Special to the Mirror by Paul Plante
As I listen to and read about all of this HOOHAH coming out of the Ten Miles Square on the Potomac, formerly known as Washington, D.C., but more recently as Moronica on the Potomac, a strange place seething with all kinds of idiocy on a daily basis anymore, I have to wonder who all these posturing politicians down there who are rolling their eyes and tsk-tsking and stamping their feet in indignation over Donald Trump asking Jim Comey to be loyal to him instead of Obama and allegedly obstructing justice think they are kidding with all of their carefully scripted histrionics, and especially the Democrats who put Sonia Sotomayor into a lifetime seat on the United States Supreme Court based on a decision in a case before her as a federal circuit court judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005 where obstruction of justice was front and center as an issue in that matter.
Yes, people, you are indeed reading that correctly, and I am standing behind those words – in 2005, as a federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals judge, Sonia Sotomayor put the federal government seal of approval on the practice of obstruction of justice by elected public officials in New York state, the most corrupt state in this union, thanks in large part to Sonia Sotomayor, and for that political act, she gained the notice of and the support of the powerful politicians in New York state whose favor she needed to curry to get her noticed by them as someone who could be trusted to be politically reliable (i.e. loyal) so they would in turn elevate her onto the Supreme Court bench.
So, people, before we develop that real-life story any further, let’s ponder this following question for a moment, as the answer is quite relevant to making sense of what is going on here in the USA today, where obstruction of justice is now a real hot topic:
WHAT IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the answer is “the noncompliance with the legal system by interfering with (1) the law administration or procedures, (2) not fully disclosing information or falsifying statements, and (3) inflicting damage on an officer, juror or witness.
So, as we can clearly see here, understanding what obstruction of justice is does not require one to be possessed of a law degree from Harvard or Yale or Princeton or Georgetown.
To the contrary, the concept is really quite simple to grasp.
So, how then does that definition of obstruction of justice apply to the case that was before Sotomayor in 2005?
Ah, yes, a good question, so let us go and see, and we do that by referring to the specific complaint that was before Sotomayor in that matter, wherein was stated as follows:
4. The unlawful and discriminatory practices alleged below were committed within the Northern District of the State of New York, those being a practice in the Town of Poestenkill and the County of Rensselaer in the State of New York known as “targeting” or the use of fear, intimidation, coercion and false arrest as tools of public policy in the Town of Poestenkill and the County of Rensselaer to “lock out” plaintiff from equal access to government and protection of law in the County of Rensselaer and the Town of Poestenkill as punishment for and because of plaintiff’s acts of investigating alleged acts of public corruption in the Town of Poestenkill and County of Rensselaer in the State of New York and giving evidence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation during a Hobbs Act investigation of public corruption in Rensselaer County, for no other purpose than to deter him from continuing said investigation and/or giving further evidence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning alleged public corruption in the County of Rensselaer and the Town of Poestenkill; and the unlawful vehicle of the “psychiatric takedown”, where plaintiff was to be permanently removed or eliminated as a witness against the County of Rensselaer and the Town of Poestenkill under color of law by the public officials allegedly involved in the said continued acts of alleged public corruption, or others alleged to be acting in concert with or on behalf of the said public officials, by having a fraudulent New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 involuntary commitment order issued by defendant Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, acting as a “custom witness removal service” for Rensselaer County and Town of Poestenkill officials, the said fraudulent involuntary commitment order directing the New York State Police to capture and transport plaintiff to the secure mental health facility of the Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York for ‘mind-wiping’ and other and further unspecificed acts of alleged mental torture for no other purpose than to prevent, intimidate and deter plaintiff from conducting any further citizen investigations into alleged acts of public corruption in the Town of Poestenkill and County of Rensselaer in the State of New York, the said fraudulent and unlawful involuntary commitment order causing plaintiff’s unlawful detention as an alleged ‘violent Viet Nam’ war veteran in the Albany, New York VA Hospital on August 22, 2001 in violation of plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant to the United States Constitution.
Now, and this is important to an understanding of Sotomayor’s actions in this matter vis-Ã -vis her approval of obstruction of justice in New York state as a matter of policy, that sworn statement above here was never denied or contested in any way, nor was it ever controverted by any of the defendants, who included Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino, the public official charged with obstruction of justice, or their lawyers, including then-New York State Attorney General Eliot “Longshanks” Spitzer who was subsequently forced to resign as NYS governor after he was found to be protecting a high-priced prostitution ring whose services he was also availing himself of on a regular basis, albeit at retail prices, or so the wags all said.
So, where then does obstruction of justice enter in there?
And the answer would be on all three counts, including interfering with the law administration or procedures, not fully disclosing information or falsifying statements, and especially no. 3, inflicting damage on an officer or witness.
And that brings us to an article in a recent edition of THE HILL by Rebecca Savransky on 11 June 2017 entitled “Former U.S. attorney: ‘Absolutely evidence’ to begin obstruction of justice case,” where former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara, who was fired earlier this year by Donald Trump for as-yet undisclosed reasons, was quoted as follows:
“That’s an incredibly serious thing if people think that the president of the United States can tell heads of law enforcement agencies, based on his own whim or his own personal preferences or friendships, that they should or should not pursue particular criminal cases against individuals,” he said.
“That’s not how America works.”
But there he is wrong, people, thanks to Sonia Sotomayor, because in New York state, and Preet is well aware of this, elected officials can indeed tell heads of law enforcement agencies, based on his or her own whim or his or her own personal preferences or friendships, that they should or should not pursue particular criminal cases against individuals, as was the case in that matter before Sonia Sotomayor in 2005.
To fully comprehend that case before Sotomayor in 2005, which featured among other things, falsified statements by the Office of AG “Longshanks” Spitzer which Sotomayor accepted without even blinking, we actually need to drop further back in time to May 25, 1989, and a press statement by then-Rensselaer County Executive John L. “Smiling Jack” Buono, wherein he stated as follows concerning the plaintiff in that matter before Sotomayor in 2005:
“I cannot in good conscience condone the conduct of an employee who consistently stated that he worked for the State of New York, rather than Rensselaer County …..”
Political disloyalty, people, we simply cannot have it, or the whole political system, which is based on trading favors for money, would break down and then where would all the politicians be?
As to the obstruction of justice, in a March 27, 1989 Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which was before Sotomayor as evidence in 2005 concerning a federal Hobbs Act investigation of corruption in the Rensselaer County (State of New York) Department of Health, we have:
“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.”
“(Name deleted) advised that the Rensselaer County Health Department’s oversight of realty subdivisions in that county is ‘unsatisfactory’!”
“(Name deleted) also faulted the State of New York Health Department for not auditing Rensselaer County’s program.”
“(Name deleted) advised that he would not expect to find a worse county in the region (the Capital District region which comprises 17 counties)!”
“According to (name deleted), the object of any county health department is to protect the public and not to facilitate 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.”
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, and you know what, people?
Those were not random events.
To the contrary, that was a common practice both in Rensselaer County and the state of New York – ignoring the law for people who had become “protected persons” by purchasing that protection as a form of insurance offered by the Democrat party and the Republican party as two competing “insurance agencies.”
So there is count no. 1, interfering with the administration of law.
And that, people, was the vaunted Federal Bureau of Investigation speaking, before the whole matter was hushed up by the U.S. Attorney for the northern District of New York, as follows:
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OPINION:
Assistant United States Attorney, BARBARA COTTRELL, Northern District of New York, advised on May 1, 1989, that no evidence of any violation of federal law had been uncovered as result of investigation to date.
For this reason, AUSA COTTRELL declined prosecution at this time.
Putting on the HUSH, it is called in New York state, and the Office of the U.S. Attorney, another political appointee who needs the favor of a politician to hold that position, knows how to play that game with the best of them.
“HUH, WHAT, WHAT EVIDENCE, I DIDN’T SEE ANY EVIDENCE, SO THERE ISN’T A CASE, END OF THE MATTER, SO EVERYBODY GO BACK HOME, THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE!
And when everything is buried deep enough, as was the case here, with Sonia Sotomayor adding the final shovelfuls in 2005, that is exactly the case.
But can it ever be buried deep enough to keep it from rising back to the surface at a later date and stinking to high heaven when it does?
Is there ever a perfect cover-up?
Or do the wheels always end up coming off like they are doing here, courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror, as we await the next installment of this true-to-life tale of obstruction of justice being a common practice by politicians here in the United States of America today?