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 Plante, 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.

Among the evidence which Judge McGrath relied upon in forming his conclusion of violation of federal and state criminal codes was a graphic video tape wherein one of the defendants can be seen physically assaulting and threatening the Plaintiff, and causing him bodily harm, to deter him from performing the duties of a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York, and a March 16, 1989 Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation which is at the very heart of this matter of OUR right to dissent, and to petition for redress of grievance, which apparently has just been stripped from us common citizens in the Northern District of New York by Bush-appointee Sharpe on March 31, 2005.

In that March 16, 1989 Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was before Judge Sharpe in the Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief as Exhibit J, a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, based upon a review of substantial evidence, concluded:

"According to [name deleted], the results of the State's investigation were that New York State laws were not being followed by the Rensselaer County Health Department, Rensselaer County laws were not being followed by the Rensselaer County Health Department, and there was very little 'enforcement activity' even in the face of illegal sales."

"According to [name deleted], the object of any county health department (in the state of New York) is to protect the public, and not to facilitate developers, or development."

"In the case of Rensselaer County, it appears that the Rensselaer County Health Department was in business to facilitate developers and development rather than to protect the public!"

It was that last statement by this F.B.I. Special Agent in March of 1989 that set in motion the very chain of causality which has brought us up to this present moment in time in the Northern District of New York, where this Sua Sponte Dismissal of this Federal Civil Rights lawsuit and Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief by Federal District Court on March 31, 2005, now seriously jeopardizes the rights of all citizens in the Northern District of New York by removing from them the services of the licensed professional engineer whose expert witness testimony they would need to file a Petition for Redress of Grievance with the courts of the State of New York alleging a continuation of this same negligence by the State of New York and Rensselaer County Department of Health to this day.

In the State of New York, for a common citizen to file a Petition for Redress of Grievance with the courts of the state, where negligence by the state, or one of its political subdivisions is alleged, it is necessary to have expert witness testimony which supports the claim, otherwise the petition will be dismissed as frivolous, which can then result in sanctions being issued by the court.

By intimidating those few licensed engineers in the State of New York who are qualified to serve as expert witnesses in court against the State of New York, and its political subdivisions, through this illegal device of the "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN", the State of New York has effectively muzzled each and every one of us common citizens here in the Northern District of New York, since without this expert witness testimony, we are simply OUT OF COURT, forever, with no way back in, and the government corruption in the County of Rensselaer and the State of New York that was outlined in that series of F.B.I Reports annexed to the now-dismissed Motion for Injunctive Relief can now flourish with impunity!

The apparent sanctioning of this alleged illegal activity by the State of New York, and its political subdivisions, the County of Rensselaer, and the Town of Poestenkill, by the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York as of March 31, 2005 now sends a very chilling message indeed to the residents of the Northern District of New York, to wit: "KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT, OR YOU WILL BE NEXT!"

And so, that sucking sound we hear up here is the protection of law going right out the window, and that clanging sound we hear is the massive door of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York slamming shut in OUR faces!

And so it goes, here in the Northern District of New York, for the constitutional right of the common man, and woman in the State of New York to redress of grievance, and the right to dissent against corrupt governmental activities in the State of New York, and its political subdivisions that adversely impact the public health, safety, and well-being of those of us in the State of New York who also reside in the Northern District as it is defined by the United States government!

Going, going, gone!

As of March 31, 2005!

It is not often, at least in my own experience of things, that we, the common folks here in America, really get to take a hard look at what goes on behind the scenes in this world of law, because generally, there is simply no transparency, whatsoever!

Yes, if we are diligent, we can go to a local county law library, where we may find some records and briefs to study, or we may go to the County Clerk's Office and find similar records, but all of that presumes an a priori, that we know what we are looking for in the first place, and that is not always so, especially, if like this case above, there has been absolutely no media coverage whatsoever, nor is there likely to be, outside of here, in this forum, and in this thread!

And that brings me, for this moment, anyway, to this subject of "DISSENT", WHICH TO ME, as a citizen of the United States who is a disabled combat veteran, and thus, one who put his own life on the line to protect and defend OUR CONSTITUTION from enemies both foreign AND domestic, and hence, OUR rights to petition OUR government for redress of grievance, IS AT THE HEART OF THIS MATTER, and thus, warrants us taking the time to have this discussion in here on this subject above, which has right now a very chilling effect on those of us here in the State of New York who are sick to death of the corruption up here, but are seemingly helpless to do a thing about it, thanks in part to this decision, and the actions of those in the State of New York, STARTING WITH Attorney General Eliot Spitzer himself, who served to make it be so.

WHAT IS DISSENT, ANYWAY?

Just some guy out there who "don't like nothing, at all", and so, is always complaining?

Or is DISSENT something different?

And without DISSENT, would OUR America have ever come into existence in the first place?

According to Black's Law Dictionary, which is the standard that I personally always refer to in these matters of citizenship and the law, we have for DISSENT as follows, in its most simple form, as is appropriate to the issues before us in this above matter:

"REFUSAL TO AGREE WITH AN ACT PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED!"

In this case, of course, those "ACTS" that we, the citizens of Rensselaer County and the State of New York REFUSED TO AGREE WITH are clearly delineated and outlined in that March 16, 1989 Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was before Judge Sharpe in the Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief as Exhibit J in the above matter, where a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, based upon a review of substantial evidence, concluded as follows, ON THE RECORD:

"According to New York State Health Commissioner Dr. David Axelrod, the results of the State's investigation were that New York State laws were not being followed by the Rensselaer County Health Department, Rensselaer County laws were not being followed by the Rensselaer County Health Department, and there was very little 'enforcement activity' even in the face of illegal sales."

"According to New York State Health Commissioner Dr. David Axelrod, the object of any county health department (in the state of New York) is to protect the public, and not to facilitate developers, or development."

"In the case of Rensselaer County, it appears that the Rensselaer County Health Department was in business to facilitate developers and development rather than to protect the public!"

end quotes

The Rensselaer County Department of Health was in business to facilitate developers and development, RATHER THAN TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC!

Well, so what?

Yes, so what!

Or at least that is what I have heard many people say, over time, BECAUSE ...

In the State of New York, at least, corruption has been with us so long that it is just WHAT IS!

People accept it, and then, they wallow in it, actually, like pigs in mud, because it is there!

"Go along to get along" is the operative saying up here, for those who would get ahead in politics, and it means exactly what it says, as this case so aptly points out to all of us common citizens who had pinned our hopes for reform of OUR government up here on this one case, where the evidence was so meticulously gathered, and then coherently collated so as to present an unbroken chain of causality running from at least 1979 to the present time, where corruption in Rensselaer County AND the State of New York was not merely alleged, or complained about, by common citizens, but was confirmed by no less an investigative body than the F.B.I., itself.

An on-going course of conduct that is corruption!

That is what the record in this matter clearly demonstrated, and for once, we, the people, had acting for US an individual WITH the professional credentials to back up all of OUR allegations, AT NO COST TO US, other than OUR own diligence!

And then 8-22 happened, WHEN THE ILLEGAL "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN" OF OUR EXPERT WITNESS "WENT DOWN", and with it, all of that hope for reform came crashing right down in OUR faces, and with this March 31, 2005 Decision of Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York that essentially puts a lock and seal on OUR use of this F.B.I. evidence IN OUR FAVOR in any further court proceedings in connection with this alleged continuing corruption, as dissenters to OUR County Health Department failing to protect OUR health, safety and well-being, as it is charged to do by the laws of the State of New York, we are now apparently bereft of protection of law up here, which to me, a student of these matters, IS PART AND PARCEL OF this Republican scheme to enact "tort reform" by the vehicle of intimidation of and extortion of silence from the experts that we, the people, need to rely upon in order to survive motions for dismissal on the grounds from the state actor defendants that our claims are FRIVOLOUS!

Hence this thread!

Hence this continuing discussion, and dissection of this case, for what it is worth to the candid world WHO DOES NOT LIVE here in the State of New York, and so, may not themselves be affected by the lack of justice and equal protection of law that we common citizens must live with up here!

For an independent look at the state of what purports to be "justice" in the County of Rensselaer, in the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York, click on this URL now:

http://www.justicenow4.com

And for an independent look at the subject of INTIMIDATION of expert witnesses in OUR America who dare to stand up for the rights of the common man and woman in a court of law, click on this URL, and scan the contents, especially including the STATEMENT OF MISSION of that organization, AND THE FORUMS, including MISCELLANEOUS, where more information on this specific case can be found:

http://www.ccemt.org/forumviewmessage.cfm?...cussionnbr=4725

AND for a "look" at how some states, other than the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York view this quite serious subject of intimidation of expert witnesses, we have from the State of New Jersey as follows:

The recently passed "New Jersey Medical Care Access and Responsibility and Patients First Act" C.2A:53A-37 amending N.J.S.2A:14 contains a provision regarding civil penalties for what is characterized as "retaliatory action" against an expert witness.

The actual wording of the provision relating to expert witness "retaliation" in section 7 (C.2A:53A-26 et seq) is:

"An individual or entity who threatens to take or takes adverse action against a person in retaliation for that person providing or agreeing to provide expert testimony, or for that person executing an affidavit pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1995, c.139 (C.2A:53A-26 et seq.), which adverse action relates to that person's employment, accreditation, certification, credentialing, or licensure, shall be liable to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 and other damages incurred by the person and the party for whom the person was testifying as an expert."

And way back when, in the opening days of this forum, right after the November 2004 elections, to be exact, I was reading a book entitled "The Power of Many" by Christian Crumlish, who himself had experience with the use of the internet as a real professional "tool" for communications among separate and disparate groups of people in the world during the Dean Campaign, and a point he made to me in that book was that on the internet, where none of us are in any sense of the word "real", i.e.: having discernable physical features that can be "read" by another, IT WILL BE HOW WE TREAT OUR SUBJECT MATTER, that we will be judged in here, and so, with that thought in mind, I want to "introduce" myself as the "relator", or "narrator" in here, so that any biases or prejudices that I might have with respect to any of the subject matter in here are clearly "out there in the open", which is another point that I took from the Crumlish book: if you are acting out of devious means, people will know in a hurry, AND ......

Everyone has a viewpoint!

Just make it clear up front what yours is, and it's a downhill run to Bothaquay Bay from there!

SO!

Here are mine, biases and/or prejudices, AND interests in the matter, or perspective, perhaps, as the "relator", or "narrator", all succinctly stated for the candid world to see in this e-mail letter from myself to Senator John Kerry sometime around the time of the Democratic National Convention!

In here, in this thread, I am the person who wrote this e-mail to Senator Kerry, who is now, months later in time, relating to the candid world where matters in the State of New York have evolved to since this e-mail was in fact sent to Senator Kerry, by myself, with the result that Eliot Spitzer DID NOT speak at the convention, AS WAS REQUESTED BY MYSELF, as a disabled veteran, OF Senator Kerry, ON BEHALF OF the interests of ALL disabled veterans in OUR America:

Dear Mr. Kerry:

I am an honorably-discharged, twice-wounded, fully disabled Viet Nam war veteran who is a life member of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the D.A.V., the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Tri-County Viet Nam Veterans in the Albany, New York area.

In that capacity, as an honorably-discharged, fully disabled Viet Nam combat veteran, I am asking you personally on behalf of all other disabled veterans in this area of the State of New York who must rely upon the integrity of the medical health and public health fields in the State of New York to not allow New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer an opportunity to speak at the podium of the Democratic National Convention on the grounds that he is pandering to partisan political interests in the State of New York by countencing blatant acts of discrimination against a disabled veteran in the State of New York who has been working to expose corruption in county government in the capital district area of State of New York.

Presently, Mr. Kerry, as this appeal is being written to you personally in this community forum, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is actively engaged in defending in Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York what can only be termed blatant acts of discrimination and retaliation against this disabled Viet Nam veteran in New York State by Republicans in the State of New York who wish to permanently suppress this individual and his testimony to the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning Hobbs Act corruption involving Republicans in the Capital District area of the State of New York.

To stifle that testimony and evidence, in August of 2001, in the weeks before 9-11, as the record shows, this disabled veteran was the victim of what has become known in the Albany, New York area of the State of New York, as a "psychiatric takedown".

A "psychiatric takedown" is a defensive political manuver by which the Republicans in the capital district area of New York State have a witness against them removed by the vehicle of having a "pet doctor" sign a psychiatric arrest warrant for the individual which directs the New York State Police to take the individual into custody and transport them to the secure mental health facility of a local hospital, for psychiatric "care and treatment".

In this manner, the witness is removed, their crediblity is destroyed and their effectiveness as professional witnesses on behalf of the public health of the community is robbed forever.

In this case, the victim, in addition to being a disabled veteran, was also the local public health engineer, who had previously been commended in writing for his integrity by the New York State health Commissioner.

In March of 1989, based upon an investigation conducted by this local public health engineer, the State Health Commissioner, a well-respected medical doctor named David Axelrod, declared that the public health and environment in our county was threatened by an inordinate amount of sewage system failures which were the legacy of ten years worth of negligence in the Environmental Health Division of the State Health Department itself.

A March 1989 Federal Bureau of Investigation report confirmed these findings by Dr. Axelrod, and further noted that the Republicans in charge of the county had no intention of cleaning up the corruption, and that to cover matters over after the Axelrod Report, the Republicans had removed the public health engineer from his position on grounds that his Viet Nam combat service had rendered him a threat to society.

Thus, ten years of corruption in the environmental health programs of the state public health services in the Capital District area of the State of New York was covered over as if it had never existed, and thus, has flourished up until this time.

In August of 2001, to prevent this same individual from coming forth with videotape evidence demonstrating that these corrupt public health practices have flourished to this day in the capital district area of the State of New York, the Republicans attempted a "pshchiatric takedown", and the result has been disastrous for this individual personally, and all fully disabled veterans who would rely upon this individual for his integrity and expertise in the public health field to boot.

Presently, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, by and through his New York State Department of Law, is defending the actions of a New York State Veterans' Service officer who made alleged false statements to the Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York in connection with the false arrest of this honorably-discharged, decorated veteran on mental health grounds.

Because of those false statements, which are still being defended by Eliot Spitzer at this time in the State of New York, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary in his possession, including a graphic videotape portrayal of a violent physical assault on this individual intended to deter him from appearing in court in connection with the matter, this disabled veteran has been branded in the State of New York as a dangerous mental patient with no opportunity afforded him whatsoever at due process to either confront or combat this theft of this person's real identity as an honorable professional person of good standing in the community.

In the face of all of this, which is known to the veterans' community in capital district area of the State of New York, to then allow Eliot Spitzer to stand up at your side and speak at the Democratic National Convention would be an abomination, a travesty, as far as the protection of the rights of the disabled to equal protection of law goes, and well as the public health protection of the disabled veteran population of the State of New York.

For the disabled veterans population of this area, from a civil rights and equal protection of law for the disabled perspective, having Eliot Spitzer standing by your side at the Democratic National Convention would be just like having George W. Bush or George Pataki themselves standing there.

It would make a mockery of all of your promises to the disabled veterans of America to help us have dignity in our own communities, despite our combat-related disabilities, equal to that enjoyed by Max Cleland in his own community in the United States.

Help us prove to America that despite our disabilities, which are often disfiguring, or totally disabling as far as being effective in modern society, that disabled combat veterans are citizens of America too, and that despite our disabilities, we deserve the protection of law in America too.

Help us make this point by keeping Eliot Spitzer off the podium at the DNC.

Thank you on behalf of the disabled veterans of the Capital District area of the State of New York in the United States of America for considering this request.

I remain, sincerely and respectfully, a patriotic disabled American veteran.

Livyjr

Huh ?

Can someone translate the issue to english ? I'm having a hard time with lawerish...

In real simple terms, WE, some of the people of the State of New York who live in the County of Rensselaer are real sick of living in what has been determined to be a county in the State of New York with an alleged corrupt government!

Over the years, we have been trying to fight this alleged corruption, with varying degrees of success, because the alleged "FORCES OF CORRUPTION" are themselves capable of evolution to re-open, and forcibly so, seemingly any and all "venues of alleged corruption" that we are able to close!

For us, the citizens who are sick of corruption to be able to prevail in OUR efforts at having open responsible government in OUR towns, OUR county, and OUR state, we must have experts to verify our claims!

One of OUR experts was unlawfully "removed" from us by what we, the citizens, think was an act of state-sponsored terrorism, against us, or OUR interests anyway, on 8-22-01, WHERE the State of New York unlawfully BRANDED OUR expert as being a dangerous lunatic!

A County Court Judge reviewed this matter and stated an opinion that this alleged conduct by the State of New York against OUR interests appeared to violate Federal and State criminal law!

The Bush CONSERVATIVE in the Northern District of New York then said, in essence, back to OUR county court judge on March 31, 2005:

"Yeah, so what?"

"BIG DEAL!"

"SOD OFF!"

And that's where we are, pretty much now, in the matter, as of Sunday, April 3, 2005, FOUR DAYS AFTER the hammer fell!

We're OUT OF COURT, and corruption is now in the CAT-BIRD SEAT, and pretty firmly so, to be truthful, here, since we're out of court, and without a witness, thanks to this March 31, 2005 DECISION that is being discussed in here in what you are calling "lawyerly" language!

SO?

Simple enough?

And actually, what lawnorder is asking is really a necessary question, since this is, on its face, an issue with many "subleties" inherent in it, and without further "background", it might be hard to "dig" through the dry "legalese" to the heart of the matter, which is really one of state's rights, as much as anything, and that is why I decided to start this thread on what is really a NATIONAL FORUM.

"IS THERE ever any set of circumstances wherein a federal judge can sanction, in FEDERAL COURT, what are in reality, ACCORDING TO THE DOCTRINE OF LOCAL RULE, unlawful actions by state-actor defendants that strip a citizen of any state in the union of his or her rights under state law and Constitution with no due process of law afforded?"

Can Eliot Spitzer, the Attorney General of the State of New York, EVER use his office at any time to hinder prosecution of criminal matters?

YES, says the government!

SAY WHAT, say we, the citizens of the State of New York!

And there the matter does stand!

And anticipating lawnorder's next question, as to where this matter really does stand with respect to Eliot Spitzer himself, and the use of his "office" for alleged "political" purposes which are alleged to be against my interests in the State of New York, anyway, I would like to post as background this article from Bloomberg News which "fleshes" out the Spitzer "angle" a little more clearly, and in quite simple terms, to boot:

Friday, December 12, 2003:

"Fund-raiser nets Spitzer $2 million - luncheon for likely gubernatorial candidate attracts hedge fund managers, lawyers"

by Matthew Cox, Bloomberg News:

New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer collected more than $2 million at a political fund-raiser, with hedge fund managers and lawyers among the big donors, and said HE COULD ACCEPT CAMPAIGN FUNDS FROM THE INVESTMENT COMMUNITY WITHOUT COMPROMISING HIS ENFORCEMENT ROLE.

Spitzer, the leader of investigations into Wall Street conflicts of interest and mutual fund trading, has said he is interested in running for governor in 2006.

Though he hasn't officially declared his candidacy, Thursday's fund-raiser was Spitzer's biggest ever.

His investigations of "certain aspects of the securities market doesn't mean there can't be or shouldn't be contributions from anybody within that sector, any more than it would mean because we bring consumer-type cases, no consumer manufacturer could contribute," Spitzer told reporters.

He said his campaign committee has "a very careful vetting process" to avoid accepting gifts from donors under scrutiny by his office.

A Spitzer campaign aide who declined to be identified said hedge funds, lawyers AND THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY were among his LEADING SOURCES of campaign MONEY.

The luncheon at the Sheraton New York Hotel drew hedge fund manager Daniel Nir of Gracie Capital LP, who with his wife, Jill Braufman, donated $50,000 in June; Cablevision President James Dolan; Miramax Film Corp. co-chairman Harvey Weinstein, and Melvyn Weiss, one of several lawyer donors who has sued securities firms for investors based on Spitzer's investigations.

"There are a lot of hedge funds that have not been trading the way the naughty ones have," said Roy Smith, a professor of finance at New York University.

"THEY WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MR. SPITZER INVESTIGATE ALL THEIR COMPETITION that's been too aggressive."

Spitzer's investigative work "gives investors a sense that someone's keeping an eye on what's in their best interest," said donor George Fox, founder of Titan Advisors, a hedge fund consultant.

Cynthia Darrison, managing director of the Spitzer campaign committee, said that the event attended by nearly 700 people generated more than $2 million.

"This is meant as a preemptive strike" with 35 months to go until the election, said Douglas Muzzio, professor of public affairs at Baruch College in New York.

"He's saying 'I can raise huge amounts of money.'"

end quotes

Yes, he certainly can.

But by "selling" what?

Or "who", perhaps?

SO?

Can he?

AND WHAT IS THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY GETTING FOR ITS MONEY, from Eliot Spitzer?

The removal of OUR witness by alleged unlawful means?

There are far too many true American citizens who love America too much to see the beautiful nation destroyed. At worst, Bush may start a Civil War; at best, he'll never be able to silence every true, honest and decent American.

Good morning, Salute_Liberty!

Thank you for commenting.

As to your first statement, we must always continue to hope in our heart of hearts that it is so, and that it remains so, about the innate goodness and love of country of the average American.

The problem, here, and why I am bothering to take this time to run this thread, is that the average American, more and more, and especially by this particular case, is being marginalized, to the point of not having protection of law, or the hope of due process!

And that is a very dangerous scenario, indeed!

To us in this small area of the United States up here who are witnesses to this on-going situation, involving OUR collective rights to equal protection of the law, this incident has been dubbed OUR Krystallnact, where on 8-22-01, OUR rights were smashed into the ground, with impunity by the perpetrators, which was, what is alleged to be OUR own government.

What is alleged to be OUR government took OUR representative and attacked him in plain sight in broad daylight, for all to see, on videotape, and it has then held that over OUR heads as a threat since!

"SEE WHAT WE CAN DO!"

"WHO WANTS TO BE NEXT?"

OUR only hope from that time to this was in the Federal Courts, and that hope had a basis, in that Federal Law makes it clear that what occurred here in the Town of Poestenkill, in the County of Rensselaer, in the State of New York is blatantly illegal, which is consistent with the opinion rendered by Rensselaer County Criminal Court Justice McGrath!

Further, the original Federal Judge assigned to the case, Judge Hurd, had just ruled in 2002, in a very similar case in the Northern District of New York, where we are located, that this set of circumstances constituted violations of federal law.

That case was Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services et al., 234 F.Supp.2d 140 (NDNY 2002), where at 169, Judge Hurd stated as follows:

"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 that is exactly what happened in this case, our collective hopes were high that Rensselaer County would be delivered a similar stern message from the Federal Court, and so we would all collectively benefit by the scrutiny of the Federal Courts being focused on Rensselaer County, as it had been on Ulster County's practices by Judge Hurd.

Then, to OUR shock and dismay, the Chief Judge up here took the case away from Judge Hurd, and gave it over to this Judge Sharpe, who had just been appointed to the Federal bench by George W. Bush as one of his CONSERVATIVE judges, which did not at all bode well for us, AS THE PERPETRATORS in this case are REPUBLICANS.

Our fears were realized on March 31, 2005, with the Decision that came down from the Judge Sharpe, as it completely reverses the law as it had been stated by Judge Hurd, and it puts the imprimatur of the Federal Courts on this tactic of the State being able to destroy witnesses against it by the use of this expedient method of the "PSYCHIATRIC TAKEDOWN", where the state can simply now, with the apparent blessing of Judge Scullin, the Chief Judge up here, have one of its pet doctors, SIGHT UNSEEN, and contrary to Judge Hurd's ruling, ORDER an expert witness to be locked up in a secure mental health facility, WITH NO RECOURSE TO THE LAW!

Rhetorically speaking, who is going to chance that fate to defend the rights of a bunch of citizens without money or clout?

And there IS where we are!

Out in the cold by the side of the road, and running out of hope in the goodness of anything here in America anymore, and especially not its Federal Court system up here in the Northern District of New York, which may be on its way to being OUR GULAG ARCHIPELAGO, thanks to this very chilling ruling that does not bode well at all for OUR futures here in the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York!

SUA SPONTE: Of his, or its, own WILL OR MOTION, voluntarily, without prompting, or suggestion!

"THE GOVERNMENT DOES NO WRONG!"

"ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT THE GOVERMENT CAN DO WRONG, IS WRONG!"

"ANYONE WHO DARES TRY USE THE COURTS OF THE GOVERNMENT TO SHOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS WRONG SHALL FIND THEMSELVES SUBJECT TO THE CENSURE OF THE COURTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, FOR IMPUGNING THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH CAN DO NO WRONG!"

Ahhh.

Yes.

I see!

I understand!

SUA SPONTE!

Many thanks for the translations!

Before:

After:

And thank you, lawnorder, for your continued interest in what is admittedly a somewhat complicated story, due to all the various "twists and turns" it has taken, and the length of time that has transpired between some of those events, and the various "players" who are involved in various ways in what led up to March 31, 2005 and this Federal Court decision that has had a very chilling effect indeed on all of us up here in the Federal Northern District of New York who have staked quite a bit on the outcome of that proceeding.

As common people here in OUR America, we are taught to have respect for the law, which I do, and we are taught to obey the law, and most importantly, we are taught, or I was, anyway, THAT IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE!

And so .....

What then?

Then what do we do, as individuals?

All of us have to go to law school?

OR WHAT?

Maybe take the extra seventy or eighty GRAND that we all keep in our back pockets and hire us a fancy mouth-piece to keep us "un-ignorant"?

So each of us is going to be walking around, each with his or her own lawyer, or lawyerette, as the case may be, so that MY lawyer is mine and mine alone, and yours is yours?

Getting ridiculous, isn't it?

SO?

What do we do, when OUR rights are rapidly disappearing, in our towns and communities, and we are just average people, living in modest means?

QUIT?

It is an option, after all!

Or do we look to people like Abraham Lincoln, who learned the law himself, by reading it?

Which is what I and others like me up here where I am, have done, out of practical necessity; as we are in reality, nothing more than people of modest means, who are therefore without the money to BUY "clout" from the Eliot Spitzer's of the world, and the other predators and victimizers out there who would take OUR rights from us each day, and then sell them back to us; and yet despite OUR modest means, and OUR complete and total lack of "clout", we feel it definitely UN-AMERICAN to QUIT in the face of adversity, especially when that adversity is coming from OUR own Town Hall!

And having walked that path of learning the law as a layman, and therefore, knowing how complex the "law" can seem to one just starting out to "understand" how exactly it "works", I can definitely appreciate lawnorder's concerns with respect to understanding what I am talking about in here, and I once again want to thank lawnorder for stopping me in mid-stream, and asking me to make matters more comprehensible, which I shall endeavor to continue doing in here, and if it gets "thick" again, please ......

Let me know!

And part of "understanding" the "law" for us common citizens, here in OUR America, is understanding, or trying to, anyway, the relationship between "states", and "states rights" versus the REPUBLIC, or COMMONWEALTH of America, and its FEDERAL system of government!

EXACTLY WHO IS IN CHARGE?

And when?

If I live in New York state, and lawnorder, for example, does not, then do we have the same "rights"?

And that answer, on its surface, is NO, we do not!

Not automatically, anyway, and that is a necessary consideration that has to be taken into account in assessing the impact of the March 31, 2005 Federal Court decision at issue herein on those of us who do live and reside in New York state, and so are entitled to the protections and benefits of its laws and state Constitution, IN FEDERAL COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK!

And one of those state laws unique to New York State, the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE, is ARTICLE 460 of the New York State Penal Law, entitled ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION, which is itself part of TITLE X of the New York State Penal Law, entitled ORGANIZED CRIME CONTROL ACT, and the relevant part of that state law which pertains directly to this discussion as to how this March 31, 2005 Federal Court decision above has left us common citizens marooned in the STRAITS of DESPAIR, is as follows:

S 460.00 Legislative findings.

The legislature finds and determines as follows:

Organized crime in New York state involves highly sophisticated, complex and widespread forms of criminal activity.

The diversified illegal conduct engaged in by organized crime, rooted in the illegal use of force, fraud, and corruption, constitutes a major drain upon the state's economy, costs citizens and businesses of the state billions of dollars each year, and threatens the peace, security and general welfare of the people of the state.

Organized crime continues to expand its corrosive influence in the state through illegal enterprises engaged in such criminal endeavors as the theft and fencing of property, the importation and distribution of narcotics and other dangerous drugs, arson for profit, hijacking, labor racketeering, loansharking, extortion and bribery, the illegal disposal of hazardous wastes, syndicated gambling, trafficking in stolen securities, insurance and investment frauds, and other forms of economic and social exploitation.

The money and power derived by organized crime through its illegal enterprises and endeavors is increasingly being used to infiltrate and corrupt businesses, unions and other legitimate enterprises and to corrupt our democratic processes.

end quotes

SO!

THE MONEY AND POWER OF ORGANIZED CRIME, HERE IN NEW YORK STATE, IS BEING USED TO CORRUPT OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES HERE IN NEW YORK STATE!

How do I know this, besides the fact the the LEGISLATURE of the State has told me so?

My answer is:

HOW COULD YOU NOT KNOW?

How can you live in a state, or a county, or a town, and not know that YOUR OWN government is corrupt?

How can you live someplace, here in America, and not know that the "democratic processes" WHERE YOU LIVE, have been corrupted?

IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE TO NOT KNOW?

There is not caring, of course, and there is "denying", but "not knowing"?

Ahhh, but that is a philosophical question, isn't it, so, let's leave off with that blather, and get back to "BRASS TACKS" here:

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY ITS LAWS, CAN "GOVERMENT" ITSELF BE CONSIDERED AN ENTERPRISE THAT CAN BE "CORRUPT"?

And that is both a good and necessary question, so, let's find the answer, and quickly, as time is of the essence here!

From a quick perusal of S 460.10 of the New York State Penal Law, which does govern in this matter, despite the fact that it was before a Federal Judge, we have as follows from the "Definitions":

The following definitions are applicable to this article.

2. "Enterprise" means either an enterprise as defined in subdivision one of section 175.00 of this chapter or criminal enterprise as defined in subdivision three of this section.

And going over to Section 175 of the New York State Penal Law, we have:

ARTICLE 175 OFFENSES INVOLVING FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS

S 175.00 Definitions of terms.

The following definitions are applicable to this article:

1. "Enterprise" means any entity of one or more persons, corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business, commercial, professional, industrial, eleemosynary, social, political or governmental activity.

SO?

IF an "enterprise" in the State of New York means "any entity" of one or more persons, engaged in "POLITICAL or GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY", wouldn't that answer be YES?

WE, the PEOPLE, certainly thought so, and hence, in the light of the findings of the FBI in 1989 that the Rensselaer County Department of Health was violating state and local laws to "facilitate developers and development", at the expense of OUR PUBLIC HEALTH, we embarked on a course of conduct, WITHIN THE CONFINES AND BOUNDS of the law to win back integrity in OUR democratic processes in the COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, and quess what?

WE JUST LOST OUR BATTLE!

Hence this thread!

As our epitaph!

As I think about this thread, and why I am posting in here, in what is a national/international forum, and asking all of you who do come in here, to take of your own very valuable time to read about what appears, ON THE SURFACE, to be but a very local issue in one very small part of both America, and the world, I am forced to continually reconsider that rhetorical question, and that is a very good thing, I think, for it helps me to clarify my points better in my own mind, before I speak out in here, on what I think is a very important subject to all of us in here, and that is this question raised by "TEXAS TOMMY" Delay the other day about just WHO is really "OUT-OF-CONTROL", here in OUR America, right now, today, and exactly WHAT is a "conservative judge"?

For answers as to the first prong of that question, which then leads us over to the second prong, I went back into VOLUME I of Life in OUR America for this following article which concerns itself with the QUINTESSENTIALLY ETHICALLY-CHALLENGED REPUBLICAN, himself, none other than "TEXAS TOMMY" Delay, himself!

As you read this article, which is from November 18, 2004, right around the time the Motion for Injunctive Relief discussed above had been made, NOTE WELL the use of the pejorative term "CRACKPOT PROSECUTOR" by what are now known up here in the Northern District of New York since March 31, 2005, at the outside, as the TOMMY-ISTS, for reasons which will either become, or will be made, clear, shortly!

SO!

What's the NATIONAL ISSUE here, then, that warrants people from outside the COUNTY OF RENSSELAER in the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York taking of their very valuable time to study and consider the implications of this matter in YOUR OWN COMMUNITY?

SIMPLE!

RAMPANT, CREEPING TOMMY-ISM!

THIS IS THE BASE-LINE, for all of us, everywhere in OUR America!

It's definitely down there in TAY-HOSS, it's now up here in New York State, and likely, it's already in YOUR TOWN, TOO!

Read all about it:

"House G.O.P. Acts to Protect Chief" By CARL HULSE, NY Times

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - Spurred by an investigation connected to the majority leader, House Republicans voted Wednesday to abandon an 11-year-old party rule that required a member of their leadership to step aside temporarily if indicted.

Meeting behind closed doors, the lawmakers agreed that a party steering committee would review any indictments handed up against the majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, or any other members of the leadership team or committee chairmen, to determine if giving up a post was warranted.

The revision does not change the requirement that leaders step down if convicted.

The new rule was adopted by voice vote.

Its chief author, Representative Henry Bonilla of Texas, said later that only a handful of members had opposed it.

The Republicans' old rule was adopted in August 1993 to put a spotlight on the legal troubles of prominent Democrats.

Mr. Bonilla said revising it had been necessary to prevent politically inspired criminal investigations by "crackpot" prosecutors from determining the fate of top Republicans.

"Attorneys tell me you can be indicted for just about anything in this country, in any county or community," said Mr. Bonilla, an ally of Mr. DeLay.

"Sometimes district attorneys who might have partisan agendas or want to read their name in the paper could make a name for themselves by indicting a member of the leadership, regardless of who it may be, and therefore determine their future."

"And that's not right."

Mr. DeLay said he had not instigated the change.

But he applauded it nevertheless, saying it could deprive "political hacks" of an ability to influence the makeup of the Republican leadership.

Republican lawmakers "fixed the rules so that Democrats cannot use our rules against us," he said.

Mr. DeLay said he did not expect to be indicted, but added, "This has nothing to do with whether I was going to be or not going to be.''

The comments of Mr. DeLay and Mr. Bonilla were clearly directed at Ronnie Earle, the district attorney in Travis County, Tex., including Austin, who won indictments earlier this year against three political associates of the majority leader.

The investigation by Mr. Earle, a Democrat, involves charges of illegally using corporate money to help Republicans win state legislative races in 2002.

Those Republican victories in turn gave the state party enough legislative muscle to win redistricting changes that helped Congressional Republicans gain five additional seats in Texas on Nov. 2.

Despite the indictments of his associates, Mr. DeLay has not been called to testify, and Mr. Earle has not said whether the congressman is a target.

Not all Republicans agreed with Wednesday's rule change, which was adopted after some two and a half hours of debate.

"This is a mistake," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut.

When the Republicans gained control of the House in the elections of 1994, "we were going to be different,'' Mr. Shays said.

But "every time we start to water down what we did in '94," he said, "we are basically saying the revolution is losing its character."

Democrats and outside watchdogs bitterly criticized the change.

"Today Republicans sold their collective soul to maintain their grip on power," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip.

"They unabashedly abandoned any pretense of holding themselves to a high ethical standard, by deciding to ignore criminal indictments of their leaders as reason for removal from leadership posts in the Republican Party."

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a group that follows campaign finance issues, said:

"With this decision, we have gone from DeLay being judged by his peers to DeLay being judged by his buddies."

"It's an absurd and ludicrous new rule and an affront to the American people."

Republicans said Democrats had no standing to criticize them, since House Democratic rules have no provision to remove indicted party leaders, though they do require indicted committee chairmen to step aside.

The minority leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, said Wednesday that her party would quickly expand the provision to cover leadership posts as well.

"Republicans have reached a new low," Ms. Pelosi said.

"It is absolutely mind-boggling that as their first order of business following the elections, House Republicans have lowered the ethical standards for their leaders."

The change follows two admonitions that Mr. DeLay received from the bipartisan House ethics committee this fall, one involving a House floor vote, the other a fund-raiser.

Mr. DeLay has built strong loyalty in the House over the years by helping raise campaign money and paying close attention to the personal legislative interests of Republican lawmakers, and the ethics committee's action angered some of his supporters in the chamber.

Mr. DeLay and many other House Republicans have criticized Mr. Earle's inquiry as highly partisan.

"Ronnie Earle is trying to criminalize politics," Mr. DeLay said.

"I think that is wrong."

Mr. Earle, in a statement issued by his office, said the Republican rule change would have no effect on the continuing investigation.

But he added, "It should be alarming to the public to see their leaders substitute their judgment for that of the law enforcement process."

House Republicans did not dispute the idea that the change had been brought on by the events in Texas but said most of the majority's lawmakers had also concluded that the rule was simply unfair.

"In my sincere opinion, it only provoked the timing" of the change, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona said of the Texas inquiry.

"When you look at the rule, it is an outrageous rule."

The new rule says that upon the return of an indictment against a committee chairman, a subcommittee chairman or a party leader, a steering committee made up of House leaders other than the accused lawmaker will have 30 days to recommend to the full Republican conference "what action, if any, the conference shall take concerning said member."

Though the change had been a subject of discussion for the last week, it was not submitted by Mr. Bonilla until right before a Tuesday deadline that Republicans had set to offer proposals for rules in the new Congress.

Mr. Bonilla and others said the Republican conference, including many members elected only two weeks ago, had been insistent on the revision.

"It is the right thing to do," said Representative John Carter of Texas, a former judge.

While House Republicans were acting on the rule, Congress continued its reorganization for 2005.

House Democrats and Senate Republicans re-elected their leadership teams for the most part.

In the only real race, Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina gained a one-vote victory over Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota to head the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which provides guidance and money for Republican candidates.

CRACKPOT PROSECUTORS?

What in the HELL is a CRACKPOT PROSECUTOR?

Got any of them where you are, lawnorder?

According to the TOMMY-ISTS, we sure do appear to, up here, and that point was made VERY APPARENT to US on March 31, 2005, and make no mistake whatsoever about that!

Mr. Bonilla said revising it had been necessary to prevent politically inspired criminal investigations by "crackpot" prosecutors from determining the fate of top Republicans.

"And that's not right."

THERE IS OUR LOST CASE IN A NUTSHELL!

IT IS NOT RIGHT THAT A REPUBLICAN SHALL BE ACCUSED!

ANYONE ACCUSING A REPUBLICAN IS A DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT!

THE STATE HAS A CONTINUING DUTY TO SEE THAT SUCH INDIVIDUALS ARE INCARCERATED IN A SECURE MENTAL FACILITY, BY ANY MEANS!

THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT WILL NOT INTERFERE!

Plain and simple!

SO!

It would appear that according to the TOMMY-ISTS, and their version of the CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM that they are advocating, IN THEIR EYES, OUR Rensselaer County Criminal Court Justice, Patrick McGrath, must ALSO BE some kind of CRACKPOT PROSECUTOR, for he, too, has stated that from a review of the evidence in this matter, including reports from the F.B.I, itself, it would appear that TOP REPUBLICANS in RENNSELAER COUNTY in the State of New York allegedly violated state and federal criminal laws in connection with this illegal PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN on 8-22-01, and so, in THEIR EYES, because they see OUR JUDGE as a crackpot, HIS opinion should simply be disregarded by the FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT!

THAT IS OUR READING OF THE SITUATION, ANYWAY, and we find it not only quite disturbing, but extremely insulting as well, AND DOWNRIGHT DANGEROUS TO OUR LIBERTY, to boot!

Hence this thread!

To tell all the candid world why we think that is so!

And to then let that candid world form its own opinions, based upon the fullest record before it that we, the people of Rensselaer County disenfranchised by this March 31, 2005 ruling can provide!

And here, I have to say that I am surprised, although by now, I shouldn't be, that these perjorative comments by the TOMMY-ISTS about crackpot prosecutors in OUR America were treated in such a HO-HUM manner, here in OUR America, which up here in the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York, is not really ours, at least anymore, and especially since March 31, 2005, although to be truthful, all that date did was really confirm the existence of "something", rather than tell us anything that we did not already know, or suspect, anyway, which is that more and more, the common citizen here in America is having less and less in terms of equal protection of law!

The system has become so perverted that the "police power" of the state is now being used against us citizens if we even think of questioning why we have to live under a corrupt government, either here in New York State, or in the United States itself, for that matter.

Is it that more than half of America is so now corrupt that TOMMY-ISM can finally flourish so out in the open as it is able to do these days, where money buys privilege, and immunity from the law, and those who would think of questioning this can immediately be labeled as "crackpots" and almost instantly removed by the police, as was the case up here where the PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN occurred within less than 24 hours after we made clear OUR intention to take the ORIGINAL matter underlying the PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN to court?

Majority rules?

The "majority" of people in America now make their livings off the fruits of corruption, and so, we need a brand new "paradigm" here in OUR America to account and allow for that?

VICTIMIZERS RULE, victims pay, and THAT IS THE LAW?

So, now despite the law, whim and fancy rule instead, DEPENDING UPON EXACTLY WHO YOU ARE, and more importantly, WHO YOU ARE AFFILIATED WITH, and therefore, protected by?

You can never know what law is going to apply to you, or how, UNLESS YOU PAY TO KNOW?

PAY YOUR PROTECTION MONEY INTO THE TOMMY-ISTS each day, and YOU might be safe!

Pay a little more, and well, maybe your wife can be safe too, unless of course, she wants YOU gone, in which case, watch out, for she might "out-bid" what you are paying for YOUR OWN PROTECTION, to have it removed from you, and then YOU MIGHT JUST BE GULAG BOUND, yourself!

TOMMY-ISM!

THE RED MENACE is here!

And that is where we are up here, actually, as of March 31, 2005, and we are curious as to whether we are alone, and without feedback, of course, we have no real way of ever knowing.

And up until a very short time ago, there was no way of knowing any of those answers.

But now, thanks to the power of the internet, common persons such as us without means can finally get our voices heard more than 500 feet down the road, and so, we are conducting an experiment in democracy in here, with this thread, because so far as we know, we are the first clear and definitive case IN AMERICA of where a newly-appointed BUSH CONSERVATIVE FEDERAL JUDGE has actually taken a case away from a Democrat-appointed Federal Judge, and has not only reversed the interpretation of Federal and state law BY THAT JUDGE, BUT HAS FURTHER taken steps to actually reverse established New York State law on the subject, TO CREATE A NEW CLASS OF PERSONS in the Northern District of New York, which is a class with complete and total IMMUNITY FROM THE LAW!

TOMMY-ISM!

THE RED MENACE cometh!

The "DOMINO THEORY" in actual practice, right before OUR very eyes!

"Got yo-self one of dem dere CRACKPOT PROSECUTORS in your home town, troubling any of your TOP REPUBLICANS?"

CALL THE INTEGRITY-BUSTERS down at the local TOMMY-IST Party Headquarters, and they will have that problem GONE in the blink of an eye, WITH A CERTIFIED CERTIFICATION, for a price, of course, by a local TOMMY-IST doctor that your "crackpot prosecutor" really is a DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT, and LE VOILA, YOUR PROBLEM IS GONE, thanks to the state police, right to the nearest state-sponsored GULAG, or secure mental health facility!

BANG!

Just like that!

Don't believe it?

Hhhhhmmmm.

That's how it starts!

And here, I want to keep in mind the admonition from lawnorder to keep things simple in here, and so, I want to go back and take a more in-depth look at this charge above that this newly-appointed BUSH CONSERVATIVE JUDGE in the Northern District of New York has reversed existing Federal and State law on this subject of the "legality" of the August 22, 2001 "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN" by the State of New York of our expert witness that is at issue in here, BUT FIRST .....

But first, what I want to do is to "keep the context" of this exposition and discussion current and up-to-date, by posting this story on the "FEDERAL JUDICIARY" that has just come out of the Schiavo case, FOR THE RELEVANT QUOTES that are contained therein:

washingtonpost.com Highlights

"Schiavo case will shape political debate - Did GOP mobilize its conservative base or overreach?"

ANALYSIS

By Dana Milbank

Updated: 10:34 p.m. ET March 31, 2005

Terri Schiavo is dead, but the passions stirred by the fight over her life will shape the political debate for a long time to come.

Republicans say the Schiavo case has mobilized their conservative base for the struggles over judicial nominations and a likely Supreme Court vacancy this summer.

In defeat, they hope to make Schiavo's death into a rallying point for a broader "culture of life" movement to secure judges and a justice who would restrict abortions.

Democrats, backed by public opinion polls, say the conservatives overreached and that the GOP now appears to be a captive of the religious right.

They say the Schiavo dispute, on top of struggles over stem cell research and gay rights, will cause a backlash by moderate Americans.

The diverging interpretations reflect larger electoral strategies by both parties.

Democrats, following a traditional approach, believe they can return to power by staking out ground as the party of the center.

Republicans, using a strategy employed successfully by President Bush in the 2004 elections, believe the key is not in appealing to the middle but in motivating its active conservative base.

The battle over Schiavo's symbolism has already begun.

Tony Perkins, president of the Christian policy group Family Research Council, issued a statement after Schiavo's death blaming the judiciary (even though it was mostly conservative judges who rejected the intervention by Bush and Congress.)

"This is a tragic and unfortunate event that should awaken Americans to the problems in our court system," he said.

"As many in the nation mourn the passing of Terri Schiavo, we should remember that her death is a symptom of a greater problem: that the courts no longer respect human life."

‘Political crack-up’

By contrast, former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, in an article published around the time of Schiavo's death, said Republicans are undergoing a "political crackup" as damaging as the Massachusetts decision to condone same-sex marriage was for Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.

"The Bush administration doesn't have a faith-based initiative; it is a faith-based initiative," he wrote in Salon.

The most direct consequence of the Schiavo affair is likely to be a push for federal and state legislation; lawmakers in both parties have proposed laws that would make it more difficult to remove life support in cases where the patients' wishes are disputed.

The Senate health committee and House Government Reform Committee, among others, will examine parts of the issue.

But experts say changes are largely unnecessary.

In the three decades since the Karen Ann Quinlan case, there have been only a few big legal battles over the "right to die."

Alan Meisel, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, said only one case in several thousand winds up in litigation -- hardly a legal crisis.

"Schiavo is the exception that proves the rule: We haven't had a lot of agonizing cases," said Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration lawyer.

Beyond its direct impact, the Schiavo dispute is likely to color all sorts of policy debates, and, depending on how those turn out, could be part of the theme in next year's midterm elections.

Conservatives have begun to tie the case to their larger effort to win judges opposed to abortion.

"It is entirely possible that in her death Terri Schiavo will become a symbol for many people about a disturbing trend in American culture," said Gary Bauer, a prominent conservative activist.

Predicting a donnybrook over the eventual Supreme Court nominee, he said the Schiavo case "will make more acute the feeling at the grass roots that too many of the most important decisions are being made by unelected judges."

It is, of course, difficult to argue that the Schiavo case would have turned out differently if more of Bush's conservative judicial nominees had been confirmed.

Conservative judges were at least as likely as liberals to oppose federal intervention.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, rejected the Schiavo appeal, and William H. Pryor Jr., whom Bush has seated temporarily on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in hopes of winning his confirmation to that court, did not dissent publicly from the decision not to hear the case.

Key opinions relevant to the case were written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia.

‘Founding Fathers' blueprint’

It was, in fact, an appellate judge appointed by President George H.W. Bush who wrote a ruling Wednesday criticizing the president and Congress for acting "in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people -- our Constitution."

But conservatives say this will not prevent them from linking the Schiavo case to others.

"Although the form of this issue was assisted suicide, it has a lot more relevance for abortion," said Jeff Bell, a Republican operative.

"State-sanctioned private killing is what this is about." Bell said he was not concerned about public opinion, because "it's very clear the intensity is on the side of the people who thought this was an abomination."

Democrats, at first ambivalent on the issue and relatively quiet as the controversy played out, have been buoyed by polls such as one by CBS News last week finding that 82 percent opposed Bush and Congress involving themselves in the matter.

Three-quarters thought Congress got involved because of politics over principle, which could account for the 34 percent approval rating for Congress -- its lowest since 1997.

Democrats say they are encouraged that the dispute has put some of the party's more extreme characters, such as antiabortion activist Randall Terry, into prominent roles.

"The other side has overplayed its hand and taken a beating," said Democratic strategist Jim Jordan.

Some Republicans and conservatives have expressed worry that this may be true.

In an op-ed in the New York Times this week, former Republican senator John C. Danforth cited the Schiavo case as evidence that "Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians."

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, usually supportive of Bush, called the federal intervention "a legal travesty, a flagrant violation of federalism and the separation of powers."

But Republicans and Democrats of all stripes are likely to return to party lines when the subject shifts to judicial nominations.

And that suggests the fight could be even nastier than the Schiavo affair.

SO?

Where to begin?

Well, let's keep it simple, by focusing in on this one comment above by this Tony Perkins, of the alleged "Christian" policy group Family Research Council about a "tragic and unfortunate event" that should, in his words, "awaken Americans to the problems in our court system", and let's take a real "hard look" at that statement, IN LIGHT OF this March 31, 2005 CONSERVATIVE DECISION from the Northern District of New York that we are discussing in here, BUT FIRST ....

But first, let's add one more relevant "news story" to the "mix", so as to further delineate the "CONTEXT", or "backdrop" against which this discussion in this thread must be measured:

Top Stories - The Christian Science Monitor

"Judicial aftershocks from the Schiavo case"

Mon Apr 4, 4:00 AM ET

Perceptions of how the courts handled the case could have ramifications for Bush's judicial nominees.

By Warren Richey, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - In the end, as Terri Schiavo clung to life in her Florida hospice after nearly two weeks without food or water, 12 years of legal battles came down to one final appeal.

In a 15-page emergency brief, lawyers asked the US Supreme Court to vindicate Ms. Schiavo's constitutional right to life.

The high court's answer came Wednesday around 11 p.m.

Application denied.

Ten hours later, Schiavo passed away.

In the emotional moments after the announcement, pro-life and disability-rights supporters lashed out at a judicial system that they said was being run by activist judges who favor death over life.

House majority leader Tom DeLay went one step further.

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," he said Thursday.

He called upon the Judiciary Committee to launch an investigation of what he says is "an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president."

But was the Schiavo case influenced by so-called "activist" judges who allowed their ideological convictions and policy preferences to overshadow the law and influence the outcome of the case?

Legal analysts are divided on the issue.

Perceptions of how the Schiavo case was handled are important - for one, because they could play a key role in looming battles in the US Senate over President Bush's judicial nominees, and a potential Supreme Court vacancy.

Those battles may begin as early as this week, with the conservative camp somewhat split over the propriety of congressional intervention in the Schiavo case.

Religious conservatives are angry and primed for a fight.

But many other conservatives were alarmed at what they saw as federal intervention into a private family matter that has historically been entrusted to state courts and state judges.

Many legal analysts say that for the most part, judges performed their duties as neutral, dispassionate arbiters of the law.

"An enormous spotlight and an enormous amount of pressure have been placed upon the judiciary, and yet they have behaved in a lawlike fashion," says Charles Baron, a Boston College law professor and expert in right-to-die issues.

"These judges, if you look at their record, are not people who have records as being right-to-diers or left-wing activist judges."

"These are people who wrote opinions that track the law."

But others say that some judges appear to have avoided confronting serious, substantive legal issues by relying on formalistic devotion to legal process.

"The judiciary, both state and federal, have failed miserably in the Schiavo case," says Virginia Armstrong, national chairman of the Eagle Forum's Court Watch.

"It is one of the poorest performances we have ever seen in American justice."

Supporters of the judiciary's performance in the Schiavo case note the large number of state and federal judges involved.

They say familiar conservative-liberal distinctions do not seem to have played a major role in the outcome, particularly at the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, where seven of the 12 judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

"It is not like the judges appointed by one kind of president are voting one way and judges appointed by a different kind of president are voting a different way," says Vikram Amar, a constitutional law professor at San Francisco's Hastings College of the Law.

Perhaps the biggest irony of the case was the extent to which conservative, pro-life lawyers acting on behalf of Schiavo's parents sought to persuade federal judges and justices to embrace an expansive constitutional right to life that would mandate affirmative steps to protect Schiavo's life.

According to some analysts, it would have necessitated the same kind of liberal reading of the Constitution that upheld a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade - a constitutional holding denounced by conservatives as the epitome of judicial activism.

In a 1990 right-to-die case, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the five-justice majority:

"It cannot be disputed that the Due Process Clause [of the Constitution's 14th Amendment] protects an interest in life as well as an interest in refusing life-sustaining medical treatment."

But while the high court has established a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment and a right to abortion, it has never spelled out the contours of a constitutional right to life.

The Schiavo case was seen by some as a possible battleground to do just that, perhaps to the detriment of abortion rights.

But the courts refused to get involved.

"What is driving this case is not the constitutionality of the federal [Schiavo] statute, or the intrusion on federalism," says John Eastman, a constitutional law professor at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, Calif.

"The underlying connection with abortion is driving this."

But Professor Eastman says a pro-life ruling in the federal courts would not amount to a conservative version of judicial activism.

Rather, he says a right-to-die, pro-abortion approach to constitutional law has inverted the principles of the Founding Fathers.

"It turns what is supposed to be a government devoted to protecting rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [into a government that enforces] a court-crafted right to die," he says.

But even if the courts declined to read a broad, substantive right to life into the Constitution, some legal analysts say the Schiavo case was strong enough to justify more judicial review than was received.

One issue: whether the Florida court acted in violation of federal due process rights.

Florida law requires that Schiavo's wish to have her feeding tube disconnected be proved by "clear and convincing" evidence.

Lawyers for Schiavo's parents argued that hearsay testimony of husband Michael Schiavo and others about statements that they say Ms. Schiavo made in the late 1980s does not rise to the evidentiary level necessary to pass constitutional muster.

They also argued that a federal judge in Tampa had a sworn duty under the new federal law passed by Congress to conduct a new and full trial to examine for himself whether the evidence was clear and convincing.

Instead, US District Judge James Whittemore framed the entire federal case as an application for a temporary restraining order to reinsert the feeding tube.

He declined to order the tube reinserted after ruling that lawyers for Schiavo's parents had failed to raise any substantial claims.

Some analysts say that in bypassing the letter of the Schiavo law, Judge Whittemore's judicial inaction became a form of judicial activism.

"What we usually hear of judicial activism is a judge finding some right in the Constitution that isn't there."

"In this case, it was a statute that clearly was there but was being ignored," says Wendy Long, a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, which supports Mr. Bush's judicial nominees.

"The court, in a sense, was making a policy decision that it didn't want to look at the issue that Congress and the president wanted it to look at."

Others praise Whittemore's approach.

"If one was looking for a model of a district court judge to have been given this assignment, I think we found one," says Douglas Kmiec, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, Calif.

"He understood that it was both an emotionally charged issue but also one that arose in the context of a preexisting constitutional structure and a preexisting body of law."