With just a gesture .....

REPUBLICAN New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph "Big Joe the Hammer" Bruno .....

Can have who he considers an "enemy" of himself .....

Like the PLAINTIFF herein ....

A disabled combat veteran .....

Crushed .....

Like an empty Coors beer can ......

WITH COMPLETE IMPUNITY ....

Laws to the contrary be damned .....

And with a "law" .....

"Big Joe" .....

Can reward .....

Those he considers his "friends" .....

And so ....

"Pay boost for twice-fired official - Bruno pushes bill to raise pension for a former business associate"

By JAMES M. ODATO, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Friday, July 21, 2006

ALBANY -- Sen. Joseph Bruno is seeking a law to give a former business associate with a dishonorable public career thousands of dollars in extra pension benefits.

The bill would add almost four years of extra state service time to boost the retirement payout to Peter A. Chiefari, 60, a longtime Rensselaer County resident who now appears to be living most of the year in Dunedin, Fla.

If Bruno's bill becomes law, Chiefari's pension would rise to $59,925 a year from $54,272.

Chiefari, who has held various private and public jobs, was fired by two state agencies during his service in the Pataki administration and forced into retirement in 2005.

He was terminated by the state Division of Military & Naval Affairs in 1996 for disobeying Gov. George Pataki's policies, according to people who worked for the administration at the time.

He got a second chance with the state when the Department of Labor hired him in January 1997.

In January 2000, he was fired for using state resources and much of his work time on his private affairs.

The Inspector General's Office audited his phone records and found hundreds of minutes of calls to the town of Schodack, with which he was doing private business, and to a real estate office for which he once worked -- Baer Reality, run by Kenneth Baer, Bruno's appointee on the state lobbying commission.

He had lied about his business relationships, inspector general's investigators said.

He got hired a third time by the state in January 2001.

Despite Pataki's hiring freeze, the DOT hired Chiefari after he got on a Civil Service list and the department was allowed to add engineers for road safety.

He started at $40,000, but his pay rose to $70,000.

At the Labor Department, where he had served as the assistant director of safety and health, he was paid $99,973 a year.

Then, although he officially retired from public service in 2000 by arranging to qualify himself for a special early retirement package passed by the Legislature, he retired a second time in 2005 when he was under investigation again.

That final state retirement came as the state Inspector General's Office was questioning him for taking the DOT job in 2001 and lying when he applied about never being fired.

The inspector general referred the case to State Police, who declined to proceed with a criminal investigation.

Chiefari also served as the private engineer on the First Grafton Corp. real estate development project that Bruno and partners invested in during the 1990s.

Chiefari was fined and suspended from practice in 1996 by the state Education Department for actions he took to propel the project to build homes along an isolated lake in the Rensselaer County town of Grafton.

Suspension of his engineering license was stayed in exchange for a one-year probation sentence.

Chiefari admitted submitting a state environmental form with inaccurate information, SED records show.

As priority bills were being rushed to print in the final scheduled week of this year's legislative session, the Bruno-led Senate Committee on Rules introduced a special retirement bill June 19 that would benefit only Chiefari.

It claims he is owed 3.66 additional years of service time that would cost the state $49,000 in payments to the State and Local Employees' Retirement System, administered by the state comptroller's office.

The bill text says Chiefari served public employers for more than 24 years and already has accumulated 29.22 years of service time for pension purposes but was denied time for service between 2001 and 2005 -- the years he worked as a civil engineer for DOT.

It says he was misled by retirement system officials that the years would be granted him after he returned to state service following his move to take an early retirement deal in 2000.

Chiefari did not return a call left with his wife, Lois Phillips, the longtime town of Schodack attorney, at his Florida address.

Bruno's spokesman, Matthew Walter, said the bill for Chiefari is no more than a routine piece of legislation advanced for a person desiring his full pension benefit.

Hundreds of such bills are introduced, Walter said.

Typically, he said, senators try to resolve such disputes at the agency and comptroller levels before seeking a law.

He said Bruno sought the bill after Chiefari, a constituent, asked for help.

Jeffrey Gordon, a spokesman for the comptroller's office, agreed many such laws are proposed, but few are passed.

He said Bruno's bill seeks to create "new law" for Chiefari.

After getting fired by the state, Chiefari worked 16 days during 2000 for the town of Nassau to qualify for an early retirement incentive offered to public workers under a bill signed into law by Pataki, Gordon said.

That law allowed Chiefari to retire with 2.25 extra years of service time tacked onto his pension benefit, Gordon said.

But that incentive time and the pension were taken away retroactive to 2000 when he returned to the state in 2001.

Bruno's bill would get Chiefari back the 2.25 years plus other adjustments that cut his pension under the rules of the 2000 incentive deal.

His pension now is actually $150 a year less than when he originally retired in 2000, Gordon said.

M. Odato can be reached at 454-5083 or by e-mail at jodato@timesunion.com.

CONTINUING OFFENSE:

Type of crime which is committed over time as, for example, a conspiracy .....

As to period of statutue of limitation, the LAST ACT of the offense controls for commencement of the period ......

A "continuing offense," such that only the last act thereof witihin the period of the statute of limitations need be alleged in the indictment or information, is one which may consist of separate acts or a course of conduct but which arises from that singleness of thought, purpose or action which may be deemed a single impulse ......

- Black's Law Dictionary

And once again ....

It is time ....

In here ....

To pause for a moment of reflection .....

On what we have been talking about since this thread started .....

Back in April of 2005 .....

And it is summed up above here ....

As concisely as I can have it be .....

And this brings us to today ...

And tomarrow ...

And the day after ....

Since as I have said before .....

IN OUR COMMUNITY UP HERE IN THE CORRUPT STATE OF NEW YORK ....

This March 31, 2005 decision to toss this federal civil rights lawsuit by this Bush-appointee judge in the federal Northern District of New York .....

Did not end anything at all .....

As should be clear from this above definition ....

Of what a CONTINUING OFFENSE consists of .....

And what I am going to do at this point ....

In the life of this thread ....

Is go back over the list of questions that I have received over time in connection with this matter .....

To make sure that all relevant points have been covered ...

And in the meantime ....

I have been asked ...

To post ....

The motion papers ....

For INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ....

That the federal court never addressed ....

In their entirety ....

And so ....

TO BE CONTINUED ....

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO FRCP 65

DEBRA J. YOUNG, 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.

2. I make this affirmation in opposition to PLAINTIFF's request for a preliminary injunction.

It appears from PLAINTIFF'S MOTION that PLAINTIFF seeks an order "ENJOINING DEFENDANTS FROM CONTINUING TO TREAT AS VALID IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK A NEW YORK STATE MENTAL HYGIENE 9.45 ORDER ISSUED BY DEFENDANT JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN ON AUGUST 22, 2001" and an order "RETURNING PLAINTIFF TO HIS STATUS AS A NON-DANGEROUS PERSON FULLY CAPABLE OF SURVIVING SAFELY BY HIMSELF AS IT WAS ON AUGUST 7, 2001, WITH HIS PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION AND STANDING IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS A NEW YORK STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS IT WAS ON AUGUST 7, 2001, ALONG WITH SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF AS THE COURT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER."

3. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, PLAINTIFF filed "Amended CIVIL RIGHTS Complaint Pursuant to 42 USCS 1983" on August 22, 2003.

THEREAFTER, DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT.

4. BASICALLY, IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS CIVIL RIGHTS ON AUGUST 22, 2001 WHEN CERTAIN CO-DEFENDANTS REQUESTED THE SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS TO ISSUE WHAT IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS A "PICK-UP" ORDER PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45.

5. THE SAMARITAN DEFENDANTS ADMITTEDLY ISSUED THE 9.45 ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF ON AUGUST 22, 2001.

However, PLAINTIFF was never "picked-up" or transported to Samaritan Hospital as a result of this order as he voluntarily went to the VA Medical Center in Albany where he was evaluated and released.

6. As a result of the events in August 2001, PLAINTIFF commenced an Article 78 proceeding in New York State Supreme court and then commenced the instant action in federal court.

PLAINTIFF NOW MOVES FOR THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DESCRIBED ABOVE.

DATED: September 17, 2004

"No, Sen. Bruno - The majority leader pushes pension legislation that would benefit a single constituent"

Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Sunday, July 23, 2006

And now, Chiefari's law.

Or would it be Bruno's law?

It's been about a decade since New York and other states have taken to naming legislation after people, and even animals, often the victims of horrible criminal behavior.

What's next, quite possibly, are laws that might as well be named after the beneficiaries of special treatment by state government.

Or, perhaps, the politicians shameless enough to extend it to them.

Here's state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno trying to get legislation passed to increase the pension benefits of a constituent, former business associate and former state employee named Peter Chiefari.

Just for Mr. Chiefari.

What did Mr. Chiefari do to deserve such personal attention at the hands of one of the most powerful people in state government?

That much is hard to say.

His record stands out only because it's so undistinguished.

Twice he was fired from state jobs, first the Division of Military & Naval Affairs in 1996 and then the Department of Labor in 2000, before he finally was forced back into retirement in 2005.

Still, if it's up to Mr. Bruno, Mr. Chiefari's pension will be going up, from $54,272 a year to $59,925 a year.

As James M. Odato of our Capitol bureau reported last week, a bill was introduced by the Senate Committee on Rules, which Mr. Bruno of course controls, in the final days of the legislative session last month that would add almost four years -- and with it, more than $5,000 a year in pension benefits -- to what's known as Mr. Chiefari's accumulated state service time.

Nice deal, isn't it?

Mr. Chiefari does go back a bit with Mr. Bruno.

When he was fired at the Department of Labor, it was for spending too much of the state's time on his own affairs.

Those included a real estate business run by Kenneth Baer, Sen. Bruno's appointee on the state lobbying commission.

Mr. Chiefari also was the private engineer on a real estate development project that Sen. Bruno and some partners invested in during the 1990s.

All this comes out as Gov. Pataki is trying to get a pension law passed that would benefit many members of his administration who'll be leaving office with him at the end of the year.

Troubling as that is, a Chiefari-Bruno law would be worse.

Congratulations, senator.

You've outdone them all.

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CONTINUED ....

7. As to harm that is so imminent as to be irreparable if the Court waits until the end of the trial to resolve the harm, or harm that is threatened which would impair this Court's ability to grant an effective remedy, PLAINTIFF cites the last sentence of the July 13, 2004 McGrath letter annexed hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof where Judge McGrath directs PLAINTIFF TO BRING THE POTENTIAL CRIMINAL MATTERS IN THIS ABOVE ACTION TO THE ATTENTION OF "A COUNTY, STATE OR FEDERAL PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY."

8. AS SHALL BE MADE MORE CLEAR BY THE EVIDENCE ANNEXED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF, HOWEVER, PLAINTIFF IS PRECLUDED FROM DOING SO BY THE ACTIONS OF DEFENDANTS ON AND AFTER AUGUST 22, 2001 (Amended Complaint, p.11, para.30), AND SO IS PRESENTLY WITHOUT EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

9. Hence this Motion for Injunctive Relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65.

10. With respect to the County prosecutorial agency referenced above by Judge McGrath, that would be the Office of the Rensselaer County District Attorney.

11. HOWEVER, NO RELIEF IS COMING TO PLAINTIFF FROM THAT COUNTY PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY, AS DEFENDANTS HAVE ALREADY COMPROMISED THE INTEGRITY OF THAT PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY BY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO IT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF HEREIN, THEREBY INVOLVING IT IN THE AUGUST 22, 2001 "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN" COMPLAINED OF HEREIN.

12. In support of that statement, annexed hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof is a copy of a United States Department of Veterans' Affairs VA Uniform Offense Report dated August 22, 2001 wherein is stated at the bottom of page 2, that "Both (defendants) Reiter and Shea felt that PLAINTIFF would not go the VAMC, SO THEY MADE CONTACT WITH NY STATE POLICE BCI CHRIS O'BRIEN FOR ASSISTANCE."

13. FOR THE RECORD, ON AUGUST 22, 2001, NEW YORK STATE POLICE INVESTIGATOR CHRIS O'BRIEN WAS ASSIGNED TO THE OFFICE OF THE RENSSELAER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, THE SOURCE OF WHICH IS INVESTIGATOR O'BRIEN HIMSELF, INVESTIGATOR O'BRIEN WAS A PART OF THE OFFICE OF THE RENSSELAER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ON AND AFTER AUGUST 22, 2001.

TO BE CONTINUED .....

"Bruno: Not interested in AG job"

By: James V. Franco, The Record

12/07/2001

ALBANY - Despite reports to the contrary, Rensselaer County District Attorney Kenneth Bruno will not challenge sitting state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer next year, who on Thursday announced he will run for a second term.

Spitzer "is prepared to run an energetic race and believes he has a strong record," said spokesman Darren Dopp.

"He's looking forward to the race."

Bruno, son to powerful Republican state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, coasted to his second four-year term last year by defeating attorney Timothy Nugent, a Democrat.

"I am not interested in the least," Kenneth Bruno said of the AG's position.

"The voters of Rensselaer County kept me in this job for another four years, and I appreciate that."

" ... I love this job, and I will continue to work hard for the people of Rensselaer County."

He said he does not have "the faintest idea" who would drop his name.

"Rumors float around all the time," he said.

"There have been a lot of rumors about me in the past, and I am sure there will be more in the future."

Earlier this year, Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue's name was dropped as a potential candidate to challenge Spitzer, but she dispelled that notion - and any speculation that she wants to be a judge - earlier this month when she announced she intends to run along side Gov. George Pataki.

Pataki has not officially announced he will seek a third term, but it appears likely.

It has also been reported that Syracuse attorney Rick Guy, 40, may be considering a run at Spitzer.

The former Syracuse city councilman is under consideration by President Bush for appointment as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York.

Despite the election being less than a year away, GOP officials are holding any other potential candidates, if there are indeed any other strong candidates, close to the vest.

"It's really too early to speculate at this point," said Todd E. Alhart, communications director for the state Republican Committee.

"There is plenty of time before the campaign, and we are not going to get caught up in speculation."

Spitzer, a Manhattan Democrat, narrowly beat one-term incumbent Denis Vacco for the $151,500-a-year job in 1998.

He has addressed such politically popular issues as gun control, acid rain and PCB pollution in the Hudson River.

Perhaps more importantly, however, he has avoided any major blunders in a state that offers him a huge enrollment advantage.

Spitzer's family's real estate fortune helped him beat Vacco in 1998, and any opponent will likely have to raise a considerable amount of money to wage a serious challenge.

http://www.troyrecord.com/site/news.cfm?ne...G=461&...&rfi=6

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CONTINUED ....

14. With respect to Investigator O'Brien's direct involvement in this matter, and the issue of imminent, irreparable harm to PLAINTIFF in this above matter, annexed hereto as Exhibit D and made a part hereof is a copy of an August 14, 2003 letter which PLAINTIFF had sent to Hon. David N. Hurd and all parties herein a year ago concerning PLAINTIFF's need to have access to Investigator O'Brien if the interests of justice were to be served in this matter.

15. The relevant portion of that letter concerning access to Investigator O'Brien is at p.3 and is as follows:

"By blocking PLAINTIFF's access to Investigator O'Brien, who would be necessary to PLAINTIFF as a witness were PLAINTIFF to have defendant Jeffrey Pelletier prosecuted in criminal court in the State of New York on assault charges, defendant Shea, by and through his attorney Nelson Sheingold, is blocking this PLAINTIFF's access to justice and equal protection of the law in the State of New York , which is the sum and substance of the complaint which this court dismissed."

"By blocking PLAINTIFF's access to Investigator O'Brien, defendant William Shea,, wrapped in the authority of his position as a New York State Veteran's Service Officer, and by and through his attorney Nelson Sheingold, IS GUARANTEEING THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WILL EXPIRE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CAN HAVE DEFENDANT JEFFREY PELLETIER PROSECUTED ON CRIMINAL CHARGES IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, despite the opinion of New York State Police Investigator Chris O'Brien.

And once again .....

Good morning, America .....

And the candid world as well .....

WHO HAS BEEN WATCHING OUR AMERICA .....

BY INVITATION .....

Since 1776 .....

When "facts" .....

Were submitted ....

To that candid world ......

By the PEOPLE ..

Of the original thirteen states .....

Of the "United States of America" ....

As to why ...

The PEOPLE ...

Of the United States of America .....

Were severing their ties .....

With the King ...

And PEOPLE ...

Of Great Britain .....

And so .....

WHERE HAVE WE GOTTEN TO SINCE THEN .....

Might be a sub-title ...

To this thread .....

Where we are taking a close look ...

A "hard look" .....

At how ...

A law-abiding disabled veteran .....

In the State of New York .....

Who had his liberty stripped from him ...

By the defendants in this matter .....

On August 22, 2001 ....

WAS DENIED ACCESS ....

TO JUSTICE ...

IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT .....

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ...

BY A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE .....

APPOINTED BY GEORGE W. BUSH ....

BASED ON NOTHING MORE ...

THAN THE OUTRIGHT LIES ...

AND FALSEHOODS ....

OF THESE LAWYERS ABOVE HERE ....

THIS SHAWN T. NASH, ESQUIRE ....

AND DEBRA J. YOUNG, ESQUIRE ....

OUTRIGHT LIES .....

AND FALSEHOODS .....

THAT WERE COUNTENANCED .....

ACCEPTED ...

AND APPROVED OF ...

BY THE BUSH-APPOINTEE JUDGE ....

AND NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ELIOT SPITZER .....

WHOSE OWN OFFICE ....

KNEW OF ...

AND THEN ...

COVERED OVER ....

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER .....

TO "DEFEND" ....

THE PRACTICE .....

OF PROVIDING ....

PROTECTION ....

FROM THE LAW ....

TO "CONNECTED" ....

OR "PROTECTED" .....

PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

WHO "PURCHASE" THAT PROTECTION .....

FROM THOSE IN POWER UP HERE .....

IN GOVERNMENT ...

WHO HAVE THAT "PROTECTION" ....

TO SELL ...

And so ....

When you read the words of these three lawyers above here .....

And as you consider the contents of this thread ....

Keep in mind ...

That of the three ...

ONLY LISA ULLMAN .....

OF ELIOT SPITZER'S "SHOP" .....

IS TELLING THE TRUTH ....

ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY DID OCCUR .....

ON AUGUST 22, 2001 .....

AT THE STRATTON VA HOSPITAL .....

IN CORRUPT ALBANY, NEW YORK .....

WHILE THE OTHER TWO ....

NASH .....

AND YOUNG ...

ARE LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH .....

INTO THE SYMPATHETIC EAR .....

OF THE BUSH-APPOINTEE FEDERAL JUDGE .....

WHO TOSSED ....

THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT UNDER DISCUSSION IN HERE ....

BASED ON THOSE "SWEET LIES" ...

AND NOTHING MORE ....

And so .....

"Study condemns Bush legal tactic - Legal panel calls use of "signing statements" a constitutional issue"

By MICHAEL ABRAMOWITZ, Washington Post
First published: Monday, July 24, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.

In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined.

The panel members described the development as a serious threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances, and they urged Congress to pass legislation permitting court review of such statements.

"The President is indicating that he will not either enforce part or the entirety of congressional bills," said ABA President Michael Greco.

"We will be close to a constitutional crisis if this issue, the President's use of signing statements, is left unchecked."

The report seemed likely to fuel the controversy over signing statements, which Bush has used to challenge laws ranging from a congressional ban on torture and a request for data on the Patriot Act, to whistle-blower protections and the banning of U.S. troops in fighting rebels in Colombia.

Administration officials describe them as a part of routine presidential practice.

"Presidents have issued signing statements since the early days of our country," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Sunday.

"President Bush's signing statements are consistent with prior administrations' signing statements."

"He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate way."

Bush has vetoed only one bill since taking office, a bill approved by Congress last week relaxing his limits on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research.

But he has on many occasions signed bills, then issued statements reserving the right not to enforce or execute parts of the new laws, on the grounds that they infringe on presidential authority or violate other constitutional provisions.

Perhaps the most prominent example was legislation last year banning cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners at U.S. detention centers.

Bush signed the bill into law after a struggle with Congress, then followed it with an official statement indicating he might waive the ban under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, if necessary to prevent a terror attack.

Determining the rarity of this approach is a matter of some dispute.

The Justice Department has said Bush has issued 110 signing statements, compared with President Bill Clinton's 80.

In testimony last month before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michelle Boardman denied Bush was trying to "cherry pick" among parts of a duly enacted law.

"Presidential signing statements are, rather, a statement by the President explaining his interpretation of and responsibilities under the law," she said.

The ABA task force, chaired by Miami attorney Neil Sonnett, cites research that Bush in his signing statements has collectively lodged more than 800 challenges to provisions of laws passed by Congress.

Task force members said the nature of the challenges has also changed under Bush, with many objections being lodged under the "unitary executive" theory, the idea that congressional checks on the president's power are limited.

If the President has constitutional problems with a bill, the task force said, he should convey those concerns to Congress before it reaches his desk.

The panel said signing statements should not be a substitute for vetoing bills the President considers unconstitutional.

"The President's constitutional duty is to enforce laws he has signed into being unless and until they are held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or a subordinate tribunal," panel members wrote.

"The Constitution is not what the President says it is."

"The President greatly respects the roles of the branches of our government," Perino said, "and anyone to suggest otherwise is ignoring the facts of our continued efforts to work with the Hill on all matters of legislation."

The impact of the report on the administration is uncertain, given the belief by many conservatives and some members of the Bush administration that the ABA is liberally biased.

Early in its tenure, the administration ended the association's special role in evaluating judicial nominations.

The 10-member ABA panel includes at least three well-known conservatives or Republicans: former congressman Mickey Edwards, R-Okla., former FBI Director William Sessions and former Reagan Justice Department member Bruce Fein.

It also includes former appellate Judge Patricia Wald, former Stanford Law School Dean Kathleen Sullivan and Harvard law professor Charles J. Ogletree Jr.

The report will be considered by the full ABA at its meeting next month.

And it is not lost on us ......

HOW MUCH OUR PROTECTION OF LAW ....

AS CITIZENS OF THIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ....

IS BACK-SLIDING .......

When we read this above paragraph .....

About George W. Bush .....

Using this alleged "power" of his .....

To challenge laws providing for .....

"Whistle-blower" protections .....

Which is in part ...

What this thread is about .....

The FATE ...

Of those ...

In the State of New York ...

Who do know the law ...

AND DO HAVE ...

AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY .....

PLACED ON THEM .....

BY THE "STATE" ......

THROUGH LAW ...

AND REGULATION .....

TO "BLOW THE WHISTLE" .....

ON MISCONDUCT ....

IN GOVERNMENT .....

HERE ...

IN OUR AMERICA .....

And here ....

We are once again confronted .....

With this "UNITARY EXECUTIVE" theory .....

That subverts OUR government .....

Not only at the federal level ......

But at the state and county and town levels as well ...

At least here in the State of New York ...

Where REPUBLICANS hold power ...

As UNITARY EXECUTIVES .....

Despite Constitutions and Charters .....

To the contrary .....

And so .....

And so ....

The anatomy .....

Of a COVER-UP .....

In the Federal District Court .....

For the Northern District of New York ....

Where a civil rights suit ....

To challenge the actions .....

Of REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino ....

A UNITARY EXECUTIVE, herself ......

In connection with ....

The August 22, 2001 "PSYCHIATRIC TAKEDOWN" ....

Was "TOSSED" ....

By a Bush-appointee federal judge ....

Who simply used his JUDICIAL PEN .....

To change the facts in this matter ....

As a justification for tossing the civil rights suit ....

Continues ....

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CONTINUED ....

16. With respect to the opinion of New York State Police Investigator Chirs O'Brien that defendant Jeffrey Pelletier should have been arrested in the State of New York for assaulting PLAINTIFF on August 7, 2001 (Amended Complaint, paras. 9-15), annexed hereto as Exhibit E and made a part hereof is an August 6, 2004 affidavit of the Albany, New York Police Officer who secured PLAINTIFF's release from the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York, after demonstrating to Dr. William Cox, the "confining doctor", that he was holding PLAINTIFF in custody unlawfully.

17. In that affidavit at para. 26, the Police Officer states as follows with respect to New York State Police Investigator Chris O'Brien:

"During that conversation, I recall Investigator O'Brien confirming to me that he had spoken with PLAINTIFF late that afternoon, after PLAINTIFF had returned home from the VA after suffering chest pains as a result of his false arrest earlier that day, about having Jeffrey Pelletier of Poestenkill arrested for assaulting PLAINTIFF on or about August 7, 2001 in an effort to intimidate and deter PLAINTIFF from continuing his investigation into the manner in which Pelletier had obtained a Rensselaer County Department of Health sewage disposal system construction permit."

18. According to the Police Officer at para. 27 of that August 6, 2004 affidavit:

"As I recall, Investigator O'Brien informed me that he was basing his opinion that Jeffrey Pelletier should be arrested on a copy of a videotape of the August 7, 2001 Pelletier assault on PLAINTIFF which had been provided to him in the afternoon of August 22, 2001 by New York State Veteran's Service Officer William 'BUCK' Shea, THE SAME INDIVIDUAL WHO EARLIER THAT DAY HAD FALSELY INFORMED THE VA POLICE THAT PLAINTIFF WAS THREATENING PELLETIER."

19. With respect to this application to this Court for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civl Procedure, A COPY OF THE VIDEOTAPE IN QUESTION, ALONG WITH A COPY OF A SIMILAR AFFIDAVIT FROM THE ALBANY POLICE OFFICER, WAS PROVIDED TO RENSSELAER COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT JUDGE PATRICK McGRATH ON JULY 9, 2004 (see, Exhibit A), AND IT IS BASED IN PART UPON SAID VIDEOTAPE AND AFFIDAVIT THAT JUDGE McGRATH RENDERED HIS JULY 13, 2004 OPINION ANNEXED HERETO AS EXHIBIT B.

LIBERTY INTEREST:

An INTEREST recognized as protected by the DUE PROCESS CLAUSES of state and federal constitutions .....

Generally included are liberties guaranteed by the first eight amendments of the United States Constitution ......

AS WELL AS INTERESTS CREATED WHEN STATES EITHER LEGISLATIVELY OR ADMINISTRATIVELY IMPOSE LIMITATIONS ON THEIR DISCRETION AND REQUIRE THAT A SPECIFIC STANDARD PREVAIL IN DECISION MAKING .....

- Black's Law Dictionary

LIBERTY:

The "LIBERTY" .....

Guaranteed and protected .....

By constitutional provisions .....

Denotes .....

Not only freedom from unauthorized physical restraint .....

But embraces also ....

The freedom .....

Of an individual .....

To use .....

And enjoy .....

His/her faculties .....

In all lawful ways ....

Acquire useful knowledge .....

Marry ....

Establish a home ....

And bring up children ....

Worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience ....

Live and work where he chooses .....

ENGAGE IN ANY OF THE COMMON AND LAWFUL OCCUPATIONS OF LIFE ....

Enter into all contracts ....

Which may be proper ....

And essential .....

To carrying out successfully .....

The foregoing purposes ....

And generally .....

To enjoy these privileges .....

Long recognized at common law ....

AS ESSENTIAL TO THE ORDERLY PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS BY FREE PEOPLE.

- Black's Law Dictionary

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CONTINUED ....

20. In his concluding paragraph at 31, the Albany, New York Police Officer states as follows with respect to the issue of irreparable harm in this instant matter:

"During that conversation, I recall PLAINTIFF informing me that the stress caused by the day's events had made him quite ill, and that he had chest pains and shortness of breath caused by that stress, which precluded him from going to the State Police at that time, and that PLAINTIFF remained in fear of ROBERT REITER AND WILLIAM SHEA, and that despite Investigator O'Brien's assurances that he would testify in any criminal proceeding against Jeffrey Pelletier, PLAINTIFF remained convinced by what had occurred that day at the VA that Investigator O'Brien could not offer PLAINTIFF any protection in RENSSELAER COUNTY FROM FURTHER MALICIOUS PROSECUTION OR DETENTION OF PLAINTIFF AS AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT, so that any further attempts by PLAINTIFF to have justice in this matter in the Town of Poestenkill would only result in his CONTINUED PERSECUTION, for which reason, it is my information and belief, PLAINTIFF was never able to follow through and have Jeffrey Pelletier prosecuted for the August 7, 2001 assault on PLAINTIFF captured on the videotape which DEFENDANT WILLIAM SHEA HAD IN HIS POSSESSION ON AUGUST 22, 2001, and which he allegedly provided to Investigator O'Brien sometime during the day on August 22, 2001."

21. SIMPLY STATED, because the DEFENDANTS have already involved the Office of the Rensselaer County District Attorney IN HAVING PLAINTIFF UNLAWFULLY DECLARED A DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT BY DEFENDANT JOHN CHRISTIAN BRAATEN, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS PLAINTIFF HAS RESTORED TO HIM HIS REAL IDENTITY AS IT WAS ON AND BEFORE AUGUST 7, 2001, PLAINTIFF REMAINS UNABLE TO SECURE JUSTICE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RENSSELAER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THIS MATTER OF CONTINUED INTIMIDATION AND THREATS OF VIOLENCE FROM DEFENDANT JEFFREY PELLETIER IN THIS ABOVE MATTER.

22. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF is seeking injunctive relief from this Court that will restore the status quo as it was on August 7, 2001, where PLAINTIFF was a licensed professional engineer in good standing in the State of New York INVESTIGATING ALLEGED PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT ON THE PARTS OF DEFENDANTS CARL RICHARD AIKEN, N.Y.S.P.E., AND KEVIN JOSEPH McGRATH, N.Y.S.L.S., IN THE MATTER OF THE JEFFREY PELLETIER SEWAGE SYSTEM IN THE TOWN OF POESTENKILL, RENSSELAER COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK. (See, Amended Complaint, para. 7)

INTEREST:

The most general term that can be employed to denote a right, claim, title, or legal share in something.

The word "INTEREST" is used throughout the RESTATEMENT OF TORTS, SECOND to denote the object of any human desire.

- Black's Law dictionary

RESTATEMENT OF LAW:

A series of volumes authored by the American Law Institute that tell what the law in a general area is, how it is changing, and what direction the authors (who are leading legal scholars in each field covered) think this change should take, for example, Restatement of the Law of Contracts; Restatement of the Law of Torts.

The various Restatements have been a formidable force in shaping the disciplines of the law covered; they are frequently cited by courts and either followed or distinguished; they represent the fruit of the labor of the best legal minds in the diverse fields of law covered .....

- Black's Law Dictionary

NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE I - BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 14. Such parts of the common law and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony, on the nineteenth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-five, and the resolutions of the congress of the said colony, and of the convention of the State of New York, in force on the twentieth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-seven, which have not since expired, or been repealed or altered; and such acts of the legislature of this state as are now in force, shall be and continue the law of this state, subject to such alterations as the legislature shall make concerning the same.

But all such parts of the common law, and such of the said acts, or parts thereof, as are repugnant to this constitution, are hereby abrogated.

INTIMIDATION:

Unlawful coercion ....

Extortion ....

Duress ......

Putting in fear .....

To take, or attempt to take, "by intimidation" means willfully to take, or attempt to take, by putting in fear of bodily harm.

Such fear must arise from the willful conduct of the accused, rather than from some more tempermental timidity of the victim; however, the fear of the victim need not be so great as to result in terror, panic or hysteria ......

- Black's Law Dictionary

"Livyjr, before you go on, could we stop right here, for a moment, with this July 29, 2004 letter to the PLAINTIFF from this Margeurite A. Conan, who apparently is a staff attorney for the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York?"

"My question is this:"

WHO EXACTLY IS MARGUERITE CONAN, AND HOW DID SHE BECOME INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER, WHEN PLAINTIFF'S JULY 15, 2004 LETTER WAS CLEARLY ADDRESSED TO THIS JUDGE DONALD E. WALTER?

And that answer ....

Is an easy one ...

We don't know who she is ....

Or what role she played in this matter ....

Outside of the fact ...

That somehow .....

The letter ...

Which indeed was addressed .....

To Judge Walter ....

Somehow ended up in her hands .....

And so .....

And that is one of the "unexplained mysteries" confronting us to this day ...

With respect to this case .....

Because it is clear ...

From the language ...

In her July 29, 2004 letter .....

To PLAINTIFF ....

That she was indeed aware of what was going on in this case ...

"YOUR LETTER TOUCHES UPON SEVERAL DIFFERENT MATTERS RELATED TO THIS LITIGATION AND HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COURT."

And she cites the DEFENDANTS' pending Motions to Dismiss .....

"At this time, motions to dismiss filed on behalf of the defendants are pending and will be addressed by the Court in due course."

In such a way .....

That led us then ...

And still leads us today ....

To a belief ...

That she was involved ...

In ex parte .....

Or one-sided conversations .....

Or "NEGOTIATIONS" ......

With COUNSEL ...

For the defendants .....

On how they were going to "get rid of this case" .....

And so .....

And here ...

Once more ...

It has to be re-iterated .....

That PLAINTIFF himself ....

NEVER ONCE ...

SAW ANY OF THESE JUDGES ....

NOR WAS HE AFFORDED ...

ANY OPPORTUNITY ...

TO SPEAK WITH ANY OF THEM ....

And that includes this Marguerite Conan .....

Who apparently is the Court's lawyer .....

Or one of them, anyway ....

And so ...

And as to why this case ....

Was taken from Judge Hurd .....

And given to this Judge Walter ...

Was never explained ...

Nor was it ever explained ...

WHY JUST AFTER PLAINTIFF SENT HIS JULY 15, 2004 LETTER ....

TO JUDGE WALTER ....

THE CASE ...

WAS TAKEN BACK AWAY FROM HIM ....

Since the ORDER OF TRANSFER ...

TO HIM ...

STATED ...

CLEARLY ....

AND UNEQUIVOCALLY .....

THAT HE WAS TO .....

DISPOSE OF THE MATTER ....

BY MOTION ...

OR TRIAL ....

And so ....

And since this Marguerite Conan .....

Was in possession of PLAINTIFF's letter to Judge Walter .....

And since it is quite obvious .....

From her letter to PLAINTIFF ...

That she had read ....

PLAINTIFF's letter .....

ON BEHALF OF ....

THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ....

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

And was therefore familiar with the facts in the matter ...

AS WELL AS THE LAW ....

IT FOLLOWS ...

THAT ....

THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ....

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

WAS WELL AWARE ....

THAT WHEN THIS CASE WAS TOSSED ...

BY FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GARY L. SHARPE .....

ON MARCH 31, 2005 .....

THAT IT WAS TOSSED ...

BASED UPON A FABRICATED SET OF FACTS .....

CONCOCTED ...

BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ITSELF ....

And so .....

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CONTINUED ....

23. With respect to the STATE PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY in the State of New York referenced by Judge McGrath in his July 13, 2004 letter annexed hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof, THAT WOULD BE THE OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

24. HOWEVER, as the Office of the New York State Attorney General is defending defendant WILLIAM "BUCK" SHEA, who is directly involved in the above matter (see, EXHIBIT C) as an alleged witness who has made alleged false statements concerning PLAINTIFF to the OFFICE OF THE RENSSELAER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND THE U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK in connection with what Judge McGrath is terming "POTENTIAL FEDERAL, AS WELL AS STATE CRIMINAL CHARGES" in this above matter, AND AS THE OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS BLOCKING PLAINTIFF'S ACCESS to New York State Police Investigator Chris O'Brien in connection with the August 7, 2001 assault of PLAINTIFF by defendant JEFFREY PELLETIER, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED HEREIN THAT NO AID OR SUCCOR OR JUSTICE IS COMING TO PLAINTIFF IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK FROM THAT STATE PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY.

TO BE CONTINUED ....

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CONTINUED ....

25. In support of that statement, in POINT I of it's Memorandum of Law to this Court in this above matter, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit F and made a part hereof, the OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL makes reference to what it mockingly calls PLAINTIFF'S "SELF-PROCLAIMED INVESTIGATION OF RENSSELAER COUNTY".

26. This position is inherently inconsistent, however, with evidence in the files and records of the OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ITSELF concerning PLAINTIFF and HIS OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RENSSELAER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, and therefore, only serves to demonstrate to this Court that justice is not forthcoming to PLAINTIFF from that STATE PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY during the pendency of this proceeding absent the injunctive relief prayed for herein pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65.

27. With respect to that evidence in the files and records of the NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL which serves to refute the adverse position taken by that STATE PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY with respect to PLAINTIFF and his continuing investigation of the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH herein, annexed hereto as Exhibit G and made a part hereof is an October 12, 1988 letter from RENSSELAER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR KENNETH VAN PRAAG which concerns itself directly with the investigation of the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH at issue herein.

28. In the second paragraph of that October 12, 1988 letter, RENSSELAER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR VAN PRAAG states in clear and unambiguous language as follows:

"It should be noted that the New York State Health Department has commended and upheld the judgments exercised by the Director (PLAINTIFF HEREIN) while dealing with the difficult regulatory functions relating to this program."

29. For the record, the OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL acts as counsel for the New York State Department of Health WHICH HAD INDEED COMMENDED AND UPHELD THE JUDGMENTS OF PLAINTIFF HEREIN while PLAINTIFF was serving as RENSSELAER COUNTY DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, PRIOR TO BECOMING DISABLED FROM THAT POSITION FOR REASONS STATED IN EXHIBIT G, TO INCLUDE "PHYSICAL THREATS OF BODILY HARM" TO PLAINTIFF FROM DEFENDANT GARY JAMES HORTON.

TO BE CONTINUED .....

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EXAMINATION OF REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOHN L. BUONO, BY ORDER, HELD AT THE CONFERENCE ROOM A, RENSSELAER COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING, TROY, NEW YORK

SEPTEMBER 27, 1994

Q: Did there come a time in May 1993 when you were consulted about a WORKER'S COMPENSATION proceeding that PLAINTIFF had initiated?

BUONO: YES.

Q: And did you become aware that PLAINTIFF had been examined at the request of the COUNTY'S WORKER'S COMPENSATION CARRIER by a Doctor Melvin Steinhart?

BUONO: I knew there was an examination.

I do not recall who did the examination.

Q: Were you provided with a copy of the examination report, to your knowledge?

BUONO: I don't believe so.

Q: Were you made aware of the substance of the COUNTY'S EXPERT'S REPORT?

BUONO: I was .....

I know that I was ......

But I don't recall what it was ....

Q: ARE YOU AWARE THAT ON OR ABOUT JULY 18, 1993 THAT THE COUNTY HAD ENTERED INTO A STIPULATION THAT PLAINTIFF HAD SUFFERED A PARTIAL DISABILITY AS A RESULT OF A WORK-RELATED ILLNESS THAT WAS GENERATED DURING THE TIME HE WAS EMPLOYED AS THE ENGINEER FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT?

BUONO: I'M AWARE OF THAT, YES!

Q: AND PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT THE COUNTY ENTERED INTO THAT STIPULATION, WERE YOU CONSULTED ABOUT IT?

BUONO: I BELIVE IT WAS MENTIONED TO ME THAT THE STIPULATION WAS A FAIT ACCOMPLI; SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT ......

Q: AND DID YOU AGREE WITH OR CONSENT TO THE DECISION?

BUONO: QUITE FRANKLY, I DID NOT .....

AS I RECALL ....

I WAS NOT PLEASED WITH THE DECISION .....

AND FELT THAT IN WAS IN ERROR ....

AND THAT ....

MAYBE ...

WE SHOULD HAVE .....

OTHER RECOURSE ....

BUT IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME ....

THAT IT WAS BETTER ....

TO HAVE IT GO FORWARD .....

THE WAY ...

IT WAS PRESENTED ....

Q: And that was presented to you by the COUNTY'S WORKER'S COMP INSURANCE CARRIER?

BUONO: YES .....

Q: And ultimately, prior to the time that the stipulation was entered into, did you consent to it?

BUONO: YES ....

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CONTINUED ....

30. Pursuant to New York State Public Health Law 10(2), "The written reports of state and local health officers, inspectors, investigators, nurses and other representatives of state and local health officers ON QUESTIONS OF FACT pertaining to, concerning or arising under and in connection with complaints, alleged violations, investigations, proceedings, actions, authority and orders, RELATED TO ENFORCEMENT of this CHAPTER (New York State Public Health Law), the Sanitary Code or any local health regulation SHALL BE PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS SO STATED THEREIN, AND SHALL BE RECEIVED AS SUCH IN ALL COURTS AND PLACES."

32. Where the October 12, 1988 Van Praag letter annexed hereto as Exhibit G and made a part hereof is a "WRITTEN REPORT" of a local health officer, THAT BEING PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR VAN PRAAG, on "QUESTIONS OF FACT" pertaining to, concerning or arising under and in connection with complaints, alleged violations, investigations, proceedings, actions, authority and orders related to the ENFORCEMENT OF THE NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, the Sanitary Code or any local health regulation, THAT OCTOBER 12, 1988 LETTER ANNEXED HERETO AS EXHIBIT G SHALL BE PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS SO STATED THEREIN, AND SHALL BE RECEIVED AS SUCH IN ALL COURTS AND PLACES.

33. WHERE THE OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS SUCH A PLACE AS IS REFERRED TO IN NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 10(2), THAT OCTOBER 12, 1988 VAN PRAAG LETTER ANNEXED HERETO AS EXHIBIT G AND MADE A PART HEREOF IS PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF ALL OF THE FACTS SO STATED THEREIN, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT THE NEW YORK STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAD COMMENDED AND UPHELD THE JUDGMENTS EXERCISED BY PLAINTIFF HEREIN WHILE DEALING WITH THE DIFFICULT REGULATORY FUNCTIONS RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS OF THE RENSSELAER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AND IT SHALL BE RECEIVED AS SUCH BY THE OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

34. That October 12, 1988 letter serves then to REFUTE THE CLAIM of the NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IN ITS MEMORANDUM OF LAW annexed hereto as Exhibit F that PLAINTIFF'S continuing investigation of the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH is "SELF-PROCLAIMED", and that the OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL is at all ignorant of that continuing investigation.

TO BE CONTINUED .....

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CONTINUED ....

34. Indeed, stamped on the face of Exhibit G is a notification indicating that Exhibit G was received into evidence in proceedings before the NEW YORK STATE WORKER'S COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD on October 5, 1990 which involved a claim by PLAINTIFF herein against the RENSSELAER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH pursuant to the provisions of the New York State Worker's Compensation Law.

35. With respect to those New York State Worker's Compensation Review Board proceedings, annexed hereto as Exhibit H and made a part hereof is an August 14, 1991 Memorandum of Decision of the New York State Worker's Compensation Review Board IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR wherein is stated in relevant part that:

"CLAIMANT (PLAINTIFF), AN ENGINEER, CLAIMED THAT HE SUFFERED A DETERIORATION OF HIS HEALTH DUE TO UNDUE PRESSURE AT HIS EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING THREATS OF BODILY HARM, CAUSING HIM TO STOP WORK ON OCTOBER 12, 1988."

36. At page 2 of that August 14, 1991 Memorandum of Decision annexed hereto as Exhibit H, the New York State Worker's Compensation Review Board held that"

"Upon review of the entire record, the BOARD finds that the reports of Dr. Kolb and Dr. Sheremeta, WHEN CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH CLAIMANT'S C-3's, DO CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE MEDICAL EVIDENCE."

37. For the record, the evidence considered by the New York State Worker's Compensation Review Board in finding for PLAINTIFF on August 14, 1991 included the October 12, 1988 VAN PRAAG LETTER annexed hereto as Exhibit G and made a part hereof.

TO BE CONTINUED .....

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

OCTOBER 20, 1992 - EXAMINATION OF DR. LAWRENCE C. KOLB, M.D. by REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT A. "Big BOB" SMITH

SMITH: I believe at one point in your testimony, you characterized PLAINTIFF as a man of high principles and I believe you also said in words or substance that he was accepting of directions and orders.

IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

KOLB: YES!

SMITH: And I believe .....

KOLB: Characteristics of his military duty.

SMITH: And I believe that the source of that factual ......

That the basis ....

For that conclusion was, again, PLAINTIFF's relation of his circumstances?

KOLB: IT WAS MY ESTIMATION OF THE MAN'S PERSONAL MAKE-UP!

And with those words above just said .....

By Dr. Lawrence C. Kolb, M.D. ....

Who was a nationally recognized medical doctor .....

Who would have been .....

One of the very FIRST ......

Medical doctors .....

Here, in OUR America ....

TO KNOW ....

IF PLAINTIFF ...

WAS RATIONAL ....

OR NOT .....

DESPITE ANY BULL-CRAP ....

FROM RENSSELAER COUNTY .....

THAT PLAINTIFF WAS "SICK" ....

OR "IRRATIONAL" ....

OR A "HEAD CASE" .....

As was in the news up here ....

For quite awhile .....

From the lips .....

Of John Buono himself .....

On the CHRIS KAPOSTACEY JANSING SHOW .....

On TV Channel 13 .......

Broadcasting out of Menands, New York ....

As well as out of the mouth ....

Of REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Deputy Attorney Gordon Mayo .....

Himself now a judge in the State of New York .....

AND DESPITE ANY INTIMIDATION .....

BY RENSSELAER COUNTY .....

OR JOHN BUONO ....

OR JOE BRUNO ....

WHICH WOULD NOT WORK ....

ON DR. KOLB ....

PRESUMING ......

THAT RENSSELAER COUNTY .....

HAD BEEN STUPID ENOUGH ....

TO GIVE IT A TRY .....

As they had been doing with the PLAINTIFF in this matter ....

BEFORE THEY DISABLED HIM ....

INTENTIONALLY .....

AND PERMANENTLY .....

IN OCTOBER OF 1988 ....

According to a STIPULATION .....

BINDING ON RENSSELAER COUNTY ....

FOR THE REMAINDER ....

OF PLAINTIFF'S NATURAL LIFE ....

Approved by John Buono himself ....

It is time to pause for a second ....

And to take a look .....

At the words .....

In this following sentence .....

From the March 231, 2005 federal District Court decision ....

Under discussion in here ....

ACCORDINGLY, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IS DENIED AS MOOT!

And to then consider .....

The implications .....

Of what that sentence means .....

As we have been doing .....

Since we got that decision .....

Back in March of 2005 .....

AT THE TIME .....

WE STARTED THIS THREAD .....

And it has to do .....

With what the federal District Court ......

Is really saying .....

When it says ....

THIS MOTION ...

OR PRAYER .....

FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF .....

THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW ...

ALONG WITH .....

THE LAW ....

AND EVIDENCE .....

Which support that MOTION .....

IS MOOT ....

And that meaning is this ....

IF .....

THE MOTION ....

IS MOOT ....

THEN ....

THAT MEANS .....

THAT THE MOTION WAS MADE ....

AND IF THE MOTION WAS MADE ......

And was before the COURT .....

THEN .....

IT FOLLOWS ....

THAT PLAINTIFF ....

HAD TO HAVE STANDING .....

IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ....

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

IN THE FIRST PLACE ....

OR ELSE ...

PLAINTIFF ...

NEVER ...

WOULD HAVE BEEN ....

AFFORDED ....

AN OPPOPRTUNITY ...

BY THE COURT ...

TO MAKE AND FILE THAT MOTION ......

IF ....

PLAINTIFF ...

HAD NO STANDING ...

HE NEVER ...

WOULD HAVE BEEN ...

ALLOWED .....

BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ....

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

TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT .....

BUT ...

HE WAS .....

ALLOWED ....

TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT .....

AND HENCE ....

HE DID HAVE STANDING ...

AND SO .....

BY THE THREE-PRONG STANDING TEST ....

SET DOWN .....

BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT .....

IN Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 558 (1992) ....

ELEVEN (11) YEARS BEFORE THE COMPLAINT IN THIS MATTER ....

WAS FILED ...

WITH THE CLERK ....

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

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT .....

DID HAVE MERIT ...

AND HENCE .....

SHOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD .....

BY A JURY ...

BUT FOR ...

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ...

GARY L. SHARPE .....

ALTERING THE FACTS ....

WITH HIS JUDICIAL PEN ....

SO THAT HE WOULD HAVE A SELF-CREATED PRETEXT ....

ON WHICH TO TOSS THE CASE ....

TO PLAINTIFF'S HARM ....

AND OURS AS WELL ....

And so ....

That finding ...

Or holding ...

By Judge Sharpe ....

THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION ....

WAS MOOT ...

SERVES TO CUT THE LEGS ...

OUT FROM UNDER ....

HIS PRIOR STATEMENT ...

THAT PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

HAD NO MERIT ....

And so .....

In the State of New York ....

Where these events all transpired ...

And state and federal laws were violated .....

Allegedly ...

By the defendants ....

When they had PLAINTIFF ...

Incarcerated unlawfully ....

At the VA Hospital ....

In Albany, New York ....

On 8/22/01 ......

THE MARCH 31, 2005 DECISION ....

OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GARY L. SHARPE ....

IS JUST A WORTHLESS PIECE OF PAPER ....

A legal absurdity, in the words of the wags in the Rensselaer County Bar Association up here ....

And so ....

What we really have ...

IS A STAND-OFF ....

Where we ...

Are being kept out of court ....

Based on INTIMIDATION ...

Which has its direct roots ...

In this March 31, 2005 Federal District Court decision ...

Under discussion in here .....

Which makes it clear to us .....

Especially in light ....

Of the federal District Court judge's willingness .....

To alter the facts in the matter ....

To harm a disabled veteran further .....

Who had already been harmed by the defendants herein .....

That if we try to have OUR rights in this matter ....

We'll likely ....

Be looking at life ...

WITH SCRAMBLED BRAINS ....

Thanks to NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. ......

From inside .....

The SECURE MENTAL FACILITY ....

At NORTHEAST HEALTH'S SAMARITAN HOSPITAL .....

In Troy, New York ....

And so .....

THIS THREAD ....

To talk about that CONTINUED INTIMIDATION ...

And the CONTINUED THREAT .....

Of that March 31, 2005 federal court decision ...

TO US .....

In OUR community up here ...

And so .....

And before I continue on here ....

With this PRAYER FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ......

That was filed ......

By the PLAINTIFF in this matter ....

A disabled American veteran ....

With the Federal District Court .....

For the Northern District of New York ......

In response ....

To this Marguerite Conan letter above here ......

Let's make something completely clear ....

Let us not mince words .....

THIS "PSYCHIATRIC TAKEDOWN" .....

That we are discussing in here .....

IS A WEAPON .....

In the hands ....

Of the political "structure" ......

Up here in the State of New York .....

TO BE USED ...

AGAINST US .....

AMERICAN CITIZENS .....

LIKE A GOAD .....

OR BULL PROD .......

IS TO BE USED .....

AGAINST CITIZENS .....

WHO SPEAK OUT .....

IN OTHER LANDS .....

WHERE POLITICAL REPRESSION ......

IS THE NORM ....

And in this case ......

THE MOTION .....

OR PRAYER ....

FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF .....

That PLAINTIFF filed with the Federal District Court .....

For the Northern District of New York .....

Prayed the Court .....

To remove that weapon ....

FROM THOSE HANDS .....

AND FROM OUR LIVES .....

AND THE FEDERAL COURT .....

REFUSED TO DO THAT .....

INSTEAD .....

WHAT THE FEDERAL COURT DID .....

WAS TO RE-LOAD THAT WEAPON .....

AND PRIME IT ...

AND COCK IT .....

AND THEN .....

PUT IT BACK ....

IN THE HANDS ....

THAT WILL USE IT AGAIN ....

AGAINST US ....

AMERICAN CITIZENS .....

AS A TOOL ...

OR INSTRUMENT .....

OF A REPRESSIVE "STATE POLICY" .....

AND THIS TIME ....

THE FEDERAL COURT .....

HAS HANDED THOSE ...

WHO WOULD USE THIS WEAPON .....

AGAINST US ....

A FEDERAL "LICENSE" .....

A FEDERAL "HUNTING LICENSE" .....

AS IT WERE .....

TO USE THAT WEAPON ...

AGAINST US .....

AMERICAN CITIZENS .....

WITH IMPUNITY ....

AND COMPLETE IMMUNITY ....

FROM THE LAW ....

AS IT IS WRITTEN .....

HERE .....

IN OUR AMERICA .....

In refusing to consider this motion ....

WHAT THE FEDERAL COURT HAS DONE .....

IS TO PAINT TARGETS .....

ON OUR FACES .....

AND TO INVITE ....

ALL THOSE ...

WHO LIKE JEFFREY PELLETIER .....

HAVE "POLITICAL PROTECTION" .....

HERE IN OUR AMERICA ....

TO COME ....

AND SMASH ....

THAT BULL'S-EYE IN .......

As if we were in Nazi Germany ...

Wearing yellow badges .....

On our clothing .....

To identify us .....

As ready VICTIMS ....

For the howling mobs .....

And so ....

Each day ...

That this matter continues ...

Unresolved .....

WITH THAT WEAPON ....

STILL POINTING ....

AT OUR FACES .....

IS TO US .....

ONE MORE DAY ....

THAT THIS OFFENSE ....

AGAINST US ....

AND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ...

AS THEY ARE SPELLED OUT .....

IN THE NEW YORK STATE ...

AND UNITED STATES ....

CONSTITUTIONS ....

CONTINUES .....

And so ....

This thread .....

And so .....

"WHILE BRAATEN COMPLETED A PICK-UP ORDER FOR THE STATE POLICE TO DETAIN AND TRANSPORT PLAINTIFF TO THE SAMARITAN MENTAL FACILITY, HE WAS NEVER TRANSPORTED OR DETAINED AT SAMARITAN."

- Footnote #9 to March 31, 2005 Decision of Federal District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe Under Discussion herein

OCTOBER 20, 1992 - EXAMINATION OF DR. LAWRENCE C. KOLB, M.D. by REPUBLICAN RENSSELAER COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT A. SMITH, ESQUIRE, continued

SMITH: And what was the basis for your estimate of that personal make-up?

KOLB: Well, I had taken his history, I had taken a developed mental history on both his early life and his life at home and the way he was raised .....

THE WAY DOCTORS GET A GENERAL IDEA OF PERSONALITY ....

SMITH: And when did you form that particular conclusion that he was accepting of direction of others?

KOLB: I formed it when I first saw him and again when I listened to his account of how he did his work .....

SMITH: SO IT WAS HIS ACCOUNT OF HOW HE DID HIS WORK AND HIS APPEARANCE BEFORE YOU THAT LED TO THAT CONCLUSION?

KOLB: Yes .....

SMITH: THERE WASN'T ANY INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION OF THAT?

KOLB: NO, IT WAS A PSYCHOLOGICAL OPINION, PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT .....

STIPULATION:

A material condition, requirement, or article in an agreement ......

The name given to any agreement made by the attorneys engaged on opposite sides of a cause (ESPECIALLY IF IN WRITING) regulating any matter incidental to the proceedings or trial, which falls within their jurisdiction.

Voluntary agreement between opposing council concerning disposition OF SOME RELEVANT POINT SO AS TO OBVIATE NEED FOR PROOF OR TO NARROW RANGE OF LITIGABLE ISSUES ......

AN AGREEMENT, ADMISSION OR CONFESSION MADE IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING BY THE PARTIES THERETO OR THEIR ATTORNEYS .......

SUCH ARE EVIDENTIARY DEVICES USED TO SIMPLIFY AND EXPEDITE TRIALS BY DISPENSING WITH THE NEED TO PROVE FORMALLY UNCONTESTED FACTUAL ISSUES .......

- Black's Law Dictionary

TRAVESTY:

A DEBASED, DISTORTED, OR GROSSLY INFERIOR IMITATION .....

AS IN TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE ....

- Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary

"Livyjr, I'm still trying to understand the gist of this July 29, 2004 letter from this Marguerite Conan to the PLAINTIFF, specifically, why a case from the State of New York would be transferred to a judge from Louisiana, which not only has a completely different body of law from that which exists in the State of New York, but also is over one thousand miles away, which would seem to preclude the PLAINTIFF from having his day in court, when the court is so far distant away from him, and so, can you shed any further light on this issue, for me, thank you?"

And yes .....

We wonder about that, too .....

Quite often, actually ....

And so, yesterday ....

I went and dug out a copy of what was called the REFERRAL ORDER .....

Transferring this matter over to this Judge from Louisiana .....

Which was date-stamped on May 11, 2004 ....

About two months BEFORE PLAINTIFF sent the judge from Louisiana his July 15, 2004 letter we have been citing from in here ..........

And what that REFERRAL ORDER says is as follows:

Due to the number of motions now pending in the Northern District of New York, the SECOND CIRCUIT COUNCIL has authorized the HON. DONALD E. WALTER to sit by designation in the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK from MAY 1, 2004, THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2004.

The Order was signed by Hon. Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., Chief U.S. District Judge ......

ON MAY 11, 2004 ....

TEN (10) DAYS AFTER THAT JUDGE FROM LOUISIANA ....

HAD BEEN DESIGNATED ....

TO SIT IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

BY THE SECOND CIRCUIT COUNCIL ......

WHEREVER .....

AND WHATEVER ...

THAT IN FACT MIGHT BE ....

And only one other case besides the PLAINTIFF's was transferred over to this judge from Louisiana ......

WHO THE PLAINTIFF NEVER HEARD A WORD FROM, PERIOD ......

AS IF HE NEVER EXISTED .....

Which is what prompted the PLAINTIFF, two months later, to send his letter on July 15, 2004 that we have been quoting from in here .....

And shortly after PLAINTIFF sent that letter .....

Which was apparently intercepted by this Randolph Treece .....

And sent over to this lawyer for the court, Marguerite Conan ....

Instead of to the Judge from Louisiana .....

Who the case had been assigned to, for "DISPOSITION BY TRIAL AND/OR MOTION" ......

The PLAINTIFF learned from this Marguerite Conan of the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM ....

ON JULY 29, 2004 .....

THREE (3) MONTHS BEFORE THIS LOUISIANA JUDGE'S TENURE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WAS SET TO EXPIRE ......

That for some unexplained reason .....

The case had been taken back away from him .....

And apparently reassigned ......

Back to Judge Hurd ....

WHO HAD RULED ...

IN A SIMILAR CASE .....

IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

IN 2002 ......

Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services et al., 234 F.Supp.2d 140, 169 (NDNY 2002) .....

THAT A VERY SIMILAR SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES .....

TO THOSE COMPLAINED OF ...

IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ....

CONSTITUTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW ....

WHICH IS WHAT RENSSELAER COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT JUDGE HON. PATRICK McGRATH .....

FOUND ON JULY 13, 2004, AS WELL .....

Where in 2002 .....

Judge Hurd had held .....

"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!" .....

Judge McGrath held .....

That it also violated state and federal criminal statutes .....

And so ....

THAT IS WHAT TRIGGERED THIS EXCHANGE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF .....

AND THE FEDERAL JUDGE FROM LOUISIANA .....

WHO WAS NEVER SEEN OR HEARD FROM ....

BY ANY OF US UP HERE .....

AND WHETHER THAT IS WHAT CAUSED CHIEF JUDGE SCULLIN .....

OR MARGUERITE CONAN ......

OR WHOMEVER .....

TO PULL THIS CASE BACK AWAY FROM THAT LOUISIANA JUDGE .....

WE JUST DON'T KNOW .....

IN HER LETTER TO PLAINTIFF .....

THIS MARGUERITE CONAN SAYS:

As you know, shortly after your letter was received, this matter was returned from Judge Walter to the original District Judge and Magistrate Judge assigned to this case, Docket No. 78.

BUT THAT IS NOT EXACTLY TRUE .....

SINCE PLAINTIFF WAS JUST LEARNING FROM HER ...

THAT THIS HAD HAPPENED ...

And so ......

ALL THE FEDERAL COURT DID .....

FROM THE TIME THAT THIS CASE WAS FILED .....

WITH THE FEDERAL COURT ...

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ....

WAS TO BOUNCE THIS CASE AROUND ...

LIKE A LITTLE RUBBER BALL ...

NOW IT'S HERE ...

WHOOPS ...

OH, NOW IT'S OVER THERE ...

NO, IT'S NOT ...

NOW IT'S BACK OVER HERE AGAIN ...

OH, HOW ABOUT THAT ...

NOW IT'S SOMEWHERE ELSE ....

OH, NO ...

IT'S NOT, REALLY ....

IT'S BACK HERE AGAIN ....

And so ...

And to make matters even more confusing .....

Attached to the same REFERRAL ORDER .....

TRANSFERRING THE MATTER TO JUDGE WALTER .....

WAS AN ORDER ....

SIGNED ALSO BY JUDGE SCULLIN ....

REASSIGNING THE CASE ....

TO A "VISITING JUDGE STROM FOR DISPOSITION BY TRIAL OR MOTION" .....

And so .....

IT'S A MOCKERY .....

A TRAVESTY ....

A REAL, LIVE DEBASED, DISTORTED, OR GROSSLY INFERIOR IMITATION .....

OF WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT .....

A CIVIL RIGHTS PROCEEDING .....

IN A REAL FEDERAL COURT TO BE ....

BEFORE GEORGE W. BUSH CONVERTED THEM .....

INTO SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT .....

SOMETHING OBSCENE .....

TO LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZENS ....

SUCH AS US UP HERE .....

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

And so ......

This thread .....

To talk about it .....

And so ....

Federal question jurisdiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal question jurisdiction is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect.

However, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the newly created federal courts to hear such cases, it initially chose not to allow the lower federal courts to possess federal question jurisdiction for fear that it would make the courts too powerful.

The Federalists briefly created such jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1801, but it was repealed the following year, and not restored until 1885.

The statute is now found at 28 U.S.C. § 1331:

"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

Unlike diversity jurisdiction, which is based on the parties coming from different states, federal question jurisdiction no longer has any amount in controversy requirement - Congress eliminated this requirement in actions against the United States in 1976, and in all federal question cases in 1980.

Therefore, a federal court can hear a federal question case even if no money is sought by the plaintiff.

To meet the requirement of a case "arising under" federal law, the federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's complaint.

There has been considerable dispute over what constitutes a "federal question" in these circumstances, but it is now settled law that the plaintiff cannot seek the jurisdiction of a federal court merely because it anticipates that the defendant is going to raise a defense based on the Constitution, or on a federal statute.

This "well-pleaded complaint" rule has been criticized by legal scholars, but Congress has so far chosen not to change the law, although the Supreme Court has made clear it is free to do so.

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_q...on_jurisdiction

UNDERSTANDING THE FEDERAL COURTS

Before a federal court can hear a case, or "exercise its jurisdiction," certain conditions must be met.

First, under the Constitution, federal courts exercise only "judicial" powers.

This means that federal judges may interpret the law only through the resolution of actual legal disputes, referred to in Article III of the Constitution as "Cases or Controversies."

A court cannot attempt to correct a problem on its own initiative, or to answer a hypothetical legal question.

Second, assuming there is an actual case or controversy, the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit also must have legal "standing" to ask the court for a decision.

That means the plaintiff must have been aggrieved, or legally harmed in some way, by the defendant.

Third, the case must present a category of dispute that the law in question was designed to address, and it must be a complaint that the court has the power to remedy.

In other words, the court must be authorized, under the Constitution or a federal law, to hear the case and grant appropriate relief to the plaintiff.

Finally, the case cannot be "moot," that is, it must present an ongoing problem for the court to resolve.

The federal courts, thus, are courts of "limited" jurisdiction because they may only decide certain types of cases as provided by Congress or as identified in the Constitution.

Although the details of the complex web of federal jurisdiction that Congress has given the federal courts is beyond the scope of this brief guide, it is important to understand that there are two main sources of the cases coming before the federal courts: "federal question" jurisdiction, and "diversity" jurisdiction.

In general, federal courts may decide cases that involve the United States government, the United States Constitution or federal laws, or controversies between states or between the United States and foreign governments.

A case that raises such a "federal question" may be filed in federal court.

Examples of such cases might include a claim by an individual for entitlement to money under a federal government program such as Social Security, a claim by the government that someone has violated federal laws, or a challenge to actions taken by a federal agency.

A case also may be filed in federal court based on the "diversity of citizenship" of the litigants, such as between citizens of different states, or between United States citizens and those of another country.

To ensure fairness to the out-of-state litigant, the Constitution provides that such cases may be heard in a federal court.

An important limit to diversity jurisdiction is that only cases involving more than $75,000 in potential damages may be filed in a federal court.

Claims below that amount may only be pursued in state court.

Moreover, any diversity jurisdiction case regardless of the amount of money involved may be brought in a state court rather than a federal court.

Federal courts also have jurisdiction over all bankruptcy matters, which Congress has determined should be addressed in federal courts rather than the state courts.

Through the bankruptcy process, individuals or businesses that can no longer pay their creditors may either seek a court-supervised liquidation of their assets, or they may reorganize their financial affairs and work out a plan to pay off their debts.

Although federal courts are located in every state, they are not the only forum available to potential litigants.

In fact, the great majority of legal disputes in American courts are addressed in the separate state court systems.

For example, state courts have jurisdiction over virtually all divorce and child custody matters, probate and inheritance issues, real estate questions, and juvenile matters, and they handle most criminal cases, contract disputes, traffic violations, and personal injury cases.

In addition, certain categories of legal disputes may be resolved in special courts or entities that are part of the federal executive or legislative branches, and by state and federal administrative agencies.

http://www.www.uscourts.gov/understand03/content_4_0.html

"Livyjr, you seem to have an understanding of what this above reader was talking about when they made that statement above about Louisiana having a completely different body of law from that which exists in the State of New York; could you address that issue more fully, please?"

Well ...

Here is a question, indeed .....

And it goes to this issue of DUAL CITIZENSHIP ....

That is inherent in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States constitution .....

AS CAST AGAINST ......

THE ISSUE .....

OF THE "FEDERAL QUESTION" .....

As a prerequisite .....

To STANDING .....

In a federal district court .....

Here in OUR America ....

ESSENTIALLY ....

YOU ARE ALWAYS .....

A "CITIZEN" ......

OF THE STATE THAT YOU ARE IN .....

ENTITLED .....

TO THE PROTECTIONS ....

AFFORDED TO CITZENS ....

OF THAT STATE ....

BY ITS LAW ...

AND CONSTITUTION ....

AND HERE ...

THERE ARE HUGE DIFFERENCES .....

IN INTERPRETATION .....

OF THE RIGHTS ....

OF STATE CITIZENS ....

BETWEEN THE TWO .....

LOUISIANA ....

AND NEW YORK ....

LOUISIANA .....

WAS FRENCH .....

AND HAS PARISH LAW ....

WHICH IS UNIQUE TO LOUISIANA ....

LOUISIANA .....

LIKE OTHER STATES IN THE UNION ....

WAS FOR SLAVERY ...

THROUGH THE WAR OF THE REBELLION ....

OR SO ....

AND SO ....

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

WHICH LEGALLY ABOLISHED SLAVERY .....

IN 1827 .....

THE LAWS OF LOUISIANA .....

LOOK DIFFERENTLY ....

UPON THE QUESTION ....

OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN ....

THAN DO THOSE ....

OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ...

UNDER ITS OWN CONSTITUTION ....

WHICH DATES BACK ....

TO INDEPENDENCE FROM ENGLAND ....

WHICH GIVES IT A DIFFERENT SLANT .....

AND HISTORY ....

THAN LOUISIANA ....

WHICH WAS PURCHASED FROM FRANCE ....

LONG AFTER INDEPENDENCE ....

FROM ENGLISH TYRANNY HAD BEEN WON .....

And so ....

LAWS AND HISTORY BEING INTERTWINED AS THEY ARE ...

IN TERMS OF INTERPRETATIONS GIVEN .....

BASED UPON PRECEDENTS FORMED .....

IN ONE STATE VERSUS ANOTHER ....

TO US, IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

HAVING OUR RIGHTS UP HERE ...

AS CITIZENS OF STATE OF NEW YORK ....

JUDGED BY STANDARDS EMPLOYED DOWN IN LOUISIANA ....

WOULD CONSTITUTE AN EROSION OF OUR LIBERTY INTERESTS .....

WHICH ARE DETERMINED ....

BY THE CONSTITUTION ....

AND LAWS ....

OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ...

AND NOT THOSE ...

OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA ....

And so ...

And subjecting someone down in Louisiana .....

To an interpretation ....

Of their rights down there .....

According to New York law ....

Would be a similar invasion on their rights .....

By the federal court ......

And so .....