

Concerning PLAINTIFF ......

That GOLD JOHNSON Attorney David E. Rook ....

Submitted to ....

Bush-appointee Federal District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe ....

On November 10, 2003 .....

In his successful effort .....

To have PLAINTIFF's federal civil rights lawsuit .....

ON FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GROUNDS ....

Against Rook's CORPORATE CLIENTS .....

WHO HAD HAD .....

PLAINTIFF .....

INCARCERATED ....

In the secure mental facility ...

Of the Stratton VA Hospital ....

On August 22, 2001 ....

BASED ON NOTHING MORE ...

THAN A FALSE CERTIFICATION ....

OF ALLEGED MENTAL ILLNESS ....

BY JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN .....

A CORPORATE DOCTOR .....

IN SERVICE TO .....

NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. .....

IN TROY, NEW YORK ....

TOSSED OUT OF COURT ......

Would have had to include all of this ....

WHICH IT DID ......

And so ....

When he did toss the federal civil rights lawsuit ......

On March 31, 2005 .....

AFTER ALTERING THE FACTS ......

Bush-appointee Gary L. Sharpe .....

Knew exactly what he was about .....

And for whom ...

HE WAS PERFORMING THIS SERVICE ....

And so ...

That is what we are talking about in here .....

For those of you just stopping by ....

And so .....

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 3 2006, 04:20 PM)
AN OPEN LETTER ......

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RE: THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION OF NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: JULY 3, 2006

SIR:

In an article entitled "A gavel for Donohue? - Lieutenant governor confirms her name has been submitted by Gov. Pataki for federal district judge" by ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union, first published, Friday, March 3, 2006, it was reported that REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue is up for an appointment to a federal judgeship after REPUBLICAN  Gov. George Pataki submitted her name to the Bush administration.

In that article, it was reported that:

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

Subsequently, in an article entitled "Donohue nominated for federal judgeship - Lieutenant governor faces scrutiny of Senate panel after selection by Bush for $165,200 position" by MARC PARRY, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union, first published Thursday, June 29, 2006, it was reported that the White House had nominated New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue to a lifetime appointment on a federal bench.

That Thursday, June 29, 2006 Times Union article then quotes Your Office as follows:

"Over the next few weeks, we'll be looking closely at Mary Donohue's nomination, which was formally sent to the Senate today," Sen. Charles Schumer, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.

The New York Democrat added, "I look forward to receiving her answers to the committee's questionnaire and her hearing, and I will make a decision on her nomination after reviewing the full record."


QUESTION 1: DOES YOUR OFFICE CONSIDER THAT A "PROPER USE" OF A JUDICIAL SEAT ON THE BENCH IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: GIVING ONE TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE SO THAT REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

QUESTION 2: DOES YOUR OFFICE INTEND TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S NOMINATION OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE FOR A SEAT ON THE BENCH IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHEN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A POLITICAL FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SO THAT REPUBLICAN  NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 12 2006, 06:56 AM)
"McCain And The NY GOP"

July 11, 2006 at 5:31 pm

by Elizabeth Benjamin, Albany, New York Times Union

An interesting part of the Esquire story that hasn’t been touched on is the part about Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, (or as he’s referred to in the piece: “old-school Joe Bruno”…”perhaps New York’s most powerful grassroots Republican”) who held a picnic McCain attended while he was in town.

Bruno—a strong-jawed, thirty-year senator—and about a thousand of his supporters have been waiting in a steady rain to shake McCain’s hand or touch him on the elbow."

"These folks will do whatever Bruno asks of them, and given the 'graciousness of today’s visit,' he is exactly the sort of man who will one day ask them to vote early and often for John McCain.”

It seems the senator really buys in to the idea of Bruno-as-top-dog-Republican in New York.

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 3 2005, 05:49 PM)
"Bruno blocks wetland shield - Senate leader's opposition to widely supported bill that would extend protection to smaller areas raises questions of conflict of interest" 
 
By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Sunday, July 3, 2005

ALBANY -- For more than a year, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno has blocked widely supported wetlands legislation that would limit development on luxury homesites his family's business recently sold for more than $1.1 million.

Records obtained by the Times Union show a Bruno family investment, First Grafton Corp., has a history of resisting wetlands restrictions on a 625-acre development site in Grafton in eastern Rensselaer County.

In 1991, Bruno created a stir when his business mowed down forest and wetlands to create a road without any permits.

In 1995, state officials warned that extending that road and building homes on at least six planned lots "will impact federally protected wetlands."

In 2000, the Army Corps issued a stop work order when First Grafton began bulldozing and filling protected hemlock swampland to extend its road to accommodate the future home of Kenneth R. Bruno, the senator's son.

Last July, with Ken Bruno acting as a real estate broker, First Grafton began quickly selling off its 14 remaining lots to five buyers, including one $800,000 sale in February of 10 lots and raw land to a Massachusetts developer, who promised to extend the site's road another mile within a year.

The developer's lots and road right of way are dotted with wetland areas of six acres or less that would be covered by the proposed legislation.

In a 1995 letter to Army Corps brass, First Grafton engineer Peter A. Chiefari urged federal officials to be swift in allowing the project to move forward after First Grafton was cited for building a 1.7-mile road over wetlands without a permit.

"The price range for the lots has been set at from $250,000 to $400,000 each," wrote Chiefari, who did not return a call or e-mail for comment.

"Failure to obtain a timely approval may result in serious financial harm to First Grafton with consequent liability."


Two months later, Ken Bruno, then Rensselaer County's district attorney, purchased a 10.8-acre lot near the end of the extended wetlands road for $44,000.

That summer, Ken Bruno received permission from the Rensselaer County Health Department to build his septic system without a county inspection, according to documents obtained by the Times Union.

"The fact Sen. Bruno was involved with an enterprise that violated federal wetlands laws helps explain why he's working hard to stop a bill that would regulate destructive development on New York's treasured wetlands," said John Stouffer, who is the legislative director for the Sierra Club's Atlantic chapter.

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Apr 13 2006, 05:23 PM)
The Albany, New York Times Union

March 3, 1995

State investigates Rensselaer County agency - Inquiry focues on qualifications of Health Department staff to provide engineering services"

by Joseph Picchi, Staff Writer

Rensselaer County Public Health Director Kathryn Abernethy acknowledged Thursday that two officials from the state Education Department were investigating a complaint that the agency was performing engineering duties without a professional engineer.

The complaint was filed by PLAINTIFF, who was fired as ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIRECTOR in 1988 after a lengthy hearing and has since been battling the county over WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PAY and CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES.

"PLAINTIFF has some questions over whether we were performing engineering duties without an engineer," said Abernethy.

"I would reply we were not."

Abernethy said she met with the two officials later in the day TO ENSURE THEM the agency was complying with the engineering review of required projects such as housing subdivisions, water and sewer plans, and commercial development.

More discussions are planned.

THE COUNTY SLICED $58,000 OUT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSONNEL, FORCING THE AGENCY TO CONTRACT OUT THE SERVICES TO TWO PRIVATE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, CARL AIKEN AND PETER CHIEFARI.

They do the environmental engineering work AND APPROVE SUBDIVISION PLANS.

THE TWO OFFICIALS, ANTHONY SIGNORACCI AND RICHARD TRUMBELL, ARE FROM THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT'S OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE, according to Abernethy.

Chris Carpenter, a department spokesman, said he could not confirm or deny an inquiry is taking place unless charges are filed.

"No charges have been filed," he said.

Cutbacks, INCLUDING THE ELIMINATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, occurred on Dec. 31.

Since that time, said Abernethy, all environmental engineering work was on hold until the work was contracted out to private engineers.

County Executive John L. Buono knew nothing about the inquiry, but maintained the county's environmental engineering work is being operated properly.

PLAINTIFF WAS FIRED AFTER A LENGTHY BATTLE WITH BUONO AND OPEN CRITICISM OF HIS BOSS, FORMER PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR KENNETH VAN PRAAG.

Van Praag retired after PLAINTIFF's OUSTER and Abernethy was appointed as Van Praag's replacement.

*

NEW YORK STATE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW

S 50-e. Notice of claim.

1. When service required; time for service; upon whom service required.

(a) In any case founded upon tort where a notice of claim is required by law as a condition precedent to the commencement of an action or special proceeding against a public corporation, as defined in the general construction law, or any officer, appointee or employee thereof, the notice of claim shall comply with and be served in accordance with the provisions of this section within ninety days after the claim arises; except that in wrongful death actions, the ninety days shall run from the appointment of a representative of the decedent`s estate.

(b) Service of the notice of claim upon an officer, appointee or employee of a public corporation shall not be a condition precedent to the commencement of an action or special proceeding against such person.

If an action or special proceeding is commenced against such person, but not against the public corporation, service of the notice of claim upon the public corporation shall be required only if the corporation has a statutory obligation to indemnify such person under this chapter or any other provision of law.

2. Form of notice; contents.

The notice shall be in writing, sworn to by or on behalf of the claimant, and shall set forth: (1) the name and post-office address of each claimant, and of his attorney, if any; (2) the nature of the claim; (3) the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose; and (4) the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained so far as then practicable but a notice with respect to a claim against a municipal corporation other than a city with a population of one million or more persons shall not state the amount of damages to which the claimant deems himself entitled, provided, however, that the municipal corporation, other than a city with a population of one million or more persons, may at any time request a supplemental claim setting forth the total damages to which the claimant deems himself entitled.

A supplemental claim shall be provided by the claimant within fifteen days of the request.

In the event the supplemental demand is not served within fifteen days, the court, on motion, may order that it be provided by the claimant.

3. How served; when service by mail complete; defect in manner of service; return of notice improperly served.

(a) The notice shall be served on the public corporation against which the claim is made by delivering a copy thereof personally, or by registered or certified mail, to the person designated by law as one to whom a summons in an action in the supreme court issued against such corporation may be delivered, or to an attorney regularly engaged in representing such public corporation.

(b) Service by registered or certified mail shall be complete upon deposit of the notice of claim, enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper, in a post office or official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States post office department within the state.

© If the notice is served within the period specified by this section, but in a manner not in compliance with the provisions of this subdivision, the service shall be valid if the public corporation against which the claim is made demands that the claimant or any other person interested in the claim be examined in regard to it, or if the notice is actually received by a proper person within the time specified by this section, and the public corporation fail to return the notice, specifying the defect in the manner of service, within thirty days after the notice is received.

(d) If the notice is served within the period specified by this section and is returned for the reason and within the time provided in this subdivision, the claimant may serve a new notice in a manner complying with the provisions of this subdivision within ten days after the returned notice is received.

If a new notice is so served within that period, it shall be deemed timely served.

4. Requirements of section exclusive except as to conditions precedent to liability for certain defects or snow or ice.

No other or further notice, no other or further service, filing or delivery of the notice of claim, and no notice of intention to commence an action or special proceeding, shall be required as a condition to the commencement of an action or special proceeding for the enforcement of the claim; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to dispense with the requirement of notice of the defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition of any street, highway, bridge, culvert, sidewalk or crosswalk, or of the existence of snow or ice thereon, where such notice now is, or hereafter may be, required by law, as a condition precedent to liability for damages or injuries to person or property alleged to have been caused by such condition, and the failure or negligence to repair or remove the same after the receipt of such notice.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 10 2005, 08:12 AM)
"Bush's Judges Already Making Their Mark"

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - No need to wait until President Bush appoints a Supreme Court justice to see how he will make his mark on the federal judiciary.

"When the president talks about strict construction, everyone knows what he's talking about."


Overall, in his four-plus years in office, Bush has pushed a Republican-leaning federal judiciary farther to the right with more than 200 appointments to appellate and district courts.

By the end of his second term, Bush could eclipse Presidents Clinton and Reagan in the number of judges selectedand leave an ideological imprint on the courts for generations to come.

Since 1968, when Nixon was elected, Republican presidents have appointed 1,040 judges; Democrats have named 625.


The cumulative effect, said political scientist Donald Songer of the University of South Carolina, is that "the last three Republican presidents' nominees control virtually the whole judiciary."

People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, titled its 2004 study of Bush's judicial appointees "Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears."

It concluded that Bush appointees already have moved to limit significantly congressional authority and protection of individual rights.

"For many, many of the nominees in the lower courts, the Bush administration has been decidedly pushing toward judges with a pretty firm right-wing ideology," said Elliot Mincberg, the group's legal director.


Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, said that when it comes to the courts, Bush "gets it" in a way that even his father and Reagan did not.

His nominees "understand the problems with the way the Constitution has been interpreted and will go about fixing that in their own decisions," she said.

QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 20 2005, 06:16 AM)
U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

Rights Guaranteed, Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection


Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 6 2005, 05:53 PM)
And so, it comes down to the United States Constitution!

And Ruhlmann, where Clinton-appointee, and alleged "judicial activist" Judge David N. Hurd stated as follows in 2002 with respect to the "law" of the land in this matter:

"It would be nonsensical, for example, for a doctor who has had no contact whatsoever with a person to have the authority to have that person locked up!"

Where Judge Gary L. Sharpe has reversed that "law", saying in his March 31, 2005 decision that a doctor who has had no contact whatsoever with a person DOES NOW HAVE THE AUTHORITY to have whomever they wish locked up, there is where the Constitutional issue enters in to this appeal, and to us as citizens up here who are adversely affected by this ruling of Judge Sharpe's, that is where the effort should be, especially in light of the long history in this matter of "using" the law as weapon to inflict blunt-force trauma on a person because they are attempting to use their First Amendment Right to petition for redress of grievance!

Think on this for a moment, if you can!

With this March 31, 2005 ruling of Judge Sharpe as "law", where a doctor who has never seen you, and does not know you, and has never heard of you, nor you him, can still order that you be incarcerated in a secure mental institution with no due process of law afforded you whatsoever, what kind of world is that, and yet, for us up here, that is what we now have, since 8/22/01, where a doctor at Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York, who had never seen PLAINTIFF or ever had any contact with him, still ordered him to be incarcerated in a secure mental institution as a dangerous mental patient!

What kind of a person can do such a thing to another human being, for money, allegedly, and what kind of "legal system" protects such a man?

That's the nuts and bolts of what we are talking about in here, right there: what kind of legal system protects such a man?

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Apr 26 2005, 03:02 PM)
A MAN OR WOMAN WHO CANNOT IN GOOD FAITH AND CONSCIENCE UPHOLD THE AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND ITS DUAL REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW, FOR ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS REGARDLESS OF CLASS, SHOULD NOT BE A FEDERAL COURT JUDGE IN OUR AMERICA!

NO COMPROMISE, MR. REID!

http://www.congress.org to let him know!

*

THEORECTICALLY ......

OR HYPOTHETICALLY ......

According to some words, anyway .....

That can be found .....

On a piece of paper .....

Called the CONSTITUTION .....

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .....

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws .....

AND WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN?

And perhaps more to the point of this discussion in here .....

Which comes to America ....

And the candid world ....

From out of Rensselaer County .....

In the State of New York .....

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS .....

TO THE CITIZENS .....

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .....

WHO ARE NOT ALSO CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

OF THE MARCH 31, 2005 FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DECISION .....

UNDER DISCUSSION IN HERE ....

A DECISION THAT WAS "RUBBER-STAMPED" .....

BY THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN NEW YORK CITY .....

IN DECEMBER OF 2005 .....

That is where this thread now turns its attention to .....

And so .....

TO BE CONTINUED .....
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 17 2006, 06:52 AM)
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws .....

AND WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN?

Privileges or Immunities Clause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Privileges or Immunities Clause is a provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It is unique among constitutional provisions in that it was all but read out of the Constitution in a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court (see Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873) and has remained almost dormant since.

It was perhaps originally intended to incorporate the "first eight amendments" of the U.S. Bill of Rights against state laws, much of which has instead been achieved by means of "substantive due process."

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ......

Legal scholars agree on little beyond the conclusion that the clause does not mean what the Supreme Court said it meant in 1873.


Some theories were noted in dissent to Saenz v. Roe:

Harrison, Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, 101 Yale L. J. 1385, 1418 (1992) (Clause is an antidiscrimination provision)

D. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court 341-351 (1985) (same)

2 W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States 1089-1095 (1953) (Clause incorporates first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights)

M. Curtis, No State Shall Abridge 100 (1986) (Clause protects the rights included in the Bill of Rights as well as other fundamental rights)

B. Siegan, Supreme Court's Constitution 46-71 (1987) (Clause guarantees Lockean conception of natural rights)

Ackerman, Constitutional Politics/Constitutional Law, 99 Yale L. J. 453, 521-536 (1989) (same)

J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust 28 (1980) (Clause "was a delegation to future constitutional decision-makers to protect certain rights that the document neither lists ... or in any specific way gives directions for finding")

R. Berger, Government by Judiciary 30 (2d ed. 1997) (Clause forbids race discrimination with respect to rights listed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866)

R. Bork, The Tempting of America 166 (1990) (Clause is inscrutable and should be treated as if it had been obliterated by an ink blot)

It is perhaps the dispute over the clause's meaning that has rendered it, for now, a trivial part of constitutional law.

External links

Reviving the Privileges or Immunities Clause to Redress the Balance Among States, Individuals, and the Federal Government (Cato Policy Analysis)

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege...munities_Clause
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Mar 29 2006, 06:58 PM)
October 13, 1988

Dr. Ian T. Loudon, M.D.
Regional Health Director
State of New York Department of Health
Albany Regional Office
Building 7A
State Office Building Campus
Albany, New York 12226

Dear Dr. Loudon,

As of October 13, 1988, our Director of Environmental Health/Associate Public Health Engineer has been placed on a paid leave of absence status for thirty working days.

A copy of my memorandum to the County Executive on this matter, which cites contributing factors, is attached hereto.

Although there are other options available for dealing with this issue, I HAVE HOPES THAT THE LEAST PAINFUL AND MOST HUMANITARIAN APPROACH HAS BEEN INITIALLY TAKEN.

WHETHER PLAINTIFF SEES IT THAT WAY OR NOT, I CAN'T SAY.

Kenneth Van Praag
Rensselaer County Public Health Director

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Feb 1 2006, 05:30 PM)
MARCH 13, 1989

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY PERSONNEL DIRECTOR FELIX PUGLIESE, AKA "IRON FELIX", aka "THE IRON MAN"

Q: Do you recall meeting with the PLAINTIFF in the hall and having him discuss his suspension with you as you walked out to your car?

PUGLIESE: YES.

I recall ....

YES.

It occurred in the parking lot .....

And as I was proceeding to my car, PLAINTIFF asked me if he could speak to me for a few moments.

Q: PLAINTIFF told you that he had been suspended for 30 days?

PUGLIESE: I don't know that he told me he was suspended because I don't know if that's a fact.

I believe he had used the word "suspended", but the fact of the matter was at that point, he was on a leave of absence .....

So ...

If it was in that time frame ....

It wasn't during a suspension ...

It was during a leave of absence .....

Q: What did you tell him?

PUGLIESE: I can't be exact in all my words ....

But in general conversation ...

I indicated to him that in order for him to be terminated, which he had a concern about, he would have to be brought up on charges .....

That the charges would have to be given him in writing ...

That he would have an opportunity to respond to those charges ....

That in the interim of the hearing, he could be suspended without pay for up to thirty days .....

If a hearing was not conducted within the thirty-day limit that the Civil Service Law mandated that he be put back on the payroll ....

And that he may or may not be allowed to come to work after thirty days ....

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER YOU GAVE PLAINTIFF ANY ADVICE ABOUT WHETHER HE SHOULD TRY TO KEEP HIS JOB?

PUGLIESE: I told him that based upon what he had been telling me ....

I felt he was certainly putting himself into a GREAT PERSONAL NEGATIVE SITUATION .....

In that ....

IF HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID BEING CHARGED ....

HE SHOULD WORK IT OUT BETWEEN HIM AND HIS SUPERVISOR .....

And that, you know ....

HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER WAS GOING TO BE EXAMINED .....

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jan 21 2006, 05:09 PM)
MAY 25, 1989

PRESS STATEMENT OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOHN L. BUONO CONCERNING HIS DECREE THAT DAY THAT THE PLAINTIFF HEREIN, A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS WELL AS A NEW YORK STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, COULD NO LONGER PRACTICE IN THE RENSSELAER COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT IN HIS CAPACITY AS HEALTH DISTRICT ASSOCIATE PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEER

"I cannot in good conscience condone the conduct of an employee who consistently stated that he worked for the State of New York, rather than Rensselaer County ....."

*

U.S. SUPREME COURT

Slaughterhouse Cases

83 U.S. 36

BRADLEY, J., Dissenting Opinion

Mr. Justice BRADLEY, also dissenting.

I concur in the opinion which has just been read by Mr. Justice Field, but desire to add a few observations for the purpose of more fully illustrating my views on the important question decided in these cases, and the special grounds on which they rest.

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, section 1, declares that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.

The legislature of Louisiana, under pretence of making a police regulation for the promotion of the public health, passed an act conferring upon a corporation, created by the act, the exclusive right, for twenty-five years, to have and maintain slaughterhouses, landings for cattle, and yards for confining cattle intended for slaughter, within the parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard, a territory containing nearly twelve hundred square miles, including the city of New Orleans; and prohibiting all other persons from building, keeping, or having slaughterhouses, landings for cattle, and yards for confining cattle intended for slaughter within the said limits; and requiring that all cattle and other animals to be slaughtered for food in that district should be brought to the slaughterhouses and works of the favored company to be slaughtered, and a payment of a fee to the company for such act.

It is contended that this prohibition abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, especially of the plaintiffs in error, who were particularly affected thereby, and whether it does so or not is the simple question in this case.

And the solution of this question depends upon the solution of two other questions, to-wit:

First. Is it one of the rights and privileges of a citizen of the United States to pursue such civil employment as he may choose to adopt, subject to such reasonable regulations as may be prescribed by law?

Secondly. Is a monopoly, or exclusive right, given to one person to the exclusion of all others, to keep slaughterhouses, in a district of nearly twelve hundred square miles, for the supply of meat for a large city, a reasonable regulation of that employment which the legislature has a right to impose?

The first of these questions is one of vast importance, and lies at the very foundations of our government.


The question is now settled by the fourteenth amendment itself, that citizenship of the United States is the primary citizenship in this country, and that State citizenship is secondary and derivative, depending upon citizenship of the United States and the citizen's place of residence.

The States have not now, if they ever had, any power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or persons.

A citizen of the United States has a perfect constitutional right to go to and reside in any State he chooses, and to claim citizenship therein, and an equality of rights with every other citizen, and the whole power of the nation is pledged to sustain him in that right.

He is not bound to cringe to any superior, or to pray for any act of grace, as a means of enjoying all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.

And when the spirit of lawlessness, mob violence, and sectional hate can be so completely repressed as to give full practical effect to this right, we shall be a happier nation, and a more prosperous one, than we now are.

Citizenship of the United States ought to be, and, according to the Constitution, is, a sure and undoubted title to equal rights in any and every States in this Union, subject to such regulations as the legislature may rightfully prescribe.

If a man be denied full equality before the law, he is denied one of the essential rights of citizenship as a citizen of the United States.


TO BE CONTINUED ....

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Slaughterhouse/Bradley.asp
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 17 2006, 04:45 PM)
U.S. SUPREME COURT

Slaughterhouse Cases

83 U.S. 36

BRADLEY, J., Dissenting Opinion

Mr. Justice BRADLEY, also dissenting.

The States have not now, if they ever had, any power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or persons.


A citizen of the United States has a perfect constitutional right to go to and reside in any State he chooses, and to claim citizenship therein, and an equality of rights with every other citizen, and the whole power of the nation is pledged to sustain him in that right.

He is not bound to cringe to any superior, or to pray for any act of grace, as a means of enjoying all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.

And when the spirit of lawlessness, mob violence, and sectional hate can be so completely repressed as to give full practical effect to this right, we shall be a happier nation, and a more prosperous one, than we now are.

Citizenship of the United States ought to be, and, according to the Constitution, is, a sure and undoubted title to equal rights in any and every States in this Union, subject to such regulations as the legislature may rightfully prescribe.

If a man be denied full equality before the law, he is denied one of the essential rights of citizenship as a citizen of the United States.


http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Slaughterhouse/Bradley.asp
*

Thomas, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 98—97

RITA L. SAENZ, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., PETITIONERS v. BRENDA ROE and ANNA DOE etc.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[May 17, 1999]

Justice Thomas, with whom the Chief Justice joins, dissenting.

I join The Chief Justice’s dissent.

I write separately to address the majority’s conclusion that California has violated “the right of the newly arrived citizen to the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by other citizens of the same State.” Ante, at 12.

In my view, the majority attributes a meaning to the Privileges or Immunities Clause that likely was unintended when the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted and ratified.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” U.S. Const., Amdt. 14, §1.

Unlike the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, which have assumed near-talismanic status in modern constitutional law, the Court all but read the Privileges or Immunities Clause out of the Constitution in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 (1873).

There, the Court held that the State of Louisiana had not abridged the Privileges or Immunities Clause by granting a partial monopoly of the slaughtering business to one company. Id., at 59—63, 66.

The Court reasoned that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was not intended “as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State.” Id., at 74.

Rather the “privileges or immunities of citizens” guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment were limited to those “belonging to a citizen of the United States as such.” Id., at 75.

The Court declined to specify the privileges or immunities that fell into this latter category, but it made clear that few did.


See id., at 76 (stating that “nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted,” including “those rights which are fundamental,” are not protected by the Clause).

Unlike the majority, I would look to history to ascertain the original meaning of the Clause. 1

At least in American law, the phrase (or its close approximation) appears to stem from the 1606 Charter of Virginia, which provided that “all and every the Persons being our Subjects, which shall dwell and inhabit within every or any of the said several Colonies … shall HAVE and enjoy all Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities … as if they had been abiding and born, within this our Realme of England.” 7

Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters and Other Organic Laws 3788 (F. Thorpe ed. 1909).

Other colonial charters contained similar guarantees. 2

Years later, as tensions between England and the American Colonies increased, the colonists adopted resolutions reasserting their entitlement to the privileges or immunities of English citizenship. 3

The colonists’ repeated assertions that they maintained the rights, privileges and immunities of persons “born within the realm of England” and “natural born” persons suggests that, at the time of the founding, the terms “privileges” and “immunities” (and their counterparts) were understood to refer to those fundamental rights and liberties specifically enjoyed by English citizens, and more broadly, by all persons.

Presumably members of the Second Continental Congress so understood these terms when they employed them in the Articles of Confederation, which guaranteed that “the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.” Art. IV.


The Constitution, which superceded the Articles of Confederation, similarly guarantees that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Art. IV, §2, cl. 1.

Justice Bushrod Washington’s landmark opinion in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (No. 3, 230) (CCED Pa. 1825), reflects this historical understanding.

In Corfield, a citizen of Pennsylvania challenged a New Jersey law that prohibited any person who was not an “actual inhabitant and resident” of New Jersey from harvesting oysters from New Jersey waters. Id., at 550.

Justice Washington, sitting as Circuit Justice, rejected the argument that the New Jersey law violated Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause.

He reasoned, “we cannot accede to the proposition … that, under this provision of the constitution, the citizens of the several states are permitted to participate in all the rights which belong exclusively to the citizens of any other particular state, merely upon the ground that they are enjoyed by those citizens.” Id., at 552.

Instead, Washington concluded:

We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign.

What these fundamental principles are, it would perhaps be more tedious than difficult to enumerate.

They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads:

Protection by the government;

The enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety;

Subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole.

The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise;

To claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus;

To institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state;

And an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state;

The elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state in which it is to be exercised.

These, and many others which might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities.” Id. at 551—552.


Washington rejected the proposition that the Privileges and Immunities Clause guaranteed equal access to all public benefits (such as the right to harvest oysters in public waters) that a State chooses to make available.

Instead, he endorsed the colonial-era conception of the terms “privileges” and “immunities,” concluding that Article IV encompassed only fundamental rights that belong to all citizens of the United States. 4 Id., at 552.

Justice Washington’s opinion in [u]Corfield indisputably influenced the Members of Congress who enacted the Fourteenth Amendment[/u].

When Congress gathered to debate the Fourteenth Amendment, members frequently, if not as a matter of course, appealed to [u]Corfield, arguing that the Amendment was necessary to guarantee the fundamental rights that Justice Washington identified in his opinion.


See Harrison, Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, 101 Yale L. J. 1385, 1418 (1992) (referring to a Member’s “obligatory quotation from Corfield”).

For just one example, in a speech introducing the Amendment to the Senate, Senator Howard explained the Privileges or Immunities Clause by quoting at length from Corfield. 5

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2765 (1866).

Furthermore, it appears that no Member of Congress refuted the notion that Washington’s analysis in Corfield undergirded the meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. 6

That Members of the 39th Congress appear to have endorsed the wisdom of Justice Washington’s opinion does not, standing alone, provide dispositive insight into their understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.

Nevertheless, their repeated references to the Corfield decision, combined with what appears to be the historical understanding of the Clause’s operative terms, supports the inference that, at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, people understood that “privileges or immunities of citizens” were fundamental rights, rather than every public benefit established by positive law.

Accordingly, the majority’s conclusion – that a State violates the Privileges or Immunities Clause when it “discriminates” against citizens who have been domiciled in the State for less than a year in the distribution of welfare benefit appears contrary to the original understanding and is dubious at best.

As The Chief Justice points out, ante at 1, it comes as quite a surprise that the majority relies on the Privileges or Immunities Clause at all in this case.

That is because, as I have explained supra, at 1—2, The Slaughter-House Cases sapped the Clause of any meaning.

Although the majority appears to breathe new life into the Clause today, it fails to address its historical underpinnings or its place in our constitutional jurisprudence.

Because I believe that the demise of the Privileges or Immunities Clause has contributed in no small part to the current disarray of our Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, I would be open to reevaluating its meaning in an appropriate case.

Before invoking the Clause, however, we should endeavor to understand what the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment thought that it meant.

We should also consider whether the Clause should displace, rather than augment, portions of our equal protection and substantive due process jurisprudence.

The majority’s failure to consider these important questions raises the specter that the Privileges or Immunities Clause will become yet another convenient tool for inventing new rights, limited solely by the “predilections of those who happen at the time to be Members of this Court.”

Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 502 (1977).

I respectfully dissent.

Notes

1. Legal scholars agree on little beyond the conclusion that the Clause does not mean what the Court said it meant in 1873. See, e.g., Harrison, Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, 101 Yale L. J. 1385, 1418 (1992) (Clause is an antidiscrimination provision); D. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court 341—351 (1985) (same); 2 W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States 1089—1095 (1953) (Clause incorporates first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights); M. Curtis, No State Shall Abridge 100 (1986) (Clause protects the rights included in the Bill of Rights as well as other fundamental rights); B. Siegan, Supreme Court’s Constitution 46—71 (1987) (Clause guarantees Lockean conception of natural rights); Ackerman, Constitutional Politics/Constitutional Law, 99 Yale L. J. 453, 521—536 (1989) (same); J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust 28 (1980) (Clause “was a delegation to future constitutional decision-makers to protect certain rights that the document neither lists … or in any specific way gives directions for finding”); R. Berger, Government by Judiciary 30 (2d ed. 1997) (Clause forbids race discrimination with respect to rights listed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866); R. Bork, The Tempting of America 166 (1990) (Clause is inscrutable and should be treated as if it had been obliterated by an ink blot).

2. See 1620 Charter of New England, in 3 Thorpe, at 1839 (guaranteeing “[l]iberties, and franchizes, and Immunities of free Denizens and naturall Subjects”); 1622 Charter of Connecticut, reprinted in 1 id., at 553 (guaranteeing “[l]iberties and Immunities of free and natural Subjects”); 1629 Charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 3 id., at 1857 (guaranteeing the “liberties and Immunities of free and naturall subjects”); 1632 Charter of Maine, in 3 id., at 1635 (guaranteeing “[l]iberties[,] Francheses and Immunityes of or belonging to any of the naturall borne subjects”); 1632 Charter of Maryland, in 3 id., at 1682 (guaranteeing “Privileges, Franchises and Liberties”); 1663 Charter of Carolina, in 5 id., at 2747 (holding “liberties, franchises, and privileges” inviolate); 1663 Charter of the Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in 6 id., at 3220 (guaranteeing “libertyes and immunityes of ffree and naturall subjects”); 1732 Charter of Georgia, in 2 id., at 773 (guaranteeing “liberties, franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural born subjects”).

3. See, e.g., The Massachusetts Resolves, in Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis 56 (E. Morgan ed. 1959) (“Resolved, That there are certain essential Rights of the British Constitution of Government, which are founded in the Law of God and Nature, and are the common Rights of Mankind–Therefore, … Resolved that no Man can justly take the Property of another without his Consent . . . this inherent Right, together with all other essential Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of the People of Great Britain have been fully confirmed to them by Magna Charta”); The Virginia Resolves, id., at 47—48 (“[T]he Colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all Liberties, Privileges, and Immunities of Denizens and natural Subjects, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the Realm of England”); 1774 Statement of Violation of Rights, 1 Journals of the Continental Congress 68 (1904) (“[O]ur ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England … Resolved … [t]hat by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered or lost any of those rights”).

4. During the first half of the 19th century, a number of legal scholars and state courts endorsed Washington’s conclusion that the Clause protected only fundamental rights. See, e.g., Campbell v. Morris, 3 Harr. & M. 535, 554 (Md. 1797) (Chase, J.) (Clause protects property and personal rights); Douglass v. Stephens, 1 Del. Ch. 465, 470 (1821) (Clause protects the “absolute rights” that “all men by nature have”); 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 71—72 (1836) (Clause “confined to those [rights] which were, in their nature, fundamental”). See generally Antieau, Paul’s Perverted Privileges or the True Meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four, 9 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1, 18—21 (1967) (collecting sources).

5. He also observed that, while, Supreme Court had not “undertaken to define either the nature or extent of the privileges and immunities,” Washington’s opinion gave “some intimation of what probably will be the opinion of the judiciary.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2765 (1866).

6. During debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Members of Congress also repeatedly invoked Corfield to support the legislation. See generally, Siegan, Supreme Court’s Constitution, at 46—56. The Act’s sponsor, Senator Trumble, quoting from Corfield, explained that the legislation protected the “fundamental rights belonging to every man as a free man, and which under the Constitution as it now exists we have a right to protect every man in.” Cong. Globe, supra, at 476. The Civil Rights Act is widely regarded as the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., J. tenBroek, Equal Under Law 201 (rev. ed. 1965) (“The one point upon which historians of the Fourteenth Amendment agree, and, indeed, which the evidence places beyond cavil, is that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to place the constitutionality of the Freedmen’s Bureau and civil rights bills, particularly the latter, beyond doubt”).

http://www.supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-97.ZD1.html
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 28 2006, 05:26 PM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)

DAVID E. ROOK, ESQUIRE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AFFIRMS AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am an attorney and counselor at law associated with the law offices of Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP, attorneys representing the Defendants Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342, John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415, Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS") herein, AND AS SUCH, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS HERETOFORE HAD HEREIN.

8. Despite affording GREAT LIBERALITY to PLAINTIFF as a pro se litigant, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT fails to set forth ANY SET OF FACTS that would entitle him to RELIEF FROM ANY NAMED DEFENDANT and more specifically from any of the SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS.

10. THE PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AND DOCUMENTS SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT HE WAS REFERRED TO THE STAFF OF SAMARITAN HOSPITAL AND UPON RECEIVING INFORMATION ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR AND HISTORY FROM RELIABLE SOURCES EXERCISED THEIR STATUTORY AUTHORITY UNDER NYSMHL §9.39 and §9.40 TO CERTIFY AN "EMERGENCY ADMISSION" TO SAMARITAN HOSPITAL'S SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.

12. ANY ACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN by the SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS were taken under the AUTHORITY of NYS Mental Hygiene Law and were taken FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND SOCIETY AT LARGE.

Furthermore, all of the actions taken by the Samaritan Defendants in connection with PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY ADMISSION are privileged by NYS Mental Hygiene Law.

ANY ATTEMPT TO CHARACTERIZE PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS SUPPORTING A CLAIM FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT MUST FAIL DUE TO THIS PRIVILEGE.


DATED: November 10, 2003
            Albany, New York

David E. Rook

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 17 2006, 04:45 PM)
U.S. SUPREME COURT

Slaughterhouse Cases

83 U.S. 36

BRADLEY, J., Dissenting Opinion

The States have not now, if they ever had, any power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or persons.


A citizen of the United States has a perfect constitutional right to go to and reside in any State he chooses, and to claim citizenship therein, and an equality of rights with every other citizen, and the whole power of the nation is pledged to sustain him in that right.

He is not bound to cringe to any superior, or to pray for any act of grace, as a means of enjoying all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.

And when the spirit of lawlessness, mob violence, and sectional hate can be so completely repressed as to give full practical effect to this right, we shall be a happier nation, and a more prosperous one, than we now are.

Citizenship of the United States ought to be, and, according to the Constitution, is, a sure and undoubted title to equal rights in any and every States in this Union, subject to such regulations as the legislature may rightfully prescribe.

If a man be denied full equality before the law, he is denied one of the essential rights of citizenship as a citizen of the United States.


http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Slaughterhouse/Bradley.asp
*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 18 2006, 05:22 AM)
Thomas, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 98—97

RITA L. SAENZ,  DIRECTOR,  CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., PETITIONERS v. BRENDA ROE and ANNA DOE etc.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[May 17, 1999]

Justice Thomas, with whom the Chief Justice joins, dissenting.

Instead, Washington concluded:

We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign.

What these fundamental principles are, it would perhaps be more tedious than difficult to enumerate.

They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads:

Protection by the government;

The enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety;

Subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole.

To institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state;

These, and many others which might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities.” Id. at 551—552.

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Apr 2 2005, 06:06 PM)
In a just-released March 31, 2005 Decision of Federal Court for the Northern District of New York, with grave consequences to the common citizen in the Northern District of New York who must have the certification of an expert witness in order to file certain Petitions for Redress of Grievance in the Courts of the State of New York, where negligence or malfeasance by the state or one of its political subdivisions is alleged, a recently-appointed Federal District Court Judge has refused to grant injunctive relief to the Plaintiff therein, a New York State licensed professional engineer and certified associate public health engineer, that would have given him protection of law in the State of New York while giving testimony in court ON BEHALF OF the citizens of the State of New York, against the State of New York, or one of its political subdivisions.

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

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

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

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

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

*

Clearly .....

In this case under discussion in here ....

Where a federal District Court Judge ....

In the federal District Court of New York .....

Appointed by REPUBLICAN George W. Bush ....

Has thrown out .....

A federal civil rights lawsuit .....

Based on 14th Amendment procedural and substantive due process ...

AFTER TAKING ....

HIS JUDICIAL PEN ....

AND CHANGING THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE ....

SO THAT HE WOULD THEN HAVE ....

AN EXCUSE ....

NO MATTER HOW FLIMSY ....

TO TOSS THE CASE ...

Something very fundamental .....

With respect to CITIZENSHIP ....

Here in OUR America ....

HAS BEEN ALTERED .....

And that is what we are exploring .....

And discussing ....

In this thread right now .....

The IMPLICATIONS of this March 31, 2005 federal court decision .....

ON ALL OF US ....

Here in OUR America .....

WHERE THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ....

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

Has upheld ....

AN EXECUTIVE GRANT OF AUTHORITY .....

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

TO NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ......

A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

REGULATED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ....

WHICH EXECUTIVE GRANT OF AUTHORITY ....

ALLOWS NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ......

TO DETERMINE ....

WHO .....

HERE IN OUR AMERICA ....

SHOULD BE INCARCERATED .....

IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILITY .....

OPERATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE LICENSE ....

BY NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ....

IN THE CITY ....

OF TROY, NEW YORK ....

BASED ON ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL ...

OTHER THAN THE WORD .....

OF A MEMBER ...

OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY .....

THAT INCARCERATING THIS PERSON ....

AS AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT ....

WOULD BE ....

FOR THE BENEFIT .....

OF THE INCARCERATED PERSON ....

AND SOCIETY AT LARGE .....
Livyjr
Immunity (legal)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Immunity confers a status on a person or body that places him/her/it above the law and makes that person or body free from otherwise legal obligations such as, for example, liability for torts or damages or prosecution under criminal law for criminal acts.

There are various types of immunity, such as judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity, parliamentary immunity, immunity from prosecution, diplomatic immunity and sovereign immunity.

Sovereign immunity is based on the idea that a sovereign is superior to all in authority and power.

It prevents, in advance, a suit or prosecution against a sovereign, being a monarch, ruler, or government, without the sovereign's consent.

Judicial immunity, which finds its origin in sovereign immunity, is the absolute immunity of a judge or magistrate from any kind of civil liability for an act performed in the judge's official capacity.

Hence, while sitting on the bench the judge cannot be sued for defamation if he or she makes a statement about one of the parties before the court that might otherwise be considered slander.

Like judicial immunity, the prosecutor, who is acting under the direction of the sovereign or crown to prosecute cannot be held liable for acts done as an agent of the sovereign.

This is distinguished from false arrest.


Parliamentary immunity is granted to elected government officials during their official acts in parliament, congress or other public deliberative organ of government.

Such immunity is seen to be a means to the free discussion of ideas, although when it is abused there may be ways to surmount such immunity; this was invoked in the case of Jürgen Möllemann.

Immunity from prosecution occurs when a prosecutor grants immunity to a witness in exchange for testimony.

It is immunity because the prosecutor essentially agrees to never prosecute the crime that the witness might have committed in exchange for that testimony.

In international criminal law, countries which are signatories to treaties may sign with the reservation that they are specifically exempted from prosecution, thus granting themselves immunity.

For example, in 1948 the United States signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide with the proviso that no claim of genocide could be brought against it at the International Court of Justice without its consent.

It later invoked this immunity to deflect charges of genocide brought against it by Yugoslavia.

Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_%28legal%29
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 19 2006, 06:28 AM)
Clearly .....

In this case under discussion in here ....

Where a federal District Court Judge ....

In the federal District Court of New York .....

Appointed by REPUBLICAN George W. Bush ....

Has thrown out .....

A federal civil rights lawsuit .....

Based on 14th Amendment procedural and substantive due process ...

AFTER TAKING ....

HIS JUDICIAL PEN ....

AND CHANGING THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE ....

SO THAT HE WOULD THEN HAVE ....

AN EXCUSE ....

NO MATTER HOW FLIMSY ....

TO TOSS THE CASE ...

Something very fundamental .....

With respect to CITIZENSHIP ....

Here in OUR America ....

HAS BEEN ALTERED .....


And that is what we are exploring .....

And discussing ....

In this thread right now .....

The IMPLICATIONS of this March 31, 2005 federal court decision .....

ON ALL OF US ....

Here in OUR America .....

WHERE THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ....

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

Has upheld ....

AN EXECUTIVE GRANT OF AUTHORITY .....

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

TO NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ......

A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

REGULATED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ....

WHICH EXECUTIVE GRANT OF AUTHORITY ....

ALLOWS NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ......

TO DETERMINE ....

WHO .....

HERE IN OUR AMERICA ....

SHOULD BE INCARCERATED .....

IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILITY .....

OPERATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE LICENSE ....

BY NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ....

IN THE CITY ....

OF TROY, NEW YORK ....

BASED ON ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL ...

OTHER THAN THE WORD .....

OF A MEMBER ...

OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY .....


THAT INCARCERATING THIS PERSON ....

AS AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT ....

WOULD BE ....

FOR THE BENEFIT .....

OF THE INCARCERATED PERSON ....

AND SOCIETY AT LARGE .....

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 28 2006, 05:26 PM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)

DAVID E. ROOK, ESQUIRE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AFFIRMS AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am an attorney and counselor at law associated with the law offices of Thuillez, Ford, Gold Johnson & Butler, LLP, attorneys representing the Defendants Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342, John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415, Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, and Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS") herein, AND AS SUCH, I AM FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS HERETOFORE HAD HEREIN.

12. ANY ACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN by the SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS were taken under the AUTHORITY of NYS Mental Hygiene Law and were taken FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND SOCIETY AT LARGE.

Furthermore, all of the actions taken by the Samaritan Defendants in connection with PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY ADMISSION are privileged by NYS Mental Hygiene Law.

ANY ATTEMPT TO CHARACTERIZE PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS SUPPORTING A CLAIM FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT MUST FAIL DUE TO THIS PRIVILEGE.

THE EXISTENCE OF THE PRIVILEGE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, MAY BE DETERMINED BY PRESUMING PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS TO BE TRUE AND REFERENCING THE DOCUMENTS APPENDED TO HIS COMPLAINT.


DATED: November 10, 2003
            Albany, New York

David E. Rook

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 2 2006, 04:59 PM)
"Justices Strengthen Right to Confront Witnesses"

By DAVID STOUT, NY Times

Published: March 8, 2004

In reversing the conviction today, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, cited the familiar phrase in the Sixth Amendment that in all criminal prosecutions the defendant shall enjoy the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

"The right to confront one's accusers is a concept that dates back to Roman times," Justice Scalia wrote.

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 25 2005, 05:46 PM)
The TRASHMAN!

We're still chuckling about that one up here, and it is days ago that we heard the joke, that Timmy Holt, the "TRASHMAN" for the Rensselaer County Office Building in Troy, New York, or head of custodial services actually, which includes cleaning rest rooms in addition to simply taking out the trash, is the MYSTERIOUS "RELIABLE SOURCE" that we have been hearing about now, since August 2001, in fact, when we learned that the PLAINTIFF in this matter was what Bernadette Rotter Hallam at Northeast Health CORPORATE HQ. called a "special file", which is someone in Rensselaer County who can be removed at a moment's notice, and that notice comes to Carol Fiorino, a nurse at Samaritan Hospital, from Timmy Holt, whose job in the Rensselaer County Office Building is to make sure the trash is taken out everyday, which then converts him into a "health officer", in the eyes of David Rook, with the GOLD JOHNSON law firm, who is defending the "objective reasonableness" of this arrangement, where in Rensselaer County in the State of New York, determinations as to who is mentally ill and dangerous, and thus in need of immediate incarceration in Samaritan Hospital's secure mental facility, or political GULAG, are left to the head of custodial services for the Rensselaer County office Building!

Mr BIG, revealed, at last!

It is an inside joke, of course, up here in Rensselaer County, where Tommy O'Connor hails from:

"Hey, Timmy, Kathy Jimino gots some trash she wants you to get rid of!"

"Take care of it, will you!"

And so, it is done!

By the TRASHMAN!

And now Tommy O'Connor is bringing the Justices of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals into the joke, "see what the TRASHMAN took out here .....", and let me tell you, that has caught our attention, big time, and so .....

Privilege

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about permission granted by law or other rules.

A privilege—etymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individual—is an honour, or permissive activity granted by another person or a government.


A privilege is not a right and in some cases can be revoked.

For example, in some countries driving on publicly maintained roads is a privilege; in others it is a right.

If one violates certain rules, driving privileges can be revoked, and if one causes harm to another while exercising the right to travel just compensation may be sought and awarded.

Defining the difference between a 'privilege' and a 'right' is quite simple: a right is inherent, while a privilege is granted.

In authentic democracies a 'privilege' is granted to a few after birth, and a 'right' is an entitlement to all mankind from birth.

A privileged class, in less-than-perfect democracies, is often embodied in political power and wealth.


Compare elite.

One of the objectives of the French Revolution was the abolition of privilege.

This meant the removal of separate laws for different social classes (nobility, clergy and ordinary people), instead subjecting everyone to the same common law.

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 19 2006, 06:28 AM)
Clearly .....

In this case under discussion in here ....

Where a federal District Court Judge ....

In the federal District Court of New York .....

Appointed by REPUBLICAN George W. Bush ....

Has thrown out .....

A federal civil rights lawsuit .....

Based on 14th Amendment procedural and substantive due process ...

AFTER TAKING ....

HIS JUDICIAL PEN ....

AND CHANGING THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE ....

SO THAT HE WOULD THEN HAVE ....

AN EXCUSE ....

NO MATTER HOW FLIMSY ....

TO TOSS THE CASE ...

Something very fundamental .....

With respect to CITIZENSHIP ....

Here in OUR America ....

HAS BEEN ALTERED .....

And that is what we are exploring .....

And discussing ....

In this thread right now .....

The IMPLICATIONS of this March 31, 2005 federal court decision .....

ON ALL OF US ....

Here in OUR America .....

WHERE THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ....

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

Has upheld ....

AN EXECUTIVE GRANT OF AUTHORITY .....

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

TO NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ......

A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

REGULATED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ....

WHICH EXECUTIVE GRANT OF AUTHORITY ....

ALLOWS NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ......

TO DETERMINE ....

WHO .....

HERE IN OUR AMERICA ....

SHOULD BE INCARCERATED .....

IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILITY .....

OPERATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE LICENSE ....

BY NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ....

IN THE CITY ....

OF TROY, NEW YORK ....

BASED ON ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL ...

OTHER THAN THE WORD .....

OF A MEMBER ...

OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY .....

THAT INCARCERATING THIS PERSON ....

AS AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT ....

WOULD BE ....

FOR THE BENEFIT .....

OF THE INCARCERATED PERSON ....

AND SOCIETY AT LARGE .....

And so .....

*

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 19 2006, 06:35 AM)
Immunity (legal)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Immunity confers a status on a person or body that places him/her/it above the law and makes that person or body free from otherwise legal obligations such as, for example, liability for torts or damages or prosecution under criminal law for criminal acts.

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 19 2006, 06:55 AM)
Privilege

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A privilege—etymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individual—is an honour, or permissive activity granted by another person or a government.


Defining the difference between a 'privilege' and a 'right' is quite simple: a right is inherent, while a privilege is granted.

In authentic democracies a 'privilege' is granted to a few after birth, and a 'right' is an entitlement to all mankind from birth.

A privileged class, in less-than-perfect democracies, is often embodied in political power and wealth.

Periodically .....

Someone will ask me ....

In a "sidebar" .....

Why I bother going on in here ....

When it clearly will do no good for the PLAINTIFF in here .....

WHO HAS IN FACT .....

BEEN "BRANDED" .....

By the State of New York .....

As an alleged dangerous mental patient .....

DESPITE THERE BEING NO EVIDENCE .....

WHATSOEVER ....

TO SUPPORT THAT CHARGE ....

WITH THAT BRANDING .....

Being loaded ...

Onto a computer system ...

That the State of New York maintains ....

For its "law enforcement" purposes .....

A sort of "TRASH TO BE TAKEN OUT" list .....

And all I can ever say ...

Is that the conversation ...

Is not yet over .....

And that is that .....

And as the DRED SCOTT decision .....

Or Roe v. Wade clearly demonstrate .....

Just because a judge has ruled ...

That really doesn't end something .....

To the contrary ...

IT STARTS SOMETHING NEW .....

And so ...

That is why I am still here .....

Looking at OUR laws .....

AND OUR HISTORY ....

As a nation ...

And as a people ....

In an attempt .....

To determine ....

WHAT THAT "SOMETHING NEW" ....

In this particular case might be ....

And so ....

For all of its potential ....

As an alleged "BEACON OF HOPE" .....

For beleaguered peoples .....

Around the world .....

The United States of America .....

Really has quite an ugly history .....

THAT HAS JUST GOTTEN UGLIER ....

With the March 31, 2005 Federal Court decision .....

In this matter .....

WHICH REQUIRES THE PLAINTIFF .....

AND US ......

THE CITIZENS .....

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .....

WHO RESIDE .....

IN RENSSELAER COUNTY .....

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

TO CRINGE .....

TO REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE KATHLEEN JIMINO .....

AND REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH "BIG JOE" BRUNO .....

AND REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI ....

WHO CONTROLS .....

THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH .....

WHICH STATE AGENCY .....

HAS GRANTED AUTHORITY .....

TO JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN .....

A CORPORATE MEDICAL DOCTOR .....

IN TROY, NEW YORK ....

TO HAVE ANYONE HE WISHES ....

INCARCERATED .....

IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILITY .....

OPERATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE LICENSE .....

BY NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. .....

In the City of Troy, New York .....

Despite any statutes .....

Or laws to the contrary .....

Which were passed ....

By the New York State Legislature .....

PURSUANT TO .....

OUR NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION .....

AND FURTHER .....

REQUIRES US .....

THE CITIZENS .....

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .....

WHO RESIDE ....

IN RENSSELAER COUNTY .....

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

TO NOT ONLY HAVE TO ......

"PRAY FOR ANY ACT OF GRACE ...."

"AS A MEANS ..."

"OF ENJOYING ...."

"ALL THE RIGHTS ...."

"AND PRIVILEGES ...."

"ENJOYED ..."

"BY OTHER CITIZENS" ......

SUCH AS JEFFREY PELLETIER OF POESTENKILL, NEW YORK .....

WHO WAS ABLE TO PHYSICALLY ASSAULT THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MATTER ON A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE ......

IN THE TOWN OF POESTENKILL, NEW YORK ...

WITH COMPLETE IMPUNITY ...

AND IMMUNITY ...

FROM PROSECUTION .....

BUT TO HAVE TO PAY AS WELL ......

IN THE FORM OF "PROTECTION" ......

As Jeffrey Pelletier of Poestenkill, New York was able to do .....

"PROTECTION" .....

That enabled .....

Jeffrey Pelletier .....

Of Poestenkill, New York .....

TO "PURCHASE" .....

FROM JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN .....

AND NORTHEAST HEALTH .....

A "NEW" .....

AND PATENTLY FALSE .....

"IDENTITY" .....

FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN HERE ....

WHICH "IDENTITY" .....

BRANDS PLAINTIFF FOREVER NOW ....

THANKS TO THE MARCH 31, 2005 FEDERAL COURT DECISION IN HERE .....

WHERE THE BUSH-APPOINTEE .....

ON THE FEDERAL BENCH .....

IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .....

OPENLY USED ....

HIS JUDICIAL IMMUNITY ....

TO MALICIOUSLY .....

AND INTENTIONALLY ....

"SMEAR" THE PLAINTIFF HEREIN ......

IN HIS MARCH 31, 2005 DECISION UNDER DISCUSSION IN HERE ....

WITH OUTRIGHT UNSUPPORTED FALSEHOODS .....

CONCERNING ....

THE ALLEGED STATE ....

OF PLAINTIFF'S MENTAL HEALTH ....

And so .....

As was said by the one United States Supreme Court Justice back in the latter days of the 1800's .....

Right after this nation ...

Had just concluded ......

What was in reality .....

A second bloody civil war ......

When the spirit of lawlessness and mob violence in this nation can be so completely repressed as to give full practical effect to OUR RIGHT .....

IN THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER ...

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

To enjoy all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens .......

Such as Jeffrey Pelletier of Poestenkill, New York .....

We shall be a happier nation, and a more prosperous one, than we now are .....

And so ......

THIS THREAD ....

BECAUSE .....

As this lone justice on the United States Supreme Court said back in 1873 .....

"Citizenship of the United States ought to be, and, according to the Constitution, is, a sure and undoubted title to equal rights in any and every States in this Union, subject to such regulations as the legislature may rightfully prescribe ......"

AND THAT IS WHERE THIS THREAD IS COMING FROM .....

OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS LATER .....

WHERE NOT ONLY ONE MAN ......

BUT A WHOLE COMMUNITY .....

HAS BEEN DENIED ......

FULL EQUALITY ......

BEFORE THE "LAW" .....

IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT .....

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .....

BY A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE .....

PUT ON THE BENCH .....

IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ...

BY GEORGE W. BUSH .....

AND THE REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED UNITED STATES SENATE ......

And so .....

IF IT IS TRUE .....

That a man denied full equality before the law is denied one of the essential rights of citizenship as a citizen of the United States ......

THEN IT IS EQUALLY TRUE .....

FOR A COMMUNITY .....

OF MEN ...

AND WOMEN .....

WHO ARE ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS .....

And so .....

This thread .....

To talk about it ...

And so .....
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 3 2006, 04:20 PM)
AN OPEN LETTER ......

TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK CHARLES SCHUMER

FROM: WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RE: THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION OF NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: JULY 3, 2006

SIR:

In an article entitled "A gavel for Donohue? - Lieutenant governor confirms her name has been submitted by Gov. Pataki for federal district judge" by ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union, first published, Friday, March 3, 2006, it was reported that REPUBLICAN New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue is up for an appointment to a federal judgeship after REPUBLICAN  Gov. George Pataki submitted her name to the Bush administration.

In that article, it was reported that:

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

Subsequently, in an article entitled "Donohue nominated for federal judgeship - Lieutenant governor faces scrutiny of Senate panel after selection by Bush for $165,200 position" by MARC PARRY, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union, first published Thursday, June 29, 2006, it was reported that the White House had nominated New York State Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue to a lifetime appointment on a federal bench.

That Thursday, June 29, 2006 Times Union article then quotes Your Office as follows:

"Over the next few weeks, we'll be looking closely at Mary Donohue's nomination, which was formally sent to the Senate today," Sen. Charles Schumer, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.

The New York Democrat added, "I look forward to receiving her answers to the committee's questionnaire and her hearing, and I will make a decision on her nomination after reviewing the full record."


QUESTION 1: DOES YOUR OFFICE CONSIDER THAT A "PROPER USE" OF A JUDICIAL SEAT ON THE BENCH IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: GIVING ONE TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE SO THAT REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

QUESTION 2: DOES YOUR OFFICE INTEND TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S NOMINATION OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE FOR A SEAT ON THE BENCH IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHEN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A POLITICAL FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SO THAT REPUBLICAN  NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI CAN PASS NEW YORK INTO THE CARE OF REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO OF BRUNSWICK RATHER THAN TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARY DONOHUE?

QUESTION 3: HOW WOULD THE APPOINTMENT OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MARY O'CONNOR DONOHUE TO THE FEDERAL BENCH AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS A FAVOR TO REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI SERVE TO PROTECT OUR CONSTUTUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIALS, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 20 2006, 06:06 AM)
For all of its potential ....

As an alleged "BEACON OF HOPE" .....

For beleaguered peoples .....

Around the world .....

The United States of America .....

Really has quite an ugly history .....

THAT HAS JUST GOTTEN UGLIER ....


With the March 31, 2005 Federal Court decision .....

In this matter .....

WHICH REQUIRES THE PLAINTIFF .....

AND US ......

THE CITIZENS .....

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .....

WHO RESIDE .....

IN RENSSELAER COUNTY .....

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

TO CRINGE .....

TO REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE KATHLEEN JIMINO .....

AND REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH "BIG JOE" BRUNO .....

AND REPUBLICAN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI ....

WHO CONTROLS .....

THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH .....

WHICH STATE AGENCY .....

HAS GRANTED AUTHORITY .....

TO JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN .....

A CORPORATE MEDICAL DOCTOR .....

IN TROY, NEW YORK ....

TO HAVE ANYONE HE WISHES ....

INCARCERATED .....

IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILITY .....

OPERATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE LICENSE .....

BY NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. .....

In the City of Troy, New York .....

Despite any statutes .....

Or laws to the contrary .....

Which were passed ....

By the New York State Legislature .....

PURSUANT TO .....

OUR NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION .....

And so ....

*

"Let there be White Leagues formed in every town, village and hamlet of the South, and let us organize for the great struggle which seems inevitable."

"We have no war to make against the United States Government, but against the republican party our hate must be unquenchable, our war indeterminable and merciless."

"Fast fleeting away is the day of wordy protests and idle appeals to the magnanimity of the republican party."

"By brute force they are endeavoring to force us into acquiescence to their hideous program."

"We have submitted long enough to indignities, and it is time to meet brute-force with brute-force."

"Every Southern State should swarm with White Leagues, and we should stand ready to act the moment Grant signs the civil-rights bill."

"It will not do to wait till radicalism has fettered us to the car of social equality before we make an effort to resist it."

"The signing of the bill will be a declaration of war against the southern whites."

"It is our duty to ourselves, it is our duty to our children, it is our duty to the white race whose prowess subdued the wilderness of this continent, whose civilization filled it with cities and towns and villages ... to let northern radicals understand that military supervision of southern elections and the civil-rights bill mean war, and that war means bloodshed, and that we are terribly in earnest, and even they, fanatical as they are, may retrace their steps before it is too late."

SOURCE: Atlanta News, "Meet Brute Forces With Brute Forces," September 10, 1874.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 20 2006, 06:16 AM)
"It is our duty to ourselves, it is our duty to our children, it is our duty to the white race whose prowess subdued the wilderness of this continent, whose civilization filled it with cities and towns and villages ... to let northern radicals understand that military supervision of southern elections and the civil-rights bill mean war, and that war means bloodshed, and that we are terribly in earnest, and even they, fanatical as they are, may retrace their steps before it is too late."

SOURCE:  Atlanta News, "Meet Brute Forces With Brute Forces," September 10, 1874.

*

"Bush to make first NAACP appearance today"

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:36 a.m., Thursday, July 20, 2006

WASHINGTON -- For five years in a row, President Bush has declined invitations to address the annual NAACP convention.

This year, with the Senate poised to renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Bush said yes.

The White House says Bush wants to address the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on Thursday to show his commitment to civil rights.


"The president has had five years to prepare for this speech," Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, past chairman of the Congressional Black Democratic Caucus, said Wednesday.

"I hope that this time, he makes it worth the wait."

Democrats have called on Bush to use his appearance to renew the Voting Rights Act.

"He could sign it right here on this stage," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told the NAACP on Wednesday, eliciting cheers from the audience.

The House voted overwhelmingly last week to extend provisions of the landmark civil rights act that President Johnson signed after violence erupted in the South over voting rights for blacks.

The Senate is expected to pass it on Thursday, although probably not before Bush's midmorning appearance at the NAACP.

Every president for the past several decades has spoken to the Baltimore-based group.

Until now, Bush, who received 11 percent of the black vote in 2004, had been the exception.

His appearance comes in a critical midterm election year, when Republicans fear losing control of Congress.


White House press secretary Tony Snow said that while there are political differences, the NAACP's new leader, Bruce Gordon, has good relations with Bush.

Gordon has met with Bush three times in the year he's headed the civil rights group.

That compares to one meeting Bush had with Gordon's predecessor, Kweisi Mfume, a former Democratic congressman.

"It is clear that in this nation, racism and discrimination are legally unacceptable, but there are also residues of the past that we have to address," Snow said in previewing the speech.

"We have to find ways to make sure that the road to opportunity is clear for one and all."


Snow denied claims that this was Bush's way of atoning for the government's slow response to Hurricane Katrina.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson and some black elected officials alleged that indifference to black suffering and racial injustice was to blame for the sluggish reaction to the disaster.

In September 2005, Bush's top advisers met with black leaders to discuss their concerns.

"I think the president wants to make his voice heard," Snow said about Bush's speech.

"He has an important role to play not only in making the case for civil rights but, maybe more importantly, the case for unity."


Cummings, D-Md., said as the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina approaches, Bush needs to explain what he plans to do to help the thousands of families in the Gulf Coast region who remain homeless and jobless.

He said the president also needs to address other issues of concern to blacks, including access to health care and the minimum wage, which has remained at $5.15 for nearly a decade.

"If the tax cuts are working, why then -- at 9 percent -- is the unemployment rate in the African American community nearly double the national rate?" Cummings asked.

------

On the Net:

The White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

NAACP: http://www.naacp.org

end quotes

GEORGE W. BUSH .....

HAS MADE .....

HIS VOICE HEARD .....

TO US .....

AMERICAN CITIZENS .....

UP HERE .....

IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .....

WITH HIS APPOINTMENT ....

OF GARY L. SHARPE .....

TO THE FEDERAL BENCH .....

IN THE FEDERAL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .....

And so ...

THIS THREAD .....

TO TALK ABOUT ...

WHAT WE HEARD HIM SAY .....

ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS ...

WITH THAT APPOINTMENT .....

And so .....
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.