Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante
Before I continue with this call for Sonia Sotomayor to resign from the United States Supreme Court for abusing and disregarding her judicial oath of office, I would like to make it clear that I do not know former U.S. Senator Al Franken, I never voted for him, I never was a fan or partisan of his, nor do I know what he really did to get himself kicked out of the United States Senate, nor do I really want to know, to be truthful, when it involves him trying to slip some woman some tongue when she clearly did not want it.
How icky is that, people?
And I also want to make it clear on the record that I do not condone any of the alleged conduct that caused Al Franken to get kicked out of the U.S. Senate.
Good riddance to the dude is my thought.
Which then takes us to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who should join Al Franken on his journey out of Washington and out of our government for willful violation of her judicial oath in 2005 to protect endemic public corruption in New York state.
As to the oath Sonia Sotomayor has violated, pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 453 – Oaths of justices and judges, it is stated therein that each justice or judge of the United States, and this would include Sonia Sotomayor as a circuit judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005, when she allowed then-New York State Attorney General Eliot “Longshanks” Spitzer to get away with a “slimeball” lawyer’s trick known as the “Old Switcheroo,” where compromising evidence is removed from the record in order to defeat a federal civil rights lawsuit, shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
In 2005, Sonia Sotomayor, then a circuit judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City, turned her back on that oath, renounced it in turn for political gain for herself, for which reason she should resign from the United States Supreme Court in disgrace.
And for the record, by way of comparison, the Oath of Office Al Franken took to be a U.S. Senator is as follows:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
End quote
Before we go further, note the huge difference between Al Franken’s oath and Sonia Sotomayor’s oath.
Franken, who got kicked out of the Senate for slipping a woman the tongue back when he was a stand-up comic on TV, not a senator, vowed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that he would bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
Sotomayor, who sits on the U.S. Supreme Court, vowed to administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and then she didn’t, and willfully so, so that she could get noticed by the powerful people she needed to notice her, if she wanted to move up to the high court.
If Al Franken should be forced to resign from the U.S. Senate for slipping a woman the tongue, why should Sonia Sotomayor be rewarded with a federal judgeship on the U.S. Supreme Court for selling out justice in 2005 while a circuit judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City?
Why a double standard?
Getting back to Al Franken, he was forced to resign over allegations of what today is being called “sexual harassment,” which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in their wisdom tells us can include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature, although harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex.
For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.
However, and this is relevant, both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex, as we can see from a New York Times article entitled “Accused of Sexual Harassment, Andrea Ramsey Ends Kansas Congressional Run” by Jacey Fortin on December 15, 2017, to wit:
A woman running to flip a Kansas congressional seat from red to blue next year is ending her campaign after allegations surfaced that she had sexually harassed, and then fired, a former subordinate.
Andrea Ramsey, 56, is a retired business executive who worked in the nonprofit sector before deciding to run for office as a Democrat in next year’s congressional midterm elections.
She was one of a growing number of women inspired to seek office in the wake of President Trump’s election.
But this month, The Kansas City Star newspaper asked her about a 2005 lawsuit that accused her of sexually harassing a man at LabOne, where she was the executive vice president of human resources, and then firing him after he rejected her advances, a claim Ms. Ramsey denies.
Ms. Ramsey is the rare — perhaps the only — woman in public life to face consequences from a sexual harassment accusation in the weeks since journalistic exposés spawned the #MeToo movement.
She said that her political opponents were using the false allegations against her, and she criticized the Democratic Party for implementing a “zero tolerance standard.”
Meredith Kelly, the communications director of the D.C.C.C., said in an emailed statement: “Members and candidates must all be held to the highest standard.”
End quotes
If that is true, that “members and candidates must all be held to the highest standard,” then should it apply to Democrat judges, as well, like Sonia Sotomayor?
Or should a lower standard apply to her, because she is a judge, and they should be held to a lower standard than a congress person or senator?
Getting back to the EEOC:
Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
End quotes
And that, people, is what underlies the matter that was ultimately before Sotomayor in 2005, the creation of a very hostile and offensive work environment for myself as an associate public health engineer in Rensselaer County in 1988, when I refused to take bribes or honor bribes taken to circumvent the codes and regulations intended to be protective of life, health and safety, which campaign of harassment was then incrementally ratcheted up until August 22, 2001, when corrupt Rensselaer County, with the aid and assistance of the State of New York, including its State Police, and the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York had me incarcerated in the secure mental facility of the Albany VA Hospital based on a fraudulent New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 Psychiatric Arrest Order to deter an investigation I was conducting as a New York state licensed professional engineer into endemic public corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health.
That I was in fact seized by Albany, New York VA Hospital staff and involuntarily confined, detained, incarcerated or otherwise committed to the secure mental health ward of the Albany, New York VA Hospital, based on nothing more than the unlawfully issued New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 involuntary commitment order which was unlawfully executed by John Christian Braaten of Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York on August 22, 2001 was confirmed in an affirmation of Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman to Rensselaer County Supreme Court dated August 16, 2002, approximately one (1) year after my false arrest, wherein was stated under oath as follows:
Lisa Ullman, being a duly licensed attorney in the State of New York and an Assistant Attorney General in the offices of Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, does hereby affirm under penalties of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106:
2. This proceeding was commenced by pro se petitioner Plante under Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules (“CPLR”), who requested a court order compelling the release of certain mental health records.
Specifically, Petitioner had been involuntarily committed to the Veteran’s Administration Hospital pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 for several hours on August 22, 2001, and had obtained redacted versions of documents pertaining to that commitment.
End quote
With that sworn affidavit in the record, the State of New York and Eliot Spitzer were confronted with a major problem, since that sworn affidavit by an Assistant New York State Attorney General was the proof of unlawful incarceration I needed to commence a federal civil rights lawsuit, which in New York State has a three-year statute of limitations.
So what was Spitzer to do?
Ah, yes, find a judge who would make that evidence that I was unlawfully incarcerated disappear.
POOF, one day, there was a fire.
So, enter Sotomayor, who I was actually face to face with, and I admit, she scared the hell out of me.
“God help the nation if she is a federal judge,” was my thought at the moment.
So, Spitzer and Sotomayor did a deal, and Sotomayor allowed Spitzer to make that August 16, 2002 affirmation of Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman to Rensselaer County Supreme Court disappear as if it were never there in the first place, even after I was granted standing in district court based on that sworn admission by Ullman in 2002.
Instead, on August 16, 2005, three (3) years to the day after Ullman submitted her sworn affidavit to Rensselaer County Supreme Court, an Assistant Solicitor General under Spitzer named Julie M. Sheridan was allowed to submit a letter to Sotomayor, where she called for my Amended Petition to be dismissed because my “constitutional claims were not viable, because the very premise of those claims – namely that plaintiff had been involuntarily committed – was false.”
POOF!
Just like that, there went Ullman’s sworn affidavit!
Sotomayor let the truth be replaced with a blatant lie, which is a real statement about who Sonia Sotomayer really is.
And of course, since Spitzer at the time was a very powerful Democrat who became New York’s next governor before stepping down after being caught protecting a high-priced hooker ring whose services Spitzer was availing himself of, who was rumored to be on the presidential track, so Sotomayor took the dive and gave Spitzer what he needed – she bought the lie and there went my civil rights along with that lawsuit right out the window, as if I were a modern-day Dred Scott being informed by Judge Taney that he wasn’t really considered a human being in America.
So much for Sotomayor’s oath to administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.
She did not administer justice; to the contrary, she caused an injustice to persist.
And she certainly did not do equal right to the rich and poor; to the contrary she screwed the poor to make the rich even richer.
So why is she sitting on the bench of the United States Supreme Court?
If Al Franken cannot be a U.S. Senator because he slipped some woman the tongue back in his stand-up comic days, before he became a Senator, why should Sonia Sotomayor, who buried a civil rights case to protect the corrupt, be a federal judge?
Any thoughts, anyone?
Discover more from CAPE CHARLES MIRROR
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So what really does happen when a federal judge like Sonia Sotomayor decides to toss their judicial oath in the crapper for some kind of political or other gain for themselves, at the expense of society?
Does the fact (assumed, of course, since I do not know if she ever really took the oath) that when she became a federal judge, Sonia Sotomayor swore or affirmed that she “would administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich,” and that she would “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties” incumbent upon her under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help her God, really mean that she actually has to or would actually administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon her under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help her God?
Suppose she doesn’t?
What then?
Will the wrath of Congress come down on her for unfitness to serve as it is coming down on Donald Trump?
Will indignant U.S. Senators stand up on the floor of the United States Senate to denounce her for denying civil rights to an American citizen the way they stand up and bellow about Donald Trump denying civil rights to illegal immigrants in this country?
Will her fellow federal judges look askance at her and demand that she be blacklisted the way she has blacklisted me?
Will anyone in the federal government stand up and question her mental fitness to serve as a United States Supreme Court Justice, or will they just shrug and say she’s a judge and in the United States of America, that is what federal judges get to do – strip American citizens of their rights under the law, because we really, in the end, do not have rights under the law, unless we have the money to purchase them with?
If Donald Trump is unfit to be president, is Sonia Sotomayor fit to be a United States Supreme Court Justice?
And how are we mere mortals in this country to answer that question, people wonder, to which I reply, do we have anything recent concerning federal judges resigning from office in disgrace to guide our thought processes?
And the answer to that is in the affirmative in the NPR article “Federal Judge Kozinski Retires Following Sexual Harassment Allegations” by Vanessa Romo on December 18, 2017, wherein we were informed as follows:
Alex Kozinski, a distinguished federal appeals court judge, announced his retirement Monday, effective immediately, after sexual misconduct allegations continued to dog the once-respected justice.
In a statement released by his attorney, the 67-year-old Kozinski partially apologized for his behavior but also tried to frame parts of it as a misunderstanding.
“I’ve always had a broad sense of humor and a candid way of speaking to both male and female law clerks alike.”
“In doing so, I may not have been mindful enough of the special challenges and pressures that women face in the workplace.”
“It grieves me to learn that I caused any of my clerks to feel uncomfortable; this was never my intent,” he wrote.
“For that, I sincerely apologize,” he added.
end quotes
If this now-departed Alex Kozinski, a distinguished federal appeals court judge, owes his staff an apology for acting like a jerk, what about Sonia Sotomayor?
Or should a different standard apply to her because she is a Latina?
Getting back to Alex Kozinski, according to NPR, the judge’s career, which included 32 years on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, appeared to have been undone over 10 days, as 15 women continued to step forward with personal accounts of Kozinski allegedly making explicit remarks about them, exposing them to pornography or touching them inappropriately.
Accounts from a combination of former female clerks and junior staffers about the abuses by Kozinski were first reported by The Washington Post.
They subsequently led to a formal inquiry by the 9th Circuit — later reassigned to the 2nd Circuit.
It is unclear what will happen with the investigation.
Kozinski expressed regret over leaving the bench under the current circumstances, writing:
“Family and friends have urged me to stay on at least long enough to defend myself.”
“But I cannot be an effective judge and simultaneously fight this battle.”
“Nor would such a battle be good for my beloved federal judiciary.”
end quotes
What about our federal judiciary?
Getting back to NPR, NPR’s Ina Jaffe had reported earlier that week that Kozinski was also investigated in 2008 for inappropriate behavior.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Kozinski had an email list that he used to distribute rude jokes, some of which were sexually explicit.
The Times also reported Kozinski maintained a publicly accessible website that contained pornography.
A judicial investigation determined that Kozinski had not intended for the public to be able to access that website and that the judge’s “conduct exhibiting poor judgement with respect to this material created a public controversy that can reasonably be seen as having resulted in embarrassment to the federal judiciary.”
end quotes
Which then raises the question of whether a federal judge like Sonia Sotomayor taking a dive and selling out justice results in any kind of embarrassment to the same federal judiciary.
Any thoughts, anyone?
The candid world would certainly like to hear them.
As to “civil rights,” which I do not enjoy in this country thanks to Sonia Sotomayor, in “Landholder VI,” in a reply to Virginia’s Col, Mason, Oliver Ellsworth, in the Connecticut Courant on December 10, 1787, stated as follows:
Bills of Rights were introduced in England when its kings claimed all power and jurisdiction, and were considered by them as grants to the people.
They are insignificant since government is considered as originating from the people, and all the power government now has is a grant from the people.
The constitution they establish with powers limited and defined, becomes now to the legislator and magistrate, what originally a bill of rights was to the people.
end quotes
How very wrong subsequent history has shown him to be.
Neither the Constitution nor its so-called “Bill of Rights” in actuality confer any absolute rights, as is obvious from this case.
Now, instead of a king granting us rights, we have federal judges like Sonia Sotomayor fulfilling that kingly function, with the untrammeled right to deny us those supposed rights according to any whim which strikes them.
In this case, Sonia Sotomayor had a chance to make nice to some very powerful politicians whose approval she would need to move up to the supreme court, and so, out the window my rights went, which takes us to the out-dated concept of RULE OF LAW, which we enjoy less and less in this country, if we enjoy it at all.
According to Wikipedia, the rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials, such as Sonia Sotomayor.
But the obvious problem with rule of law is that it is only a legal principle, which is defined as “a principle underlying the formulation of jurisprudence,” where “jurisprudence” is the philosophy or science of law.
So, okay, law should govern a nation, but what if it doesn’t?
What then?
Who do you call?
Ghostbusters?
And while nations should not be governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials, such as Sonia Sotomayor, what if they are?
Rule of law primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials, and when there is no rule of law, then there are no constraints whatsoever upon the behavior of government officials, which is what underlies this Sotomayor saga.
Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including law makers themselves, so when every citizen is not subject to the law, which has become a mockery in this country, there is no rule of law, plain and simple, and Sonia Sotomayor is a poster child for that proposition, that there is no rule of law in this nation.
Which takes us to New York State Penal Law § 460.00, “enterprise corruption,” dating from 1986, which states in relevant part 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.
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
As we consider Sonia Sotomayor, focus on that phrase “corrupt our democratic processes,” as that is exactly what she has accomplished here with her 2005 ruling in this matter involving myself and my unlawful incarceration in the secure mental ward of the Stratton VA Hospital I Albany, New York on 8/22/01.
What happened on 8/22/01 stems directly from the passage of New York State Penal Law § 460.00, “enterprise corruption,” when then-New York State governor Mario Cuomo directed then-New York State Health Commissioner Dr. David Axelrod to get an uncorruptable licensed professional engineer to go in and clean up the over-flowing cesspool that was the Rensselaer County Department of Health at that time.
Enter myself.
My marching orders were to go in and clean up the swamp and to gather evidence for indictments that were never to come, such is the power of organized crime in New York state, which involves highly sophisticated, complex and widespread forms of criminal activity which 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, with the money and power derived by organized crime through its illegal enterprises and endeavors being used to corrupt our democratic processes.
The only head which rolled was mine.
As to the endemic public corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health itself, in a March 27, 1989 Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) concerning a federal Hobbs Act investigation of corruption in the Rensselaer County (State of New York) Department of Health based on my testimony, which made me a marked man in Rensselaer County, it was stated as follows:
“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.”
end quote
And thanks to Sonia Sotomayor, today, it still is!
So why is she now sitting on the United States Supreme Court?
Any thoughts, anyone?
“So why is she now sitting on the United States Supreme Court?”
Because identity politics reigned supreme during the period of 2007 to 2017.
Because PC is all to the Left.
Because men of like minds can be torn asunder by conspiracy theories, subverting the natural resistance to such actions inimical to the health of the Republic.
No justice, no peace, Mike, and by the way, it is good to hear from you on this subject of why Sonia Sotomayor now sits on the United States Supreme Court.
She is there, Mike, because she made it clear to the right people that she was politically reliable, which is a form of political correctness that is very powerful.
She is there because she made it clear to the right people that should there be a need to bury some incriminating evidence, she was the one to trust.
That is why she is a United States Supreme Court Justice.
That she was a Latina was only window dressing.
She is there because of what she can do for the politicians who put her there, not because of her gender or ethnicity.
That is the plain and simple of it.
As to the Republic, Mike, I do not think it really exists anymore, except as a lost memory.
This is like the opening scenes in I, Claudius, where the lost souls from the Roman Republic were bemoaning its loss in front of Augustus Caesar, who put the Roman Republic in its grave.
The Republic is dead, long live the Republic.
And I will tell you, Mike, never have I experienced such a slipshod affair as the federal court system.
It is like something you would expect to find in some third-world ****hole, not the United States of America.
It is an embarrassment, not something to be proud of.
I resigned from a position with the 3rd Circuit because you and I agree on the state of the Fed courts.
It’s been almost 25 years, and except for the pension I burned, miss it not a whit.
Sotormayor’s lack of recusal on several cases only bolsters your arguments. It is a sad state of affairs we live in nowadays.
Indeed, it is, and let me salute you for your integrity, Mike.
It is respected.
And that is a very tough choice you made, Mike.
When confronted with corruption, or incompetence, or ineptness in one’s place of employment where one expected professionalism, what is one to do?
You chose to not lose yourself.
That is what I salute.
Many would have stayed and blended into the corrupt system.
In my case, I must say that I was naïve as to the control corruption would gain over my life when I accepted the assignment as a licensed professional engineer to clean out the over-flowing cesspit that was the Rensselaer County Department of Health in 1986.
I was naïve as to how far its tentacles had already spread throughout not only government in New York state, but the federal Northern District of New York, as well, when I accepted that assignment.
What was supposed to be back-up turned out to be back-stabbing, instead.
What I was supposed to do was to find the evidence of corruption and prepare criminal informations for indictments.
As it was to be, when I had uncovered that evidence, and people became aware of it, it was buried, along with myself, but for some records I had in my possession as insurance.
On October 13, 1988, Kenneth Van Praag, the corrupt Rensselaer County Public Health Director who was to be brought up on charges based on my investigation, wrote to Dr. Ian T. Loudon, M.D., the Regional Health Director of the State of New York Department of Health, Albany Regional Office, Building 7A, State Office Building Campus, Albany, New York 12226, and he told him thusly:
As of October 13, 1988, our Director of Environmental Health/Associate Public Health Engineer has been placed on a paid leave of absence status for thirty working days.
end quote
That, of course, was not true.
According to FBI records at pages 202,203 of the Record submitted to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in this matter on behalf of defendant Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino and her co-defendants in or about November of 2005, this is what really happened:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE – FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
JUNE 30, 1989
On October 6, 1988, “an Ad Hoc Engineering Committee” held a closed door meeting in the Rensselaer County Office Building which started at approximately 4:00 p.m. and which was the result, according to Plante, of a “deal” between [DELETED BY F.B.I. CENSORS] and the Rensselaer County Developer’s Organization.
In Plante’s view, the purpose of this “Ad Hoc Engineering Committee meeting” was to tell Plante how to do business in the Health Department, or else he “would not do business”.
According to Plante, he was instructed as to how business was done in Rensselaer County in 1983 and was further instructed to abide by agreements made in 1983 wherein, Plante understood, Health Department officials certified projects in return for contributions to various politicians.
******
Shortly thereafter, Plante was placed on thirty days sick leave and the Rensselaer County Executive went on local television announcing that Plante was suffering from stress related to his service in Viet Nam.
Plante was replaced, in the Health Department, by one Claude Rounds who, according to Plante, immediately certified many of the projects which Plante had refused to certify because in Plante’s view they were uncertifiable.
Plante stated that he was told by Rensselaer County Public Health Director Kenneth Van Praag on October 12, 1988 that he, (Plante) had “upset some of the most powerful men in Rensselaer County” and that Van Praag could no longer “protect” Plante.
end quotes
There is where this matter before Sotomayor in 2005 actually had its roots, Van Praag telling me in October of 1988 that my law enforcement efforts had “upset some of the most powerful men in Rensselaer County” and that Van Praag could no longer “protect” me.
The so-called thirty days sick leave was a ruse.
I was supposed to literally resign and get out of town and not come back, in exchange for which I would get a month’s pay.
Like hell said I, and the rest is now history.
In his October 13, 1988 writing to Dr. Ian T. Loudon, M.D., the Regional Health Director of the State of New York Department of Health, Albany Regional Office, explaining to Loudon why I was no longer at my post enforcing the Public Health Law in Rensselaer Coumty and continuing with my investigation, Van Praag wrote these classic lines right out of a John Gruiham novel like “The Firm”:
Although there are other options available for dealing with this issue, I have hopes that the least painful and most humanitarian approach has been initially taken.
Whether Paul Plante sees it that way or not, I can’t say.
end quotes
That is an actual official government record in New York state, and it served as the basis before Sotomayor in 2005 for determining a starting point for the on-going retaliatory course of conduct by Rensselaer County officials between October of 1988, when it became apparent that the least painful and most humanitarian approach Rensselaer County officials had initially taken with me had not done its job of intimidating me sufficiently to deter me from securing those indictments, and 8/22/01, when Rensselaer County escalated the retaliation by securing the fraudulent New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 involuntary commitment order that was before Sotomayor in 2005.
Why it was necessary to destroy my credibility as a witness with the fraudulent certification that I was mentally ill and dangerous is made clear at page 203 of the Record submitted to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in this matter on behalf of defendant Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino and her co-defendants, in or about November of 2005, as follows:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE – FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
JUNE 30, 1989
During the time that these hearings were proceeding, the New York State Department of Health produced a report which was predicated on a request by [DELETED BY FBI CENSORS] to investigate allegations of “misfeasance and malfeasance made by Paul Plante against the Rensselaer County Department of Health.”
This REPORT, dated March 15, 1989, advised that, “the investigation found significant deficiencies in the Rensselaer County residential subdivision program and individual sewage program.”
“We conclude that there has been inadequate oversight by the county Board of Health, inadequate supervision by the county Director of Public Health, insufficient support by the County Executive Office (the position of Environmental Health Director was vacant for four years) and failures of previous environmental health directors to enforce and follow the county sanitary code during the time period studied.”
******
Under the “FINDINGS” section of this report, the report stated “whenever documentation could be found, Paul Plante was found to be accurate in his statements of inappropriate code reviews.”
end quotes
Kiss of death right there, Mike.
There was my end right there as a professional engineer, and in 2005, Sonia Sotomayor took pains to let me know that to my face.
As one of the witnesses to the encounter in 2005 between myself and Sotomayor was later to describe it, when I showed up for oral arguments, there was some confusion with the clerk, as he recalled it, which was true.
Before the judges came in, he wrote, he heard the clerk tell me that they had already decided what they were going to do, and that I was not supposed to be there that morning, which was also true.
A day or so before oral arguments were scheduled, I received a call at home from a junior court clerk in New York City telling me she had been instructed to inform me that the Court considered me a piece of ****, and that oral arguments had been canceled, to which I replied, like hell, because of Rule 34(e) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, entitled Nonappearance of a Party, which provides in clear and unambiguous language that “If the appellee fails to appear for argument, the Court must hear appellant’s argument.”
As that witness later recounted, when Sotomayor walked in and saw me there, she exploded as both of us recall it, as if a dog with **** on it tail was running loose in her courtroom.
Talk about judicial demeanor or temperament, hers was that of a thug.
She humiliated and objectified me in front of a crowded courtroom.
“What is he doing here?” she said to the clerk when she saw me therer, which came across to me and the witnesses to the encounter in the courtroom as “WHAT IS THAT DOING IN HERE?”, as if she was confronted by a black man asking for justice in a white man’s court of law.
Then Sotomayor openly scoffed at the notion that I had been harmed by being falsely branded as an alleged dangerous mental patient and by being incarcerated in a cage at the Stratton VA Hospital and that was it – dismissed, get out of her court and don’t come back, or I would be harmed.
As that witness was to later recount, and I do not dispute it one bit, it was his belief that if I had actually been standing there before her in NYC, as opposed to appearing via closed-circuit court TV, Sotomayor would have had the marshalls throw me down on the floor so she could hoist her bulk from behind the bench to come down and **** in my face, as her personal message to me from her court.
And that sums up my face-to-face encounter with Sonia Sotomayor in 2005.
Needless to say, I am damn glad I was in Albany that morning, as opposed to New York City.
And I applaud your resistance. We’ve both been thru the wringer and it seems both are forlorn over the loss of our Republic.
Sadly I am not surprised at her lack of civility and judicial temperament. I also left the Democrat party over that absence, throughout their platform and candidate pool.
The Clinton years were the last straw for me, they were no longer the party of my grandparents, or even my parents.
With your background, mine in both Federal and State government and the stories of my father’s time as Health inspector and Housing inspector for the city of Trenton, well we’d never lack for conversation over those bean burgers and scallops.
There was a time, Mike, when I thought the federal courts were next to God when it came to providing equal justice in this country.
You know how that goes, truth, justice, and the “American Way,” as if there really was such a thing as the “American Way” that we all believed in equally.
Sonia Sotomayor has thoroughly disabused me of that silly notion.
It was the oath, I think; I was seduced by the oath that federal judges take:
“I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Compare that federal oath to the weaker version a justice of the supreme court in New York takes:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Supreme Court Justice according to the best of my ability.”
end quote
That phrase “to the best of my ability,” of course, is an escape clause for a corrupt judge in New York state so they cannot be held accountable – their built-in excuse is that they really had no ability, at all, so the crappy job they did was to the best of their ability.
Thus, the oath was never violated.
Now, it has to be considered that New York State, perhaps unlike Virginia, has been corrupt since the early 1800’s, if not earlier, and that corruption comes though across all spectrums of state and local government in New York state, including the judiciary, especially today in the age of Young Andy Cuomo who is stocking our supreme court up here with what are known as “Andy Judges,” political hacks who are made “acting” supreme court judges by Young Andy, when our state constitution mandates elected judges.
Corruption in New York state government dates back to the Albany Regency, which was a group of politicians who controlled the New York state government between 1822 and 1838.
It was instituted by the “red-headed fox” Martin Van Buren, who remained its dominating spirit for many years, and who became Andrew Jackson’s vice president, bringing New York state-style public corruption to Washington, where it is now firmly entrenched.
The Albany Regency was among the first American political machines, and it spawned the machine-style politics that so many years later produced Sonia Sotomayor as one of its outstanding products.
According to local history, and as Wikipedia tells it, the Albany Regency was a loosely organized group of politicians with similar views and goals who resided in or near Albany, New York, the state capital.
They controlled the nominating conventions and patronage of their party within New York State, and by dictating its general policy, exerted a powerful influence in national as well as state politics.
The Regency developed party discipline and originated the control of party conventions through officeholders and others subservient to it.
end quotes
So that is the political world Sonia Sotomayor grew up in, and that is the world she has maintained in this case involving myself.
I was attacking the corruption she was there to defend, and defend it she did, by making what amounted to a judicial proscription of myself, declaring me to be mentally ill and dangerous so I would never be taken seriously as a witness ever after.
We country people are naïve, Mike.
We believe in fairy tales like federal judges are truly independent and that if only we could finally get a case before them, that they really would administer justice without respect to persons, and that they really would do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon them under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
But that is a fairy tale for children and the naive to believe, because the reality is that federal judges are not independent, or else they never would become a federal judge in the first place, because to become a federal judge, you have to be put there by politicians and the two political parties, not the people.
And corrupt politicians do not put honest people in office as judges, any more than they leave honest engineers in a position to expose them as being corrupt, as I was hired to do, and as I was doing, when I was locked out of my office in October of 1988, and told to get out of Rensselaer County if I knew what was good for me.
I later in 1989 was told that same thing by an FBI agent, except he told me that because I had powerful enemies, I had better get out of the state of New York, if I knew what was good for me.
As an aside, I found the FBI to be a cowardly, slipshod lash-up that is under the total control of the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, and in New York state, the U.S. Attorneys are put in there by the politicians, not the people.
In this case, when I was able to provide evidence linking a powerful New York State Senator to public corruption involving real estate, that FBI Hobbs Act Public Corruption investigation I was participating in as a witness was turned off like a lightbulb by an assistant U.S. attorney in the Northern District of New York named Barbara Cottrell on May 25, 1989, leaving me hung out to dry.
Her name showed up later on a list of those in New York state being considered for federal judgeships.
About that same time, Rensselaer County Executive John L. “Smiling Jack” Buono issued a press release concerning myself wherein he stated:
“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 …..”
As a LICENSED engineer in New York state, which is a profession in New York state defined by law, and requiring good moral character, which is a joke, I was bound by the Rules of the Board of Regents which define “unprofessional conduct” for licensed professional engineers in § 29.1 General provisions, which states in (a) that unprofessional conduct shall be the conduct prohibited by this section, and in (b)(1) is further defined as “willful or grossly negligent failure to comply with substantial provisions of Federal, State or local laws, rules or regulations governing the practice of the profession,”
§ 29.3(a)(1) of the Rules that governed my conduct as a licensed professional engineer further provided that “Unprofessional conduct shall also include, in the profession of engineering, being associated in a professional capacity with any project or practice known to the licensee to be fraudulent or dishonest in character, or not reporting knowledge of such fraudulence or dishonesty to the Education Department”
But try to actually do that and down comes the hammer, right on your head, for in real life, in corrupt New York state, that is all nothing more than BULL**** and window-dressing to gull the pilgrims with, to make people think that the state of New York actually holds professional engineers to high standards, when the opposite is the case, a point Sonia Sotomayor took pains to make incandescently clear to me in 2005, after Rensselaer County employed its final solution to get rid of me by having a political doctor make out a fraudulent New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 involuntary psychiatric commitment order directing the New York State Police to apprehend me and take me into custody for transport to the GULAG of the Samarian Hospital in Troy, New York for some drug-induced mind-wiping that would have left me drooling and babbling like the idiot they would have turned me into.
That is what Sonia Sotomayor put the federal government seal of approval on, and for that Barack Obama made her a United States Supreme Court Justice.
When “Smiling Jack” Buono was stating in that press release that he could not “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, what he was referring to was my refusal to compromise my own office as a New York State licensed professional engineer, who in New York State, according to New York Education Law § 7201, “Definition of practice of engineering,” is supposed to perform “professional service such as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, design or supervision of construction or operation in connection with any utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works, or projects wherein the safeguarding of life, health and property is concerned, when such service or work requires the application of engineering principles and data.”
Take a dive and sell out the people, or else!
Right there is the roots of the controversy that came to be before Sonia Sotomayor in 2005 – I can only practice as a professional engineer in New York state if I am corrupt.
If I am not corrupt, I cannot practice as an engineer in New York state.
If I am willing sell out people, I can practice as an engineer in New York state,
If I take my responsibility to safeguard life, health and property seriously, which I did, then as Buono said in his press release and as Sotomayor confirmed in 2005, I am barred from practicing as an engineer, because Rensselaer County has branded me as being mentally ill and dangerous.
I am branded as being mentally ill and dangerous, because I refuse to be corrupt.
And that comes direct from Sonia Sotomayor, now a United States Supreme Court justice, as a result.
To close, in a New York Times article entitled “Sotomayor, a Trailblazer and a Dreamer” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg on May 26, 2009, Sotomayor was quoted as follows:
“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” Judge Sotomayor (pronounced so-toe-my-OR) said in 2001, in a lecture titled “A Latina Judge’s Voice.”
end quotes
The “facts that judges choose to see!”
What a powerful political statement that is, and that statement of hers, of course, takes us back to the top of the thread here and Sonia Sotomayor violating her judicial pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 453 as a circuit court judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005, when she allowed then-New York State Attorney General Eliot “Longshanks” Spitzer to get away with a “slimeball” lawyer’s trick known as the “Old Switcheroo,” where compromising evidence is removed from the record in order to defeat a federal civil rights lawsuit.
As to “(P)ersonal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” in 2005 then-New York State Attorney General Eliot “Longshanks” Spitzer and Sotomayor did a deal, and Sotomayor allowed Spitzer to make an August 16, 2002 affirmation of Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman to Rensselaer County Supreme Court disappear as if it were never there in the first place, even after I was granted standing in district court based on the sworn admission by Ullman in 2002 that I had in fact been incarcerated as a mentally ill person in the secure mental facility of the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York on 8/22/01 based on the fraudulent 9.45 order, and instead, on August 16, 2005, three (3) years to the day after Ullman submitted her sworn affidavit to Rensselaer County Supreme Court, allowed an Assistant Solicitor General under Spitzer named Julie M. Sheridan to submit a letter to Sotomayor, where she called for my Amended Petition to be dismissed because my “constitutional claims were not viable, because the very premise of those claims – namely that plaintiff had been involuntarily committed – was false.”
Talk about “(P)ersonal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” there it is in black and white.
And that is how Sonia Sotomayor became a justice of the United States Supreme Court, by knowing what “facts” to bury, which as she says, is a matter of choice federal judges get to make, despite their oath of office, which in reality is empty words that mean nothing, at all.
A question: should public officials really be held responsible for violations of their oaths?
Or is it a case of where since oaths mean nothing anymore, and everyone violates them, why should we care if Sonia Sotomayor does the same?
In my own polls, I find that to be the overwhelming response – so what, everybody does it.
“After a while, you forget there are decent, law-abiding people in life.”
That is a quote attributed to Sonia Sotomayor on her Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#Early_legal_career
and in this case, that is so very true.
She certainly did.
By way of background, since this is a serious subject, public corruption, which Sonia Sotomayor put the federal government seal of approval on in New York state as a circuit judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in 2005, involves a breach of public trust and/or abuse of position by federal, state, or local officials and their private sector accomplices.
As a federal judge, that would also apply to Sonia Sotomayor.
By granting license to corrupt New York state and local officials to breach their public trust and abuse their positions, which she did in 2005, Sonia Sotomayor herself breached the public trust and abused her position as a federal judge.
For that, she now sits on the United States Supreme Court.
By broad definition, a government official, whether elected, appointed or hired, may violate federal law when he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties.
Would that include a federal circuit court judge selling out justice in return for a Supreme Court seat?
In an article entitled “PROSECUTING PUBLIC OFFICIALS/FIGURES FOR CORRUPTION: THE APPROACH IN THE UNITED STATES” by Michael J. Hutter, the author states in his Introduction that “Public corruption in any form is the misuse of a public or government office for private gain,” and “Its existence is an indication that something has gone wrong in the management of the government office, whether it be federal, state, or local.”
Now, is that an understatement?
Or what?
The existence of public corruption is an indication that something has gone wrong in the management of the government office, whether it be federal, state, or local, people.
Does anyone out there care?
The overwhelming answer I get as I poll people is no, they don’t have the time to care.
It is better to stay hidden down in the basement and don’t call attention to yourself.
That is America today.
Getting back to Michael J. Hutter, he tells that it is a basic tenet that government is not to be used for personal enrichment and the extending of benefits to the corrupt, but you know what, people?
A “tenet” is nothing more than a principle or belief, and as such, has no force of law, at all, for how do you enforce that supposed “basic tenet” when public corruption runs rampant in violation of that basic tenet?
That is what this matter before Sotomayor in 2005 was about, enforcement of that basic tenet, and Sotomayor made it incandescently clear that such enforcement was not coming from her.
Michael J. Hutter tells us the prevention of corruption is essential not only to make government work for its intended purpose, e.g., ensure that public officials are using their office to further the public interest and not to enrich themselves or others, but also to preserve public confidence in the democratic process.
And Sonia Sotomayor tells us in return that that is hogwash – in New York state, thanks to Sonia Sotomayor, public officials do not have to use their office to further the public interest, partly because nobody anymore has a clue as to what the public interest even is, so corrupt have our politics become.
To the contrary, she has given them license to feed off the taxpayers to enrich themselves and others.
And for that, she was rewarded with a seat on the United States Supreme Court, so how about that, people – that is what it takes in America today to be a United States Supreme Court Justice – a complete and total disregard of the law and a depraved indifference to human life.
Ironically, the United States Supreme Court itself in United States v. Miss. Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 562 [1961] observed that “(A) democracy is effective only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of malfeasance and corruption.”
The reason this matter was before Sotomayor in 2005 was that faith in those who govern in New York state and its political subdivisions was shattered, because high officials and their appointees were engaging in activities which aroused not only suspicions of malfeasance and corruption, but hard proof, as well, which is why the record before Sotomayor in that matter was 609 pages long, including page after page of FBI records from a public corruption investigation in corrupt Rensselaer County in New York state in 1989.
Sotomayor in turn stuffed all those records into the judicial trashbin, and now thanks to her, public corruption is free to run rampant in this state.
And her reward in return was a seat on the United States Supreme Court.
Getting back to Michael J. Hutter, he tells us “The Constitution reflects a significant concern with preventing corruption in all levels of the government,” citing Henning, 92 Kentucky L.J. 75, 84 [2003], but that Constitution, like the Republic, is long since dead.
We’re in a new world order now, where rule of law no longer applies.
Why is that, people?
Any thoughts, anyone?
In the New York Times article entitled “Sotomayor, a Trailblazer and a Dreamer” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg on May 26, 2009 where Sonia Sotomayor was quoted as saying that “(P)ersonal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” which in itself is an incredible statement for any judge to make, let alone a Supreme Court justice, she was also quoted as follows:
“My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar.”
“I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging.”
“But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
end quotes
HUH?
Are you kidding me here, Judge Sotomayor?
What the hell do your gender and Latina heritage have to do with anything a federal judge is supposed to do according to the oath they swear before taking the bench to administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and to faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon them under the Constitution and laws of the United States?
Is that why you denied me my civil rights, Judge Sotomayor, because of your gender and Latina heritage?
Is that what it really was all about?
Is that why you allowed Assistant Solicitor General Julie M. Sheridan to submit a letter to you dated August 16, 2005 wherein she called for my Amended Petition to be dismissed because my “constitutional claims were not viable, because the very premise of those claims – namely that plaintiff had been involuntarily committed – was false,” when three (3) years earlier, another New York State Assistant Attorney General named Lisa Ullman had submitted a sworn affidavit to Rensselaer County Supreme Court dated August 16, 2002, approximately one (1) year after my false arrest, wherein was stated under oath as follows:
Lisa Ullman, being a duly licensed attorney in the State of New York and an Assistant Attorney General in the offices of Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, does hereby affirm under penalties of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106:
2. This proceeding was commenced by pro se petitioner Plante under Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules (“CPLR”), who requested a court order compelling the release of certain mental health records.
Specifically, Petitioner had been involuntarily committed to the Veteran’s Administration Hospital pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 for several hours on August 22, 2001, and had obtained redacted versions of documents pertaining to that commitment.
end quotes
Did you bury that evidence of wrongdoing, Judge Sotomayor, because Assistant New York State Solicitor General Julie M. Sheridan was a woman and you were engaging in gender politics to help her career along in a world dominated by Alpha males?
Is that why you allowed her to put those lies on the record to bury my civil rights case based on the sworn admission of Lisa Ullman three (3) years before, to help her succeed as a lawyer?
Or was it your Latina heritage that had you lashing out at me because I am a white male, and as a Latina, you have animus towards white men?
And here it important to note that I did not “lose” this case.
If I had lost the case, it would have meant that there had been due process, including discovery, and depositions, and a jury trial, which I had requested.
In fact, there was none of that, and in fact, in the district court, I never even got to see a judge, notwithstanding there was supposed to be a mandatory conference of all parties to settle the issues to be tried.
That conference never happened, and right after the assigned judge granted me standing, the case was promptly taken away from that judge and transferred to a judge in Louisiana, about 2,000 miles away from New York state where I reside.
When I wrote a letter to that judge in Louisiana challenging his jurisdiction over a case in the Northern District of New York, he sent the case back to Albany, where it was re-assigned to a federal judge named Gary Sharpe who was a Hillary Clinton judge just appointed to the bench, and he then stripped me of my standing based on the same lies that Sotomayor then put the federal government stamp of approval on in 2005.
That is how the appeal came to be before Judge Sotomayor in the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in 2005.
And so that people not from New York can appreciate the seriousness of Sotomayor’s duplicitous conduct as a federal court judge in 2005,
Article XVII of the New York State Constitution, entitled “Social Welfare,” which Sotomayor was supposed to take cognizance of as a federal judge in the federal 2d Circuit, which covers New York state, states in no uncertain terms in section 3 as follows:
§3. The protection and promotion of the health of the inhabitants of the state are matters of public concern and provision therefor shall be made by the state and by such of its subdivisions and in such manner, and by such means as the legislature shall from time to time determine. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)
end quotes
In 2005, both Sotomayor and Assistant New York State Solicitor General Julie M. Sheridan tossed that section of the New York State Constitution right into the judicial crapper, and thus, denied the people of the State of New York the protection of law that Constitutional provision was supposed to provide, which led directly to children in Hoosick Falls, New York drinking water fouled with PFOA, a chemical contaminant that is a carcinogen, not that Sonia Sotomayor or Assistant New York State Solicitor General Julie M. Sheridan would give a damn.
And here it must be noted that my authority as a certified associate level public health engineer in New York state flowed directly from that Constitutional provision.
With respect to constitutional rights denied the people of the state of New York by Sotomayor in 2005, in a Chicago Tribune article entitled “Michigan civil rights panel: Flint water crisis rooted in ‘systemic racism'” by Paul Egan of the Detroit Free Press on February 18, 2017, we have as follows:
LANSING, Mich. – The Flint drinking water crisis has its root causes in historical and systemic racism, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission said Friday in a hard-hitting report that calls the public health catastrophe “a complete failure of government” and recommends a rewrite of the state’s emergency manager law and bias training for state officials.
end quote
In Flint, many heads rolled and criminal charges were brought against many public officials involved, including felony charges.
In New York state, the only head which rolled was mine, and that was because I dared to stand up to challenge that same type of “complete failure of government” that we have in New York state and corrupt Rensselaer County, which is where Hoosick Falls is located.
Getting back to the Chicago Tribune article, it states:
It (Michigan Civil Rights Commission) calls on Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder to invite experts to provide training on “implicit bias” to his cabinet, his team responding to Flint, and to require all state departments, including the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Health and Human Services, to do the same for their staff.
end quotes
Sonia Sotomayor also needs some training on “implicit bias” to help her get over her Latina heritage that has her hostile to white men.
And interestingly, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission includes the news media among the many institutions that could have served the residents of Flint better.
Readers of the Cape Charles Mirror, take note of that, and be thankful for how lucky you are to have the Cape Charles Mirror, because you won’t read about this story in the Hearst publication, the Albany Times Union, or the New York Times or the Washington Post.
HUSH!
Keep a lid on things so people won’t know what is going on!
“Would the Flint water crisis have been allowed to happen in Birmingham, Ann Arbor or East Grand Rapids?” the commission asks in the 135-page report.
In response, I must say I don’t know if it would have been allowed in those places, but thanks to Sonia Sotomayor and gender politics, it sure as hell would be allowed in Rensselaer County in New York state, and was, in the case of the children of Hoosick Falls, who do not enjoy the same civil rights as the children in Flint, and that is because of apparent racial bias on the part of Latina Sonia Sotomayor.
In a letter to the people of Flint that forms a preface to the report, the commission says Flint residents “have been subjected to unprecedented harm and hardship, much of it caused by structural and systemic discrimination and racism that have corroded your city, your institutions, and your water pipes, for generations.”
“The people of Flint did not enjoy the equal protection of environmental or public health laws, nor did they have a meaningful voice in the decisions leading up to the crisis.”
end quotes
Thanks to the apparent implicit bias of Sonia Sotomayor, the people of Rensselaer County in the state of New York also do not enjoy the equal protection of environmental or public health laws, nor did they have a meaningful voice in the decisions leading up to the crisis in Hoosick Falls.
For that reason, I am asking her to resign from the United States Supreme Court.
It won’t be justice for the poisoned children of Hoosick Falls, but it will be a start to protect other children in the future.
To better understand the issues being discussed in here, if one were to google the subject “judicial corruption,” one of the first of the many articles that would come up on the subject is an article from the ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FRAUD EXAMINERS entitled “Bribery on the Bench: A Look at Judicial Corruption” by Jordan Underhill, J.D., Research Specialist, ACFE, where he starts out by informing us as follows about judicial corruption:
In September 2009, a federal grand jury in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, returned a 48-count indictment against two judges, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan.
The indictment included conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, conspiracy to commit tax fraud, honest services fraud, racketeering, bribery, money laundering and extortion.
The basis of these charges was an alleged kickback arrangement with private prison operators that netted the Luzerne County judges more than $2.6 million over at least seven years.
Conahan colluded with private prison operators to shut down the county-run juvenile detention center in favor of privately run facilities and Ciavarella did much of the sentencing that filled the new detention centers’ beds.
The private juvenile detention centers received state funding proportionate to the number of offenders that they housed; thus, they were incentivized to house as many individuals as feasible.
The judges deliberately funneled juvenile offenders (who were often advised by the judges that they did not need legal counsel) into the private juvenile detention centers, regardless of whether the charges merited the punishment.
The FBI and IRS began investigating the judges after another Luzerne County judge, Anne H. Lokuta, accused Conahan of conspiring to remove her from the bench (she was, in fact, removed from the bench in November 2008).
Lokuta aided federal investigators in discovering the kickback arrangement.
The so-called “kids-for-cash” scheme is an alarming reminder of the amount of damage that a dishonest judiciary can cause.
The scheme not only defrauded taxpayers of millions of dollars, but also violated the constitutional rights and severely disrupted the lives of thousands of children.
While the level of fraud committed by Ciavarella and Conahan is generally a rare occurrence, even a small measure of corruption in the judicial system is cause for great concern.
end quotes
Even a small measure of corruption in the judicial system is cause for great concern, people, which is why this thread calling for Sonia Sotomayor to resign in disgrace is running.
As that author tells us, the judiciary, and that includes Sonia Sotomayor, exercises great influence over individual lives and the notion that a judiciary is untainted by corruption is critical to society’s acceptance of a system of law as legitimate.
So, what about judges like Sonia Sotomayor who are tainted by corruption?
Why should they be rewarded with a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court as Sotomayor was by Barack Hussein Obama?
Getting back to the “Types of Judicial Corruption,” the author continues as follows:
The two most common types of judicial corruption are political interference and bribery.
Political interference is when politicians or staff from the legislative or executive branch meddle in judicial affairs or collude with judges in fraudulent schemes.
end quotes
In this case, both political interference and bribery are alleged.
The author continues as follows:
Despite efforts in many countries to isolate the judiciary from politics, judges and other court personnel still face significant pressure to rule in favor of powerful political or business entities rather than in accordance with the law.
A malleable judiciary can be used by those in power to provide protection for and lend legitimacy to fraudulent acts.
Judges might also collude with politicians in a variety of different white-collar crimes, such as extortion, money laundering and embezzlement.
end quotes
Sonia Sotomayor is a prime example of what a “malleable judge” looks like in real life.
Getting back to judicial corruption:
The second most common form of judicial corruption is bribery.
Judges or other court officials might accept bribes to exercise their influence over a case in a way that benefits the briber.
For example, a judge might delay or accelerate cases, accept or deny appeals, or simply rule in a particular way in exchange for kickbacks.
end quotes
In this case, Sotomayor denied my appeal to gain political favor with the powerful politicians she would need on her side to get her onto the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a bribery case from here in corrupt New York state, the author provides us with the following:
In June 2016, New York State Supreme Court Judge John A. Michaelek pleaded guilty to receiving bribes and offering a false instrument for filing in a court case involving a political operative named G. Steven Pigeon (who was also indicted for nine charges including bribery, extortion and grand larceny).
Prosecutors alleged that Michaelek reached an understanding with Pigeon that the judge would engage in “official misconduct which advanced Pigeon’s interests.”
As part of the arrangement, Pigeon helped relatives of Michaelek find employment and provided Michaelek with tickets to hockey games and a political fundraiser.
end quotes
Think about that phrase “the judge would engage in official misconduct which advanced Pigeon’s interests,” as you think about Sotomayor burying the truth for then-New York State Attorney General Eliot “Longshanks” Spitzer in 2005, and allowing a lie to survive.
And here I will rest for the moment.
After some long and serious discussions on this subject in another thread, it was made clear to me by both tkenny and Chas Cornweller that the true issue at stake here has not been made clear,
The issue is this: in 2005, as a circuit judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City, Sonia Sotomayor, as a federal appeals court judge established a new federal legal precedent with ramifications as sweeping as those of Roe v. Wade, but perhaps far more serious in the long run.
The legal precedent she established is that the ONLY proof required for government to declare someone to be mentally ill and dangerous is that they have spoken out about government or government operations, and that they have made clear their intention to challenge the government in a court of law, which happens to be a First Amendment right in this country, or was, anyway, until the Sotomayor precedent was established.
So, you can still exercise your First Amendment right to speak out about corrupt government.
But if and when you do, the “government” in its turn now has the “right” to unilaterally declare you mentally ill and dangerous and in need of immediate incarceration in a secure mental facility to protect the public at large from you.
This matter had absolutely nothing to do with me trying to “get a job back” because I never had a “job” in the first place, being licensed as I was by the state of New York to practice as a licensed professional engineer in New York State.
As can clearly be seen from an August 15, 2004 sworn affidavit to federal court from myself in support of injunctive relief, which is what I was asking for, not some “job,” as if I had been unfairly fired by Walmart’s or McDonalds, what I was asking for was my life as a human being back, which prayer for relief was rejected out of hand by Sotomayor, for political reasons, to wit:
3. I make this affidavit pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65 for a preliminary injunction in this above matter enjoining defendants from continuing to treat as valid in the State of New York a New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order issued to the Rensselaer County defendants by defendant John Christian Braaten on August 22, 2001; said injunctive relief returning plaintiff (Paul R. Plante) to his status as a non-dangerous person fully capable of surviving safely in freedom 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 and associate level public health engineer in the State of New York fully restored to him as it was on August 7, 2001.
end quote
How many Ph.D’s and J.D.’s does it require for an person to be able to comprehend that?
Is it really that complicated and hard to understand?
As to why this is a matter of concern to people in Virginia, even on the Eastern Shore, notwithstanding that the underlying events took place in New York state, as in New York, if someone’s work in Virginia as an engineer affects public health, safety, or property, they too must register with the state.
end quotes
So if licensed professional engineers in either state have a “job,” that “job” is to protect and safeguard public health, safety and property, even here on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, where we constantly hear about problems related to the proliferating chicken industry and impacts on groundwater, which in turn directly impacts the public health, safety and property, as property with a contaminated water supply, or no water supply due to overdrawing, is worthless.
To become licensed as a professional engineer in Virginia, applicants must meet the following requirements:
EIT (Engineer-in-Training) EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
Must meet one of the following:
• Graduate of approved curriculum of 4 years or more OR Graduate of non-approved curriculum + 2 years of experience
• Must be enrolled in an ABET accredited curriculum and within 12 months of degree.
• Graduated from a non-approved engineering technology curriculum + 6 years of experience
• Graduated with an undergraduate degree from an institution without an approved curriculum and obtained a graduate degree from an institution with an approved curriculum
LICENSURE FOR ENGINEERS:
Step 1: Graduation
The first step is graduating from an ABET-accredited engineering program at a college or university.
Step 2: FE Exam
The first exam in the licensure process is the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE).
Step 3: Work Experience
Many jurisdictions have specific requirements about the type of experience you need to gain.
Most require that you gain experience under the supervision of someone who is already licensed, and that your experience involve increasing levels of responsibility.
Step 4: PE Exam
Once you have gained the appropriate experience, you can take the second exam in the licensure process, the Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE).
After completing all the steps in the engineering licensure process—education, experience, and examinations—you are eligible for licensure by your licensing board.
Virginia Department Of Professional And Occupational Regulation
Board For Architects / Prof. Engineers / Land Surveyors, Certified Interior Designers, And Landscape Architects
3600 West Broad St.
Richmond, VA 23230-4917
Phone: 804.367.8512
TTY: 804.367.9753
Fax: 804.367.2475
end quotes
So it should be clear from that that licensed professional engineers in either state are not supposed to be some political hacks or lackeys of a corrupt government.
According to the National Society of Professional Engineers, becoming licensed as a professional engineer is a well-earned honor.
It is that well-earned honor that was stripped from me in 2005 by Sonia Sotomayor, not some “job.”
I took that responsibility to act to protect and safeguard life, health and property very seriously.
Sonia Sotomayor, acting as the voice of the federal government of the United States of America, did not, and as a result, innocent children in Hoosick Falls, New York, admittedly a poor community without the money to buy political protection with, ended up drinking water contaminated with the carcinogen PFOA.
That such was the case can be seen from these following words found at p.20 of my Appendix submitted to the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals and Sotomayor in 2005 in support of my appeal:
Paragraph #12 of a November 10, 2003 AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6) by David E. Rook, Esq., an attorney and counselor at law 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 A. Morris; John C. Braaten; Carol Fiorino and Bernadette R. Hallam, to wit:
12. Any actions alleged to have been taken by the Samaritan Defendants, were taken under the authority of NYS Mental Health Law and were taken for the benefit of the Plaintiff (public health engineer Plante) and society at large.
end quotes
Ponder that for a moment, people of the Eastern Shore of Virginia, as you also ponder just exactly who are these people telling you that chicken farms won’t impact YOUR health.
What qualifications do they have, besides political clout?
In another thread @ January 25, 2018 at 1:15 am, my formidable debating partner on this subject of Sonia Sotomayor told me as follows:
You aren’t going to unseat Sonia.
You might be generating some unwelcome scrutiny from other government entities.
So what gives?
What are you looking for?
Life is short, let things go from the past that you have no control over now.
end quotes
To which I answer, Sonia Sotomayor is not from the past; to the contrary, she is a clear and present danger to our liberty today, and frankly, I am surprised that someone so politically astute as is tkenny cannot see that.
So what I am looking for in here is to cure his blindness.
And @ January 26, 2018 at 5:42 pm in that same thread http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/come-here-or-not/ , our dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller chimed in on the subject of Sonia Sotomayor, as follows:
Paul, Kenny is correct in asking the question.
What do you hope to accomplish, other than closer, unwanted scrutiny from Big Brother?
end quote
Let me say that as an older American, I am quite surprised at both the questions and the implied threats about “BIG BROTHER” contained therein.
So to put some context to my reasons for bringing forth this discussion for tkenny, Chas Cornweller and “BIG BROTHER,” who apparently is watching with malicious intent, along with the candid world who wonder what we are about in this country, let me go back in time to this nation’s beginnings in “A Landholder V” by Oliver Ellsworth on December 03, 1787, where we have as follows:
We are further told “that the judicial departments, or those courts of law, to be instituted by Congress, will be oppressive.”
We allow it to be possible, but from whence arises the probability of this event?
end quote
Two hundred thirty-one (231) years ago on December 03, 1787, Oliver Ellsworth, an American lawyer, judge, politician, and diplomat who was a drafter of the United States Constitution, a United States Senator from Connecticut, and the third Chief Justice of the United States, could not conceive of a falsifier of the truth like Sonia Sotomayor ever making it onto a bench of the federal courts.
To answer his question of 231 years ago, “but from whence arises the probability of this event,” the answer is the partisan politics which exist in the United States of America today, partisan politics it is quite likely that back then, Oliver Ellsworth could not even conceive of as being able to come into this nation, let alone make a mockery of justice as they have done in this specific case.
So to answer our dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller’s query “What do you hope to accomplish, other than closer, unwanted scrutiny from Big Brother,” what I am accomplishing is the telling of a story that demands to be told, as well as giving some unwanted scrutiny back to “BIG BROTHER” in the tradition of real American patriots like Oliver Ellsworth,
Getting back to Oliver Ellsworth in “A Landholder V” on December 03, 1787:
State judges may be corrupt, and juries may be prejudiced and ignorant, but these instances are not common; and why shall we suppose they will be more frequent under a national appointment and influence, when the eyes of a whole empire are watching for their detection?
end quotes
As a “traditional” American, those are the types of questions from our nation’s beginnings that I feel have been handed down to us in our times to have to consider, or so I was taught when young as an American citizen, and so what I am doing in here, with the concurrence of the Cape Charles Mirror, is bringing that question from the past forward for our consideration today, as the founding fathers intended it should be.
Why tkenny and Chas Cornweller are surprised at that frankly astounds me, but such it is today in this nation, where there no longer are such things as shared American values.
With respect to state judges being corrupt, how true that is and our dear friend tkenny gave us a vivid example of that reality in his post @ January 24, 2018 at 3:56 pm in that other thread.
As to Oliver Ellsworth’s question, “why shall we suppose they (corrupt judges) will be more frequent under a national appointment and influence, when the eyes of a whole empire are watching for their detection,” the response is two-fold: one, because of the corrupt, partisan politics which exist in this country today which in turn give us corrupt judges; and two, the “eyes” of a whole empire which once were watching for their detection are now closed, firmly shut, so that no one any longer sees what is going on in those courts, or even cares.
America is now asleep, and today is most definitely not the yesterday of people like Oliver Ellsworth.
That is what we are talking about in here – why injustice is so acceptable to people in America today, when at the time of this nation’s beginning, it was deemed intolerable.
If that discussion makes “BIG BROTHER” uncomfortable, too damn bad is my thought, and what are we doing with a “BIG BROTHER” in this country in the first place?
So what am I looking for?
How about the same things the founding fathers were looking for when they rebelled against a tyrannical English king who made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries?
What is it about that that makes tkenny, Chas Cornweller and “BIG BROTHER” so nervous?
Any thoughts, anyone?
Before going further into what makes tkenny, whose presence in here we should be honored by, and Chas Cornweller, and “BIG BROTHER so nervous, I would like to flesh out a little better the societal role licensed professional engineers are supposed to play in every state, and not only New York and Virginia, including the Eastern Shore with its serious groundwater issues, so we can see first-hand the damage to society-at-large Sonia Sotomayor has done here with the license she has granted the State of New York to silence licensed professional engineers in the state by declaring them to be mentally ill and dangerous and in need of immediate incarceration in a secure mental facility if they dare to speak out against the “state,” itself, as was the case here.
And if this sounds like something taken from sociologist and historian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago,” you’re not wrong.
As to the societal role licensed professional engineers are supposed to play in a civilized society where rule of law prevails, an on-line posting from the National Society of Professional Engineers provides us with the following:
A century ago, anyone could work as an engineer without proof of competency.
In order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, the first engineering licensure law was enacted in 1907 in Wyoming.
Now every state regulates the practice of engineering to ensure public safety by granting only Professional Engineers (PEs) the authority to sign and seal engineering plans, and offer their services to the public.
end quotes
Absorb that for a moment, people, and let that sink in, and when it does, what becomes apparent is that by putting the federal government seal of approval on the attack made on me as a New York state licensed professional engineer conducting a legitimate investigation on 8/22/2001 to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, Sonia Sotomayor made an attack on civilized society, itself.
So why then did Barack Hussein Obama put her of all people on the United States Supreme Court?
Getting back to the NSPE posting, under “What is a PE?” we have:
To use the PE Seal, engineers must complete several steps to ensure their competency.
• Earn a four-year degree in engineering from an accredited engineering program
• Pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam
• Complete four years of progressive engineering experience under a PE
• Pass the Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) exam
PEs must also continuously demonstrate their competency and maintain and improve their skills by fulfilling continuing education requirements depending on the state in which they are licensed.
end quotes
Competency, people.
What do YOU want?
Do YOU want incompetent engineers who are politically reliable being put in positions of public trust over your children or grandchildren’s health, safety and well-being?
If so, thanks to Sonia Sotomayor, you’re already there.
If you don’t, well, that’s too bad, isn’t it, because the damage has now been done.
And then the NSPE, in the section “What makes a PE different from an engineer?” gives us this very important distinction:
• Only a licensed engineer may prepare, sign and seal, and submit engineering plans and drawings to a public authority for approval, or seal engineering work for public and private clients.
• PEs shoulder the responsibility for not only their work, but for the lives affected by that work and must hold themselves to high ethical standards of practice.
• Licensure for a consulting engineer or a private practitioner is not something that is merely desirable; it is a legal requirement for those who are in responsible charge of work, be they principals or employees.
• Licensure for engineers in government has become increasingly significant.
Many federal, state, and municipal agencies require that certain governmental engineering positions, particularly those considered higher level and responsible positions, be filled only by licensed professional engineers.
• Many states have increasingly required that those individuals teaching engineering must also be licensed.
end quotes
So there is some very important background that has to be considered here to determine Sonia Sotomayor’s fitness to serve as a United States Supreme Court Justice.
Consider it carefully, for the lives affected by her decision in an adverse way just might be your own.
That this discussion on judicial corruption in our nation due to partisan politics is both timely and relevant to the disturbed and chaotic times we find ourselves immersed in today in the United States of America was made patently clear just yesterday in the Washington Examiner article “Ruth Bader Ginsburg laments partisan Washington: ‘I hope we will get back to the way it was'” by Melissa Quinn on Jan. 30, 2018, 3:40 PM, as follows:
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Tuesday lamented the partisan state of Washington, D.C., and said she worries the federal judiciary will be seen as “just another political branch of government” with partisan divisions.
end quotes
Obviously from our discussion in here concerning Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Ginsburg’s worries are coming along just a little bit late because right now, the federal judiciary IS seen as “just another political branch of government” with partisan divisions, because that is what the federal judiciary has indeed become – just another part of the partisan political hack-o-cracy that rules in this country rapidly on its own way to ****hole nation status thanks to partisan political judges like Sonia Sotomayor.
As to the pernicious influence of partisan politics on the federal judiciary, in that same article, Ginsburg specifically noted the confirmations of the four most recent justices named to the high court as evidence of Washington’s partisan atmosphere.
Those four judges include Sonia Sotomayor, the subject of this discussion in here.
Where the breakdown today occurs can be gleaned from a reading of Federalist No. 3 for the Independent Journal To the People of the State of New York in 1787 by John Jay as follows:
Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government, especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States.
Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us.
end quotes
Today, as can be seen by this discussion in here, the judicial decisions of the national government ARE NOT more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently, are less SAFE with respect to us, and that is because we no longer have, if we ever did, an efficient national government, and we certainly do not have the best men/women in the country serving.
What we have instead is a bunch of worthless Republicans and Democrats and their bootlickers, toadies and lickspittles, and they are hardly the best this country has to offer.
In Federalist No. 9 The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection For the Independent Journal To the People of the State of New York by Alexander Hamilton in 1787, it was said:
The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement.
The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients.
The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times.
end quotes
But as this thread clearly demonstrates in the case of Sonia Sotomayor, we do not have judges holding their office during “good behavior,” which for a judge has never been defined.
We have judges holding their offices because they are politically reliable.
Is that what “good behavior” has become to mean?
Any thoughts, anyone?
“Good Behavior”
Orderly and lawful action; conduct that is deemed proper for a peaceful and law-abiding individual.
The definition of good behavior depends upon how the phrase is used.
For example, what constitutes good behavior for an elected public officer may be quite different from that expected of a prisoner who wants to have his or her sentence reduced or to earn privileges.
The Constitution of the United States provides that federal judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, which means that they cannot be discharged but can be impeached for misconduct.
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.
The only reference I can find to the phrase “during good behavior” in section 1 of Article III of the United States Constitution is that the provision was in the Virginia Plan and was approved throughout during the 1787 Constitutional Convention where the ”good behavior” clause excited no controversy.
As to the Virginia Plan, according to our common United States history (or is it anymore?) on May 29, 1787, Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention Edmund Randolph proposed what became known as “The Virginia Plan.”
Written primarily by fellow Virginian James Madison, the plan traced the broad outlines of what would become the U.S. Constitution: a national government consisting of three branches with checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power.
But the reality in our times is that there are no checks on the abuse of power by the judicial branch, as can be seen from this following writing dated 6 May 2015 to the Clerk of the Court, United States Court of Appeals For The Second Circuit, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007, RE: Docket No. 15-90031-jm, to wit:
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
I hereby petition the judicial council for review of the Chief Judge’s order of April 30, 2015 dismissing Docket No. 15-90031-jm. on the grounds that the dismissal constitutes an unlawful grant of power and authority by and from the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, which unlawful grant of authority creates an “absolute independence” for United States District Court for the Northern District of New York in violation of those provisions of Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, entitled, to wit, “A Judge Should Uphold The Integrity And Independence Of The Judiciary,” wherein is stated in plain and simple language readily understandable by and comprehensible to the common person, “(A) judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved,” and, “(T)he provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.”
In support of that prayer for relief, in dismissing the above-referenced Complaint of Misconduct, the Chief Judge mistakenly and incorrectly stated that the Complaint of Misconduct “appeared” to fall into the category of “the judge got it wrong, not that the judge engaged in judicial misconduct.”
To the contrary, the Complaint of Misconduct in question did not state that the judge in question, United States District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, “got it wrong.”
It clearly stated that he did wrong, that he intentionally engaged in judicial misconduct, that being conduct “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.”
But of course, that claim is highly dependent on exactly what the business of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York really is, for what purpose does it really exist and only this Review Panel can answer that question.
Does the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York really exist to provide justice?
Or is that a silly myth?
If so, then this appeal should be dismissed.
In the Northern District of New York, is an independent and honorable judiciary really indispensable to justice in our society?
In the Northern District of New York, should a judge maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved?
Or is that another silly myth for school children to believe in?
Again, if so, then this appeal should be dismissed.
Do the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of New York and United States District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe really exist to protect lawlessness and what U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara described in the April 23, 2013 Times Union as “a culture of corruption” in New York State that “has developed and grown, just like barnacles on a boat bottom,” while acting in a punitive and retaliatory manner towards those like this Complainant, a New York State licensed professional engineer, who challenge that “culture of corruption” in a court of law through the Article 78 process in the State of New York?
Does “judicial independence” in the federal Northern District of New York really mean that the Court is a law unto itself, totally unfettered and unrestrained by the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges?
If so, and this Review Panel will be the decider of that, then of course, it will dismiss this appeal out of hand, and the matter will be settled.
end quotes
On June 26, 2015, the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City answered the question of “is it a silly myth that United States District Court for the Northern District of New York really exists to provide justice” in the affirmative.
Yes, people, in this day and age of the federal courts being nothing more than “just another political branch of government” with partisan divisions where there are Democrat judges and Republican judges, and in this case, a Hillary Clinton judge, it is a silly myth that United States District Court for the Northern District of New York really exists to provide justice.
On that date, the court also confirmed that in the Northern District of New York, it is just another silly myth for school children to believe in that an independent and honorable judiciary is really indispensable to justice in our society, because we do not have justice in our society any longer.
And it is another silly myth for school children to believe in that in the Northern District of New York, a judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved, because when federal judges are nothing more than the creatures of politicians and the Republican and Democrat parties as they are today, there is no independence of the judiciary left to preserve.
It is long since gone.
And yes, people, according to the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals on June 26, 2015, the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of New York and United States District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe really do exist to protect lawlessness and what U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara described in the April 23, 2013 Times Union as “a culture of corruption” in New York State that “has developed and grown, just like barnacles on a boat bottom,” while acting in a punitive and retaliatory manner towards those like myself, a New York State licensed professional engineer, who dared to challenge that “culture of corruption” in a court of law through the Article 78 process in the State of New York.
Incidentally, the Hillary Clinton judge Gary Sharpe is the judge who caused this appeal to end up before Sonia Sotomayor in 2005.
By putting the federal government seal of approval on the alleged misconduct of judge Sharpe, the court was also, not at all surprisingly, putting its arm around Sonia Sotomayor.
And as to the final question, does “judicial independence” in the federal Northern District of New York really mean that the Court is a law unto itself, totally unfettered and unrestrained by the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals answered in the affirmative.
Hence, the phrase in the Constitution “federal judges shall hold their offices during good behavior” has become nothing more than a mocking term, just another silly myth for school children to believe in, while the reality is quite different.
Most people in their whole lives will never come into contact with a judge at any level, nor will they ever see the inside of a courtroom, outside of jury duty, and really, having been through the experience many times, I think that is a good thing.
But I chose a career path as a licensed professional engineer, and a part of that profession requires attendance in courts of law as an expert witness, either for prosecution or defense.
In one case, I was called upon as an expert witness engineer to give evidence in a proceeding where a retarded black man had been shot and killed by some police officers.
My evidence was against one of the police officers to demonstrate that sworn statements he had made about his role in the incident were implausible, which is to say, what he swore to as truth could not in the face of the physical evidence be true.
As a result, the city made a cash settlement with the family of the victim.
Was that justice?
I doubt it, since a life wasn’t restored but it was some kind of vindication for the family, anyway.
As an expert witness for the common people against the politically powerful, one makes powerful enemies, which is what I was told to my face by an FBI special agent in Albany, New York circa December 5, 1991, when the political appointee judges of the Appellate Court for the Third Judicial Department of the State of New York issued a now-discredited ruling in Matter of Plante (that being myself) v. Buono (that being then-Rensselaer County Executive John L. “Smiling Jack” Buono, who was offered an $80,000 bribe in 1988 to get rid of me), 172 A.D.2d 81 (1991), wherein was stated as follows:
“Thus, combined with the fact that even at the hearing petitioner (myself) did not completely recognize Van Praag (former New York State Republican Party secretary and political hack serving as Rensselaer County Commissioner of Health despite not being a medical doctor) as his direct superior in the county government and that, as he is fully aware, his credibility has been destroyed, it cannot be said that his dismissal is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one’s sense of fairness”
end quotes
It was that phrase in there “his credibility has been destroyed,” that the FBI special agent was referring to when he told me I had powerful enemies and that the wisest thing for me to do would be to get out of New York state, because I was going to find things getting hot for me, and there was nothing that the FBI was going to do about it, as any possible use I might have been as a witness in any kind of federal criminal proceedings against corrupt Rensselaer County public officials had been fatally compromised by what in reality was a totally false statement – that I had no credibility.
Were I to appear as a witness, the first question a defense lawyer would then ask me would be this: “Isn’t it true that on December 5, 1991, the Appellate Court for the Third Judicial Department of the State of New York ruled in Matter of Plante v. Buono, 172 A.D.2d 81 that you have no credibility?”
The message there is that false statements by judges in one court are then considered as truth by judges and juries in other courts, and so the lies get disseminated and the powerful guilty get to go free, and public corruption aided and protected by judicial corruption, proceeds apace without fear of being challenged or exposed.
Which takes us to what is now known in New York State as “Bobby’s Law,” to wit:
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT In re CHARGE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT Docket No. 15-90031-jm
ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge:
The misconduct complaint (by myself) alleges that the judge (Hillary Clinton judge Gary Sharpe of the federal Northern District of New York):
(i) suppressed or “buried” evidence and allowed the defendants “to lie, [and] fabricate and suppress evidence”;
(ii) “branded” the Complainant (myself) as mentally ill;
(iii) was not impartial and helped the defendants “exact revenge” on the Complainant through use of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law.
DISCUSSION
The complaint is dismissed.
An allegation that a judge, in reaching a decision, neglected to consider fully all arguments presented, failed to comprehend the meaning or import of certain statutes or cases, or disregarded certain key facts or witnesses is merely challenging the correctness of the judge’s decision.
Similarly, an allegation that the result of the decision evidences a bias in favor of the prevailing party is also merely an attack on the correctness of that decision.
Robert A. Katzmann
Chief Judge
Signed: New York, New York
April 30, 2015
end quotes
In short, a federal district judge in the federal Northern District of New York can twist and distort the law and facts any way they wish to throw a case in any direction they want, and there is ****-all anyone can do about it, which takes us to a worthless book called the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which the website for the United States Courts describes as follows:
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil proceedings in the United States district courts.
Their purpose is “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
The rules were first adopted by order of the Supreme Court on December 20, 1937, transmitted to Congress on January 3, 1938, and effective September 16, 1938.
end quotes
Now, my experience in federal district court for the Northern District of New York, and in the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals before Sotomayor as a circuit judge, flanked by the same Robert “Bobby” Katzmann who was author of the above reply to my complaint of judicial misconduct, was that the Fed. R. Civ. P. were a standing joke among the judges, court personnel and the lawyers, who are supposed to be “officers of the court,” but are more like clowns or jesters, instead, there to mock the very concept of justice, itself.
As to the phrase “officer of the court,” LAW.com informs us as follows:
n. any person who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system, including judges, the attorneys who appear in court, bailiffs, clerks and other personnel.
As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, including avoiding dishonesty or evasion about reasons the attorney or his/her client is not appearing, the location of documents and other matters related to conduct of the courts.
end quotes
Now, for a look at some real hog**** here, focus in on this phrase “As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, including avoiding dishonesty.”
To which, based on my experience, I say “do tell,” and “oh, really?”
The truth is, people, as this case clearly demonstrates, that that is pure bull****, for as “Bobby’s Law” in the federal 2d Circuit makes incandescently clear, lawyers can lie like a rug and make false statements that the judge, him or herself also a lawyer, knows are false, and no penalties accrue to them for it.
And the harm is done when the lawyers and judge in what is known as the “trial court,” in this case the federal district court for the Northern District of New York, conspire (yes, people, that is the right word) to change the facts of the matter as this Hillary Clinton judge Gary Sharpe did in this case that then went up to Sonia Sotomayor on appeal, because the trial judge is considered the finder of fact, and if that judge chooses to totally and blatantly falsify the record by leaving out evidence in order to throw the case out of court, there is no appeal of that available.
Which literally gives these political appointee federal judges the power of life or death over us, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about when they use lies and falsehoods and untruths to bury us as a form of political retaliation, which is judicial tyranny.
Judicial tyranny is discussed in a Roundtable article on the subject as follows:
Judicial tyranny – that’s what happens when state and federal judges abuse their power and people are forced to do things not because the law says so, but because a judge says so.
Used to only find those kind of judges in old western movies.
But today, state and federal benches are filled with judges who pay little respect to legal precedent and even less to the clear meaning of the Constitution.
end quotes
And that is what the real-life story being told in here is all about, what judicial tyranny looks like in real life as opposed to a John Grisham novel.
To close, consider Virginia’s own Tommy Jefferson on the subject of judicial tyranny, to wit:
“The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will.” (Letter to John Wayles Eppes, 1807)
“Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given—according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . .”
“The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819)
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
“Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.”
“The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.” (Letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821)
“The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821)
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government.”
“Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance.”
“In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” (Letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823)
end quotes
And Abe Lincoln himself in his first inaugural address:
“…The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
In another thread in here http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/are-accomack-poulty-farms-drawing-water-illegally/ , we are talking about a subject called “regulatory capture,” which subject underlies the discussion in here as to why it is that Sonia Sotomayor should not be seated on the United States Supreme Court.
In an Emory Law essay entitled “’Regulatory Capture’: Sources and Solutions” by Scott Hempling, an advisor to public utility regulatory agencies, and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, teaching courses on public utility law and regulatory litigation, author of “Regulating Public Utility Performance: The Law of Market Structure, Pricing and Jurisdiction” (American Bar Association 2013), the author states as follows on the subject:
“Regulatory capture” is a ringing phrase, too casually used.
But because it is a hyperbolic phrase, it is too readily dismissed.
With a careful definition, regulatory capture can be anticipated, detected, and resisted.
end quotes
As this thread clearly demonstrates, however, while it might be possible to anticipate regulatory capture, which would have to be before the fact, once regulatory capture has been accomplished, as it clearly was here in the case of the Rensselaer County Department of Health and the New York State Department of Health circa 1978, once detected, it puts the one detecting it at risk, which makes it very difficult or impossible to resist, as can be seen from a review of a U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE – FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION report dated June 30, 1989, found at pages 202,203 of the Appendix Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino submitted to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in 2005 in justification of her own efforts as County Executive to cover up the alleged criminal activity of “protected persons” in Rensselaer County, to wit:
On October 6, 1988, “an Ad Hoc Engineering Committee” held a closed door meeting in the Rensselaer County Office Building which started at approximately 4:00 p.m. and which was the result, according to Plante, of a “deal” between [DELETED BY F.B.I. CENSORS] and the Rensselaer County Developer’s Organization.
In Plante’s view, the purpose of this “Ad Hoc Engineering Committee meeting” was to tell Plante how to do business in the Health Department, or else he “would not do business”.
According to Plante, he was instructed as to how business was done in Rensselaer County in 1983 and was further instructed to abide by agreements made in 1983 wherein, Plante understood, Health Department officials certified projects in return for contributions to various politicians.
Shortly thereafter, Plante was placed on thirty days sick leave and the Rensselaer County Executive went on local television announcing that Plante was suffering from stress related to his service in Viet Nam.
end quotes
That, people, is exactly what “regulatory capture” looks like in real life, and that last sentence about Rensselaer County Executive John L. “Smiling Jack” Buono going on local television (the Christine Kapostacy Jansing show on TV Channel 13 out of Menands, New York) to falsely announce that I was suffering from stress related to my service in Viet Nam also serves to explain why the political appointee judges of the Appellate Court for the Third Judicial Department of the State of New York issued a now-discredited ruling in Matter of Plante (that being myself) v. Buono (that being then-Rensselaer County Executive John L. “Smiling Jack” Buono, who was offered an $80,000 bribe in 1988 to get rid of me), 172 A.D.2d 81 (1991), wherein was stated as follows:
“Thus, combined with the fact that even at the hearing petitioner (myself) did not completely recognize Van Praag (former New York State Republican Party secretary and political hack serving as Rensselaer County Commissioner of Health despite not being a medical doctor) as his direct superior in the county government and that, as he is fully aware, his credibility has been destroyed, it cannot be said that his dismissal is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one’s sense of fairness”
end quotes
By going on television 9n October 12, 1988 and using the Christine Kapostacy Jansing Show as a platform from which to condemn me as being mentally ill because I was a Viet Nam veteran, a platform I in turn was denied access to by Channel 13, both Jansing, who went on to the big time as a political reporter for MSNBC after making her political bones in Albany, New York as she did on that night, showing that she was politically reliable, and Buono managed to preempt my exposure of endemic public corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health by casting doubt on my credibility, with the result that the regulatory capture which happened in or about 1978 persists to this day.
As to the Rensselaer County Department of Health being a textbook example of regulatory capture, we have a prime example of it in a March 27, 1989 Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) concerning a federal Hobbs Act investigation of corruption in the Rensselaer County (State of New York) Department of Health, as follows:
“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.”
end quote
However, getting back to the essay, the author tells us that “regulatory capture does not include illicit acts—financial bribery, threats to deny reappointment, promises of a post-regulatory career.”
Says he:
These things all have occurred, but they are forms of corruption, not capture.
end quotes
I in my turn would respond that for the corruption to occur in the first place, the regulatory capture first had to transpire, and successfully so, as it did in the case of the admittedly corrupt Rensselaer County Department of Health subsequent to its takeover by the Republican Party in or about 1978.
Getting back to the essay, the author states as follows:
Nor is regulatory capture a state of being controlled, where regulators are robots executing commands issued by interest groups.
Regulatory capture is neither corruption nor control.
Corruption and control are actions of the regulated entity.
Regulatory capture is characterized by the regulator’s attitude, not the regulated entity’s actions.
A regulator is “captured” when he is in a constant state of “being persuaded”: persuaded based on a persuader’s identity rather than an argument’s merits.
Regulatory capture is reflected in a surplus of passivity and reactivity, and a deficit of curiosity and creativity.
end quotes
From my own extensive experience, I would have to agree with him wholeheartedly when he states “regulatory capture is characterized by the regulator’s attitude, not the regulated entity’s actions, and a regulator is “captured” when he is in a constant state of “being persuaded” based on a persuader’s identity rather than an argument’s merits.
It was my refusal as a public health engineer and licensed professional engineer to be “persuaded” based on a persuader’s identity rather than an argument’s merits that caused me to end up before Sotomayor in 2005 looking for relief from the state-sponsored intimidation and harassment I was experiencing in New York state and Rensselaer County as a result of that refusal.
In the essay, the author further defines “regulatory capture” as follows:
It is evidenced by a body of commission decisions or non-decisions—about resources, procedures, priorities, and policies, where what the regulated entity wants has more influence than what the public interest requires.
The active verb “capture” signals an affirmative effort, to take someone captive.
But the noun “capture,” and the passive verb form “to be captured,” signal a state of being.
One can enter that state through one’s own actions or inactions.
One can allow oneself to be captured.
One can assist, and sustain, one’s own captivity.
end quotes
But what happens if one in fact refuses to enter that state of being “captured” through one’s own actions or inactions, and refuses to allow oneself to be captured, and refuses, as I did, to assist, and sustain one’s own captivity?
That is what this thread is about.
You don’t come to a good end when you do.
But more on that subject of regulatory capture is yet to come, so please, stay tuned and don’t touch that dial!
We are brought back to this thread by a New York Times article entitled “Trump Lawyer’s Payment to Porn Star Raises New Questions” by Maggie Haberman and Charlie Savage on 15 February 2018, wherein the following was stated:
WASHINGTON — The admission by President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer that he sent $130,000 to a pornographic film actress, who once claimed to have had an affair with Mr. Trump, has raised potential legal questions ranging from breach of contract to ethics violations.
end quotes
The key words in there are “ethics violations,” which is really what this thread is about, or said another way, it is ethics violations that are the reason Sonia Sotomayor should not be a United States Supreme Court Justice.
In the NYT article, it was again stated as follows:
The lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, told The New York Times on Tuesday that he had used his own funds to facilitate the payment to the actress, Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, adding that neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign had reimbursed him for the payment.
He insisted that the payment was legal.
end quotes
It was that statement that a lawyer being a bagman and paying hush money to keep a witness silent which then brings us to the following legal analysis on the subject:
Charles Wolfram, an emeritus professor of legal ethics at Cornell University, said the situation raised a host of potential issues, but that more facts were needed to understand which rules applied to it.
“The thing seems so weird that it invites an inquiry into what you’re doing,” he said.
“Lawyers don’t go around giving $130,000 to strangers, benefiting their clients, without billing their clients.”
end quotes
Pardon me for laughing right out loud here as I just did, but that is such a lawyerly thing for a lawyer to say right there – lawyers do not benefit their clients without making sure to bill for every dime and nickel and penny of it – gouge them for all they are worth, and then some.
Getting back to the NYT:
Mr. Cohen worked as a lawyer for the Trump Organization for roughly a decade, with an office near Mr. Trump’s on the 26th floor of Trump Tower in Manhattan.
Part fixer, part pit bull biting back at anyone who attacked Mr. Trump, Mr. Cohen frequently badgered reporters over stories he found unflattering toward his boss during the campaign.
He was often quoted in interviews lavishing praise on his boss.
end quotes
In my career as an engineer, I have run into many lawyers like that – the ones who think they can badger you into submission with threats to cause you harm, but that is a story for another day.
Getting back to the NYT and the issue of ethics, we have:
Another set of potential issues raised by Mr. Cohen’s admission centers on legal ethics.
As a New York lawyer, he is subject to rules of professional conduct in that state and could face disciplinary action — ranging from private admonishment to losing his license to practice law — if he violated them, although the still-uncertain details make it impossible to precisely identify which standards apply.
“We don’t have the facts,” said Philip Schrag, a Georgetown University law professor and specialist in legal ethics issues.
“There is an awful lot of speculation here about the facts, which we need before we can go into the legal analysis.”
end quotes
With respect to those supposed “legal ethics” in New York state, as this story shows, they are a piece of swiss cheese, a point reinforced by an address to the Albany County Bar Association in New York State, known as the Bar Association of the Stars because of all the high ranking judges who are members of it, by its president in March of 2003, as follows:
Does anyone really think lawyering involves ethical behavior?
Some people do.
There are courses in legal ethics required for admission to the bar.
A separate test in legal ethics is supposed to measure one’s moral fitness for the practice of law.
We are required to have a few hours of ethical training as part of mandatory Continuing Legal Education.
Whoop Dee Doo.
Did you ever sit through one of these lectures?
For the most part they are lessons in how not to get sued, i.e. “Don’t steal your client’s money”; “Don’t take a case if you don’t know what you are doing”; and my personal favorite, “Don’t have sex with your client.”
Does any of this have to do with ethics, i.e. the betterment of society, moral duty or the distinction between good and bad?
I don’t think so.
I recently spoke to a class at Hartwick College on legal ethics.
They were struggling with a truly moral issue, i.e. the termination of life and the role of the health care professional.
As I spoke I realized that the practice of law is essentially amoral.
Our advice to clients is not designed to guide anyone in ethical behavior.
We do not exist to tell anyone what is right and wrong.
We are all but prohibited from doing so.
Our duty is to advise of the legal consequences of actions, and to promote the interests of our client within the boundaries of the legal system.
For this reason, we do not necessarily advise the guilty to accept their punishment, nor do we chastise the adulterer, the negligent driver and the trespasser.
We advise.
****
So, we don’t deal in fairness, we deal in legal results, without regard to ethics.
You think clients come to us for our opinions on good and evil?
Think again, Jack.
We are not the clergy.
After all, it is just “Ethical Considerations” in the Code of Professional Responsibility, as in “OK, I’ve considered it, now here’s what we do.”
– Michael P. Friedman, President
end quotes
That, people, is an insider telling all the other insiders in the legal trade in New York the way things really are, as opposed to the way the suckers and gullible think them to be.
Getting back to the meat of the NYT article, we have:
Last month, Mr. Cohen sent Wall Street Journal reporters a written statement in Ms. Clifford’s name denying that she had had “a sexual and/or romantic affair” with Mr. Trump or “received hush money from Mr. Trump.”
He also issued his own statement saying that Mr. Trump “vehemently denies” any affair with her.
If evidence emerged showing that those statements were false and that Mr. Cohen knew they were false, his role in disseminating them could violate Rule 8.4, several legal ethics specialists said.
It prohibits lawyers from engaging “in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”
“Lawyers are not allowed to lie,” with some exceptions, said Lisa Lerman, a legal ethics professor at the Catholic University of America, and they are “also not allowed to induce other people to engage in conduct that they are prohibited from.”
end quotes
Lawyers in the corrupt ****hole of New York are not allowed to lie or engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation?
HUH?
That’s bull****.
Of course they can lie and engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, at least if they are with the office of the New York State Attorney General, or if they are a federal judge.
In this case, it is in controvertible that on August 16, 2005, an Assistant Solicitor General under then-New York State Attorney General Eliot “Longshanks” Spitzer named Julie M. Sheridan was lying through her teeth when she submitted a letter to Sotomayor, a circuit judge on the bench of the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City calling for my Amended Petition to be dismissed because my “constitutional claims were not viable, because the very premise of those claims – namely that plaintiff had been involuntarily committed – was false.”
That she was lying through her teeth and that I was in fact seized by Albany, New York VA Hospital staff and involuntarily confined, detained, incarcerated or otherwise committed to the secure mental health ward of the Albany, New York VA Hospital, based on nothing more than the unlawfully issued New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 involuntary commitment order which was unlawfully executed by John Christian Braaten of Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York on August 22, 2001 was confirmed three (3) years ealier in an affirmation of Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman to Rensselaer County Supreme Court dated August 16, 2002, approximately one (1) year after my false arrest, wherein was stated under oath as follows:
Lisa Ullman, being a duly licensed attorney in the State of New York and an Assistant Attorney General in the offices of Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, does hereby affirm under penalties of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106:
2. This proceeding was commenced by pro se petitioner Plante under Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules (“CPLR”), who requested a court order compelling the release of certain mental health records.
Specifically, Petitioner had been involuntarily committed to the Veteran’s Administration Hospital pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 for several hours on August 22, 2001, and had obtained redacted versions of documents pertaining to that commitment.
end quote
With that sworn affidavit in the record, the State of New York and Eliot Spitzer were confronted with a major problem, since that sworn affidavit by an Assistant New York State Attorney General was the proof of unlawful incarceration I needed to commence a federal civil rights lawsuit, which in New York State has a three-year statute of limitations.
So what was Spitzer to do?
Ah, yes, find a judge who would make that evidence that I was unlawfully incarcerated disappear.
So, Spitzer and Sotomayor did a deal, and Sotomayor allowed Spitzer to make that August 16, 2002 affirmation of Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman to Rensselaer County Supreme Court disappear as if it were never there in the first place, even after I was granted standing in district court based on that sworn admission by Ullman in 2002.
POOF, one day, there was a fire.
And up in flames went the book of lawyer’s ethics and my career as an engineer, as well.
Those with no ethics at all win, and those with ethics lose, and thus is the story of modern-day America told.
And while we are on the subject of the “fitness” of people to serve on the United States Supreme Court, and while we are assessing the fitness of Democrat Dianne Feinstein to be a United States Senator, let me say how pleased I was to scan down though the trending stories to see this title on the list, because a lot has happened since this thread first appeared in the Cape Charles Mirror, starting perhaps with the Guardian story “Chuck Schumer calls on supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to withdraw – Democratic leader says Kavanaugh should withdraw from consideration in light of multiple sexual misconduct allegations” by Lauren Gambino in Washington and Joanna Walters in New York published on 26 Sep. 2018, where Democrat senator from New York City Charley “Chuck” Schumer was quoted as follows, to wit:
“If our Republican colleagues proceed without an investigation, it would be a travesty for the honor of the supreme court and our country.”
“Judge Kavanaugh is being considered for a promotion.”
“He is asking for a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court where he will have the opportunity to rule on matters that will impact Americans for decades,” the letter said.
“The standard of character and fitness for a position on the nation’s highest court must be higher than this.”
end quotes
Oh, really, Charley “Chuck” – if that really is the case that the standard of character and fitness for a position on the nation’s highest court must be higher than what you think Brett Kavanaugh, who has merely been accused, represents, then how the hell did Sonia Sotomayor manage to make it there, then, when in her case there is a lengthy record that proves conclusively that as an appeals court judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in 2005, she intentionally lied and buried evidence to keep a civil rights suit involving retaliation for my refusal to engage as a public official in “honest services fraud” in New York state out of federal district court for the Northern District of New York?
What’s up with that then, Charley “Chuck?”
For those unfamiliar with the term, “honest services fraud” is a crime defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1346 added by the United States Congress in 1988 which states: “For the purposes of this chapter, the term scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.”
It was my refusal as a licensed professional engineer and associate level public health engineer to deprive the residents of Rensselaer County in the State of New York of their right to my honest services that provoked the series of retaliatory acts in clear violation of my civil rights as established by the United States Supreme Court that ended up before Sotomayor as a federal appeals court judge in 2005.
And based on the Press Release from Senator Feinstein entitled “Senator Feinstein Statement Supporting Supreme Court Nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor” on Aug. 04, 2009, Charley “Chuck” can’t say he is unaware of this, because according to his Democrat colleague Dianne Feinstein, before she was selected by Obama as a Supreme Court nominee, her judicial record, like that of Brett Kavanaugh, was gone over, pored over in fact, with a fine-tooth comb, so this lie and the burying of evidence surely could not have escaped scrutiny.
As to that 2009 press release by Schumer ally Dianne Feinstein, it starts out as follows:
Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today urged the full Senate to confirm the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to become an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
In remarks delivered on the Senate floor, Senator Feinstein praised Judge Sotomayor, noting that her 17-year judicial career shows her to be “a solid, tested, and mainstream federal judge.”
end quotes
And let us stop right there for the moment to ponder that thought Democrat Dianne Feinstein has left us with there – “her 17-year judicial career shows her to be a solid, tested, and mainstream federal judge.”
A “solid, tested, and mainstream” federal judge, indeed, so far as a Democrat like Dianne Feinstein is concerned.
But at the same time, and this is wholly supported by the 609-page record before her in that matter, Plante v. Bechard et. al., 05-2133-CV, it is both incontrovertible and undeniable that she lied and buried evidence.
So, people, seriously, what conclusions can we draw there other than that to Democrat Dianne Feinstein, a “solid, tested, and mainstream” federal judge who belongs on the United States Supreme Court is a federal judge like Sonia Sotomayor who will lie and bury evidence to protect endemic public corruption and honest services fraud in New York State?
As a benchmark with respect to the fitness of Sonia Sotomayor to be a United States Supreme Court Justice, we today have the CBS News story “Hillary Clinton on Brett Kavanaugh: ‘There’s a lot to be concerned about'” by Emily Tillett on October 2, 2018, to guide us, as follows:
“For anyone who believes there’s such a thing as judicial temperament and that we want judges, particularly those on our highest court to approach issues, approach plaintiffs and defendants with a sense of fairness, that there’s a lot to be concerned about,” Clinton said in remarks Tuesday at The Atlantic Festival in Washington.
end quotes
If that is true, and I certainly take it as such, because it is coming from not an ordinary citizen such as myself, but from a twice-failed Democrat presidential contender, then there is a great deal to be concerned about with respect to Sonia Sotomayor for those like myself who are concerned about judicial temperament and who want judges, particularly those on our highest court, to approach issues, approach plaintiffs and defendants with a sense of fairness.
Hillary, by the way, is about to emerge from her seclusion and political isolation as we are told in the CNN story “Hillary Clinton to headline first public campaign event of 2018” by Dan Merica on 1 October 2018, as follows, which make her words above on judicial temperament that much more timely and relevant, as follows:
Hillary Clinton will headline her first public campaign event of the midterms on Monday, a Clinton spokesman tells CNN, when she attends a roundtable in Chicago with JB Pritzker, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Illinois.
The event, which will include Juliana Stratton, the Democrats’ lieutenant governor candidate, will be a roundtable with high school girls and focus on stressing the importance of leadership, according to the Pritzker campaign.
Clinton has spent much of 2018 out of the political fray or headlining fundraisers for a handful of Democratic groups and campaigns.
Pritzker has long been a prolific Democratic fundraiser and donor and backed Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential campaign.
Clinton also helped Pritzker during his Democratic primary by recording a robocall for the billionaire entrepreneur.
Later this month, Clinton will headline an event with Andrew Gillum, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Florida who was a campaign surrogate for Clinton in 2016.
end quotes
If we consider the irrefutable facts in this case, where it is clear that Sotomayor lied and buried evidence to protect endemic public corruption in New York State, and at the same time take seriously the admonition of Hillary Clinton that for anyone who believes there’s such a thing as judicial temperament and that we want judges, particularly those on our highest court to approach issues, approach plaintiffs and defendants with a sense of fairness, that there’s a lot to be concerned about, then it is patently clear that Sonia Sotomayor fails that test, for which reason, the House of Representatives should prepare articles of impeachment to remove her from the federal Supreme Court bench where her record should have kept her from in the first place.
And the very last person in this country who should be lecturing us about “such a thing as a judicial temperament” and wanting judges, particularly those on our highest court, to approach issues and plaintiffs and defendants with a sense of fairness, is Hillary Rodham Clinton herself, who gifted us in the State of New York with Conservative Republican District Court Judge for the Northern District of New York Gary Sharpe, a judge whom there’s a lot to be concerned about, as follows:
Congressional Record, Volume 150, Number 7 (Wednesday January 28 2004)
[Pages S304-S307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION – NOMINATION OF GARY L. SHARPE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I rise in very strong support of the nomination of Magistrate Judge Gary Lawrence Sharpe who has been nominated to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
I ask all of my colleagues to support this nomination.
I commend my colleague, Senator Schumer, for the important role he has played on the Judiciary Committee.
I second his comment that in New York we have worked together with the administration to nominate and confirm judges who will be a real credit, not only to the bench but to this administration and to our country.
Magistrate Judge Gary Lawrence Sharpe is at the top of that list.
I think he will not only serve with distinction in New York but demonstrate clearly that this is the kind of conservative Republican nominee whom we could be unanimously confirming.
end quotes
Do you remember that, Hillary?
And while Hillary is prattling on about such a thing as a judicial temperament and that we want judges, particularly those on our highest court, to approach issues and plaintiffs and defendants with a sense of fairness, we have her damn poor judgment in the matter of judicial temperament on full display in this article from the New York Times by Benjamin Weiser on Jan. 28, 2011, as follows:
A federal appeals court in Manhattan overturned a six-and-a-half-year sentence in a child pornography case on Friday, saying the judge who imposed it improperly found that the defendant would return to viewing child pornography because of an as-of-yet undiscovered gene.
The judge, Gary L. Sharpe of Federal District Court in Albany, was quoted as saying, ”It is a gene you were born with.”
“And it’s not a gene you can get rid of,” before he sentenced the defendant, Gary Cossey, in December 2009.
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said in ruling on the defendant’s appeal, ”It would be impermissible for the court to base its decision of recidivism on its unsupported theory of genetics.”
Judges Amalya L. Kearse, John M. Walker Jr. and Rosemary S. Pooler ruled that a sentence relying on findings not supported in the record seriously affects the fairness, integrity and public reputation of judicial proceedings.
The panel ordered that Mr. Cossey be resentenced by a different judge, a step it said was taken only where a judge’s fairness or the appearance of fairness was in doubt.
This is one such instance, the panel said.
end quotes
So much for Hillary’s judgment when it comes to federal judges – it is both laughable and pathetic.
As to Gary Sharpe, Hillary’s Conservative Republican judge on the federal District Court for the federal District Court for the Northern District of New York, he plays a starring role along with Sonia Sotomayor in the true story of federal judges who blatantly lie and bury evidence to protect endemic public corruption in New York State, as we clearly see from the following, to wit:
Patrick J. Tomaselli, Attorney at Law
Weatherwax Road Law Offices
P.O. Box 97
Poestenkill, New York 12140
April 25, 2005
Poestenkill Town Board
Poestenkill Town Hall
P.O. Box 210
Poestenkill, New York 12140
RE: PAUL R. PLANTE vs EUGENE BECHARD, Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, et al
United States District Court – Northern District of New York
Civil Case No. 03-CV-0753 (GLS/RFT)
My File No. 2003.132
Dear Board Members:
As I reported at the last Town Board meeting, the long-pending Federal civil rights action commenced by Paul Plante against Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Eugene Bechard and Poestenkill Town Justice David Gebhardt (as well as 20 other named defendants) was recently dismissed, with prejudice, by a March 31, 2005 Decision and Order of United States District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe, a copy of which has been provided to you.
While the Decision is lengthy and cites much case law, its basis is relatively simple.
As stated by Judge Sharpe, “Plante fails to establish any violation of a constitutional right by the defendants” and “As to the numerous conspiracy claims, Plante, likewise fails to provide any facts to support any of them.”
In sum, “This complaint offers only conclusory allegations without any factual support and fails to state a claim.”
Perhaps as indicative of the Court’s impression of Plante’s Complaint as anything in the body of the Decision is the very first footnote thereto wherein Judge Sharpe refers to the fact “This Court has attempted to summarize the litany of unintelligible and conclusory allegations in Plante’s convoluted complaint and attached exhibits.”
While I would hope this matter is now concluded, the possibility of an appeal of course remains.
If you have any questions regarding these matters, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
PATRICK J. TOMASELLI, ESQ.
Poestenkill Town Attorney
end quotes
Hillary’s Conservative Republican judge Gary Sharpe reached that conclusion pro-corruption Poestenkill Town Attorney Patrick Tomaselli was crowing and chortling about above here, he buried the sworn affidavit of the Albany, New York Police Officer who got me freed from the involuntary psychiatric confinement I was being held in in the secure mental facility of the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York based on a fraudulent New York State Mental Hygiene Law section 9.45 order issued by a political doctor at Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York, and he also buried the sworn affidavit of Assistant New York State Attorney General Lisa Ullman to Rensselaer County Supreme Court dated August 16, 2002, approximately one (1) year after my false arrest, wherein was stated under oath as follows:
Lisa Ullman, being a duly licensed attorney in the State of New York and an Assistant Attorney General in the offices of Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, does hereby affirm under penalties of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106:
2. This proceeding was commenced by pro se petitioner Plante under Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules (“CPLR”), who requested a court order compelling the release of certain mental health records.
Specifically, Petitioner had been involuntarily committed to the Veteran’s Administration Hospital pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 for several hours on August 22, 2001, and had obtained redacted versions of documents pertaining to that commitment.
end quote
And then he did what a Hillary Clinton judge would he expected to do, which is to lie through his teeth in order to protect the endemic public corruption in New York state that Hillary Clinton was a champion and protector of as a United States senator.
Even though Democrats do not want to appear too confident about winning control of the House, some have already raised the issue of investigating Kavanaugh for untruthfulness if they gain the majority and key committee chairmanships come into their hands.
That is a line from the Los Angeles Times story “Calls to impeach Kavanaugh pose awkward challenge for Democrats” by Laura King on 8 October 2018, wherein we are told as follows in the lede, to wit:
WASHINGTON – Even before the judicial oath was administered and Judge Brett Kavanaugh became Justice Kavanaugh, some on the political left were sounding calls to impeach him.
end quotes
If Brett Kavanaugh is going to be investigated for untruthfulness by the Democrats, then by God Sonia Sotomayor had better be investigated as well, because while Kavanaugh might be suspected of untruthfulness, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Sonia Sotomayor lied through her teeth in Plante v. Bechard et. al., 05-2133-CV, and so should not be sitting mon the United States Supreme Court.
This is a load of crap that the Democrats are going after a Republican for allegedly lying, while protecting a Democrat who has lied.
And people, trust our plucky, although twice-failed Democrat presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton to get her mouth fully engaged in hyper-drive in this Brett Kavanaugh matter, now that he is actually seated on the high court, which has her foaming at the mouth and ululating fiercely while at the same time, and this is something Hillary can do which the rest of us can’t do, Hillary is spewing what she thinks are profundities, but are in fact drivel, that critical judgment based on who Hillary Clinton really is, which is the person responsible for putting Conservative Republican Gary Sharpe on the federal bench in 2004, which takes us to a recent appearance Hillary made on the Cuomo News Network, which is the subject of a Cuomo News Network story entitled “Clinton says Trump remarks at Kavanaugh swearing-in undermine Supreme Court” by Mick Krever, CNN on 10 October 2018, where the Cuomo News Network people inform us as follows:
Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that President Donald Trump staged a “political rally” at Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s ceremonial swearing-in that “further undermined the image and integrity of the court.”
“What was done last night in the White House was a political rally.”
end quotes
Oh, really, Hillary?
Then what were you doing on Wednesday, January 28, 2004, Hillary, as is recounted for posterity in the Congressional Record Volume 150 Number 7, as follows:
[Pages S304-S307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION – NOMINATION OF GARY L. SHARPE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I rise in very strong support of the nomination of Magistrate Judge Gary Lawrence Sharpe who has been nominated to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
I ask all of my colleagues to support this nomination.
I commend my colleague, Senator Schumer, for the important role he has played on the Judiciary Committee.
I second his comment that in New York we have worked together with the administration to nominate and confirm judges who will be a real credit, not only to the bench but to this administration and to our country.
Magistrate Judge Gary Lawrence Sharpe is at the top of that list.
I think he will not only serve with distinction in New York but demonstrate clearly that this is the kind of conservative Republican nominee whom we could be unanimously confirming.
I commend him to the Senate.
I thank the Chair.
end quotes
What’s that, Hillary, if not the epitome of a political rally for a Conservative Republican staged by yourself?
Why was it necessary for you to stress to your Senate colleagues, Hillary, that Gary Sharpe was a Conservative Republican, and hence a clear and present danger to our liberties in the Northern District of New York, as this following series of communications involving the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals with respect to a valid complaint I personally filed against this Hillary Clinton Judge in 2015, as follows:
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT In re CHARGE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT Docket No. 15-90031-jm
ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge:
The misconduct complaint alleges that the judge (i) suppressed or “buried” evidence and allowed the defendants “to lie, [and] fabricate and suppress evidence”; (ii) “branded” the Complainant as mentally ill; (iii) was not impartial and helped the defendants “exact revenge” on the Complainant through use of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law.
DISCUSSION
The complaint is dismissed.
An allegation that a judge, in reaching a decision, neglected to consider fully all arguments presented, failed to comprehend the meaning or import of certain statutes or cases, or disregarded certain key facts or witnesses is merely challenging the correctness of the judge’s decision.
Similarly, an allegation that the result of the decision evidences a bias in favor of the prevailing party is also merely an attack on the correctness of that decision.
Robert A. Katzmann
Chief Judge
Signed: New York, New York
April 30, 2015
end quotes
In the federal Northern District of New York, a Conservative Republican federal district court judge appointed by Hillary Clinton can, with the express permission of the Chief Judge for the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals, humiliate a decorated, disabled Viet Nam by uttering malicious falsehoods in a published decision, and he can lie and bury evidence to do so.
That is the clear and unequivocal message there, which takes us back to the Cuomo News Network story above as follows:
“It further undermined the image and integrity of the court,” Clinton, Trump’s Democratic 2016 election opponent, told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in an exclusive interview.
“And that troubles me greatly.”
“It saddens me.”
“Because our judicial system has been viewed as one of the main pillars of our constitutional government.”
“So I don’t know how people are going to react to it.”
“I think, given our divides, it will pretty much fall predictably between those who are for and those who are against,” Clinton said.
end quotes
What a load of horse****, especially that last sentence in there, and what really undermined the image and integrity of the court was this incredible decision by Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann, signed: New York, New York, April 30, 2015.
That incredible April 30, 2015 Katzmann Decree, which Hillary Clinton would be well aware of, as would Charley “Chuck” Schumer, proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that our so-called federal “judicial system” cannot be viewed by the common people such as myself to be one of the main pillars of our constitutional government.
It is too rotton to be a support, as this following complaint to the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in response to the Katzmann Decree above clearly shows:
6 May 2015
Clerk of the Court
United States Court of Appeals
For The Second Circuit
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
RE: Docket No. 15-90031-jm
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
I hereby petition the judicial council for review of the Chief Judge’s order of April 30, 2015 dismissing Docket No. 15-90031-jm. on the grounds that the dismissal constitutes an unlawful grant of power and authority by and from the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, which unlawful grant of authority creates an “absolute independence” for United States District Court for the Northern District of New York in violation of those provisions of Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, entitled, to wit, “A Judge Should Uphold The Integrity And Independence Of The Judiciary,” wherein is stated in plain and simple language readily understandable by and comprehensible to the common person, “(A) judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved,” and, “(T)he provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.”
In support of that prayer for relief, in dismissing the above-referenced Complaint of Misconduct, the Chief Judge mistakenly and incorrectly stated that the Complaint of Misconduct “appeared” to fall into the category of “the judge got it wrong, not that the judge engaged in judicial misconduct.”
To the contrary, the Complaint of Misconduct in question did not state that the judge in question, United States District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, “got it wrong.”
It clearly stated that he did wrong, that he intentionally engaged in judicial misconduct, that being conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.
But of course, that claim is highly dependent on exactly what the business of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York really is, for what purpose does it really exist and only this Review Panel can answer that question.
Does the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York really exist to provide justice?
Or is that a silly myth?
If so, then this appeal should be dismissed.
In the Northern District of New York, is an independent and honorable judiciary really indispensable to justice in our society?
In the Northern District of New York, should a judge maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved?
Or is that another silly myth for school children to believe in?
Again, if so, then this appeal should be dismissed.
Do the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of New York and United States District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe really exist to protect lawlessness and what U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara described in the April 23, 2013 Times Union as “a culture of corruption” in New York State that “has developed and grown, just like barnacles on a boat bottom,” while acting in a punitive and retaliatory manner towards those like this Complainant, a New York State licensed professional engineer, who challenge that “culture of corruption” in a court of law through the Article 78 process in the State of New York?
Does “judicial independence” in the federal Northern District of New York really mean that the Court is a law unto itself, totally unfettered and unrestrained by the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges?
If so, and this Review Panel will be the decider of that, then of course, it will dismiss this appeal out of hand, and the matter will be settled.
Respectfully,
Paul R. Plante
end quotes
That, people, is a very clear enunciation of what a Hillary Clinton federal court does in fact look like, which is why Hillary specifically wanted a Conservative Republican judge on the Northern District of New York, as was verified by the full federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in the decision which follows:
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
——————————————————-X
In re
CHARGE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
——————————————————-X
Docket No. 15-90031-jm
Before the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit:
A complaint having been filed on April 1, 2015 alleging misconduct on the part of a District Judge of this Circuit, and the complaint having been dismissed on April 30, 2015 by the Chief Judge of the Circuit, and a petition for review having been filed timely on May 11, 2015
Upon consideration thereof by the Council it is
ORDERED that the petition for review is DENIED for the reasons stated in the order dated April 30, 2015.
The clerk is directed to transmit copies of this order to the complainant and to the District Judge whose conduct is the subject of the underlying complaint.
Karen Greve Milton
Circuit Executive
By Direction of the
Judicial Council
Dated: June 26, 2015
New York, New York
end quotes
So there is how I am reacting to your horse**** on the Cuomo News Network the other day, Hillary; I am calling you out on it – WHY did you put a Conservative Republican on the federal district court bench in Albany, New York?
The candid world would like to know.
And that approval of the April 30, 2015 Katzmann Decree by the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals on June 26, 2015 takes us back in time to December 19, 2005, when the pro-public corruption lawyer Patrick J. Tomaselli, Attorney at Law, was singing the praises of then-appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor on the same federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City to the Poestenkill town board, as follows:
Poestenkill Town Board
Poestenkill Town Hall
P.O. Box 210
Poestenkill, New York 12140
RE: PAUL R. PLANTE vs EUGENE BECHARD, Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, et al
United States District Court – Northern District of New York
Civil Case No. 03-CV-0753 (GLS/RFT)
My File No. 2003.132
Dear Board Members:
As indicated in my letter to you of April 25, 2005, the Federal civil rights action by Paul Plante against Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Eugene Bechard and Town Justice David Gebhardt (as well as 20 other named defendants) was dismissed, with prejudice, by a March 31, 2005 Decision and Order of U.S. District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe, a copy of which was previously provided to you.
In that lengthy Decision the Court stated that “Plante fails to establish any violation of a constitutional right by the defendants”; that, “As to the numerous conspiracy claims, Plante, likewise, fails to provide any facts to support any of them”, and that “This complaint offers only conclusory allegations without any factual support and fails to state a claim.”
At the time I indicated that while I hoped the matter was concluded, “the possibility of an appeal of course remains”.
Thereafter, Plante did appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and that appeal has been pending ever since and has been often cited by Mr. Plante in various other and obviously unrelated litigation and threatened litigation.
At this juncture, I am pleased to advise that by Order dated December 15, 2005 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously affirmed the dismissal of Plante’s claim.
A copy of that Order has been separately distributed to you and is self-explanatory, the Court concluding that “Plante’s conspiracy claims were wholly devoid of any supporting detail and Plante’s own exhibits defeated his claim that he had been unlawfully committed.”
While Plante may conceivably apply for certiorari to have this matter reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the chance that certiorari would be granted is virtually nil.
Thus, it appears that yet another Plante matter has been concluded successfully (for the Town), albeit after years of protracted litigation.
Very truly yours,
PATRICK J. TOMASELLI, ESQ.
Poestenkill Town Attorney
end quotes
Thus did Sonia Sotomayor firmly establish her bonafides as a political judge who could be counted on to do “the right thing” when the right thing was what was needed to protect and safeguard endemic public corruption involving honest services fraud in New York state, and thus was she set on the path that would then see Barack Hussein Obama reward her for her political reliability with a seat on the United States Supreme Court.
Now, to understand why it was that Poestenkill Town Attorney Patrick Tomaselli was giddy with glee over the patent dishonesty of then-2d Circuit Court of Appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor in that December 19, 2005 writing above to the Poestenkill Town Board, wherein Tomaselli gleefully stated to the Poestenkill Town Board, “(T)hus, it appears that yet another Plante matter has been concluded successfully (for the Town), albeit after years of protracted litigation,” and to understand why Sonia Sotomayor should be impeached and removed from the federal bench for the dishonesty Tomaselli was cheering on December 19, 2005, it is necessary to drop back in time to April 25, 1996, to a sworn affidavit I filed with the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme court I Albany, New York, in response to a libelous rant or screed Tomaselli had filed with the same court as Poestenkill Town Attorney in a vain attempt to turn the judges of that Court against me with respect to litigation I was involved in as a plaintiff against endemic public corruption involving the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, as follows:
229 AD2d 650
Supreme Court – Appellate Division
Third Judicial Department
75470
______________________________
In the Matter of the
TOWN OF POESTENKILL,
Respondent,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION,
Appellant.
—————————————————
In the Matter of SUSAN LASCARI et al.,
Respondents,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION et al.,
Appellants.
_______________________________
REPLY AFFIDAVIT
Paul R. Plante, N.Y.S.P.E., being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am one of the pro se petitioner/respondents in the above captioned matter, and as such, I am fully familiar with the facts in the matter and the prior proceedings had herein.
2. I make this affidavit in reply to certain averments made under oath in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the April 22, 1996 Answering Affidavit of Poestenkill Town Supervisor John E. Zweig in connection with the above matter (hereinafter “Zweig Affidavit”), a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit A and made a part of for the Court’s convenience, and in response to certain unsworn and scurrilous allegations made in an April 22, 1996 letter of Poestenkill Town Attorney Patrick J. Tomaselli, Esq. annexed to the Zweig Affidavit as Exhibit D.
A copy of the April 22, 1996 Tomaselli letter relied upon by Supervisor Zweig in his April 22, 1996 affidavit is annexed hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof for the Court’s convenience.
end quotes
The unsworn and scurrilous allegations made in an April 22, 1996 letter of Poestenkill Town Attorney Patrick J. Tomaselli, Esq. annexed to the Zweig Affidavit as Exhibit D submitted to the Appellate Court in New York State was the entrance of lawyer Patrick Tomaselli into this drama that would result in Sonia Sotomayor in December 2005 affirming to Tomaselli and the Poestenkill Town Board that as far as the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals was concerned, I had no civil rights that the Town of Poestenkill need concern itself with, and since I was essentially now locked out of federal court, there was nothing I could do about it, which cheered Tomaselli and the Poestenkill Town Board greatly, because they were then free to violate the law with impunity, knowing Sonia Sotomayer had their back, which takes us back to that sworn affidavit, as follows:
3. At the very outset, I would ask the Court to note that in paragraph 5 of his April 22, 1996 affidavit, Mr. Zweig and the Town of Poestenkill take no position with respect to the relief requested in the April 15, 1996 motion of petitioner/respondent Lorraine Kaskoun, that relief being dismissal of Appeal No. 75470 on the grounds that an appeal from denial of a motion to reargue in the instant matter is improperly taken, since an order denying a motion to reargue cannot be appealed from.
4. That, it is respectfully submitted is where this matter should have begun and ended.
5. If the Town of Poestenkill had no problem with petitioner Kaskoun’s request for relief, or if it had nothing of substance to add to the proceedings vis-a-vis the propriety of petitioner Kaskoun’s request for relief, the Town of Poestenkill should have simply stated as such and concluded the matter with brevity and clarity as to its position in that regard.
6. Instead, Mr. Zweig chose to first burden this Court with a discussion of matters not in the record before the Court in the instant appeal, and then, in paragraph 16 of his April 22, 1996 affidavit, Mr. Zweig chose to label me as a “liar.”
end quotes
Here it should be noted that this Mr. Zweig ran openly on a pro-corruption/anti-regulation/anti-law and order platform in the Town, and when he was elected, I literally became an “enemy” of the Town Board, and was outcast, without rights in the Town, for my anti-corruption stance, as we see by returning to the sworn affidavit, as follows:
7. As a result, I am now forced by that circumstance to have to defend my integrity before this Court, and I beg this Court’s indulgence for an opportunity to do so, albeit very briefly.
8. Since the sole “evidentiary” basis and support for Mr. Zweig’s averment that I am a “liar” appears to be an April 22, 1996 letter to this Court from Poestenkill Town Attorney Patrick J. Tomaselli, Esq., which is annexed to Mr. Zweig’s affidavit as Exhibit D and which is annexed hereto as Exhibit B, I will deal directly with the statements of Mr. Tomaselli therein, and by so doing, demonstrate to this Court that Mr. Zweig’s statement in paragraph 16 of his April 22, 1996 affidavit that I am a “liar” is both unsupported and false, and is made for no other apparent purpose but to deflect this Court’s attention away from the real and sole issue before the Court in petitioner Kaskoun’s motion, to wit, that Appeal No. 75470 should be dismissed outright in the sound exercise of this Court’s discretion.
end quotes
What is happening there is called “muscling.”
Poestenkill Town Attorney Patrick Tomaselli was using his political clout as a lawyer to “muscle” me, to push me aside, so that I would not be able to participate in that appeal, which then would have given the corrupt New York State department of Environmental Conservation a free win in that appeal, which they ended up losing, because I stood up to Tomaselli’s sleaze-bag lawyer’s tricks and did not cave, which takes us back again to that sworn affidavit, as follows:
9. In getting to the facts of the matter to debunk the false and extremely malicious assertions of Mr. Tomaselli’s April 22, 1996 letter to this Court annexed hereto as Exhibit B, and thereby demonstrate the falsity of Mr. Zweig’s averments in paragraph 16 of his April 22, 1996 affidavit, it is necessary to go no further than the second paragraph on page one of Mr. Tomaselli’s diatribe where he states as follows, and I quote:
Indeed, Mr. Plante’s very style of “advocacy” seems to be predicated upon ignoring or distorting the facts and/or law pertaining to the actual issues in dispute and concentrating instead on personal insults and name-calling against all involved participants.
(Exhibit B, page one)
end quotes
As we shall see, that lawyer’s bull****, and how they can throw it, was exposed as just another slimeball lawyer’s trick in my sworn affidavit, whichput me way over on Tomaselli’s “bad side,” as he called it, which explains his glee at the dishonesty of Sotomayer in December of 2005, which removed me as a threat to on-going public corruption in Poestenkill, which again takes us back to my sworn affidavit, as follows:
10. Based upon a review of the facts in connection with the litigation I have been involved in as a pro se litigant, which upon information and belief Mr. Tomaselli is well aware of in his capacity as attorney for the Town of Poestenkill, it can be readily demonstrated to this Court that the above statement of Mr. Tomaselli which Mr. Zweig relies on in paragraph 16 of his April 22, 1996 affidavit is patently false.
11. Annexed hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof is a twenty (20) page decision of Honorable Robert C. Williams, J.S.C. in Matter of Lascari, Kaskoun, Mouawad, Plante, Valentine and Powley v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation et al., Albany Co. Index No. 3943/92, dated May 18, 1993.
12. As the Court will note from a review of the appearances at page two of that decision, I was one of the pro se petitioners therein.
13. At page three, the Court will note that the petitioners in that petition were asking the Court to determine that the DEC’s decision to proceed in issuing a mined land reclamation permit to Mr. Tomaselli’s client R.J. Valente Gravel, Inc. without requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement was unlawful.
14. “Having reviewed the record” says the Court therein, it agreed with the petitioners and accordingly, the permit was annulled.
15. That decision was never appealed from by the State of New York.
16. In that decision at pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18, the Court relied upon factual statements made by this petitioner in sworn affidavits to that Court in annulling the permit at issue in that proceeding.
17. Nowhere in that decision is there any reference to distortion of fact or name-calling or personal insults by this petitioner.
end quotes
And here I will rest for a moment to let that sink in, because what it is saying to the Appellate Court in 1996, is that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation was engaged in criminal activity, which they indeed were, and that as a witness against them in a court of law in New York state, I had made my case stick, despite the efforts of the Office of the New York State Attorney General to have it be otherwise, which is how I became a marked man in New York state with no rights, as was confirmed by Sonia Sotomayor in 2005, and again by Bobby Katzmann of the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in his Decree of April 30, 2015, for which Bobby Katzmann should be impeached, as well.
And let me pause to say here that when I heard Barack Hussein Obama was going to nominate Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, I did not react quite like Christine Blasey Ford is alleged to have reacted when Brett Kavanaugh was nominated, according to the Washington Post story “Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford moved 3,000 miles to reinvent her life. It wasn’t far enough.” by Jessica Contrera, Ian Shapira, Emma Brown, and Steve Hendrix on 22 September 2018, which is as follows:
When Donald Trump won his upset presidential victory in 2016, Christine Blasey Ford’s thoughts quickly turned to a name most Americans had never heard of but one that had unsettled her for years: Brett M. Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh — a judge on the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia — was among those mentioned as a possible replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016.
When Trump nominated Neil M. Gorsuch, Ford was relieved but still uneasy.
Then Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced his retirement and Ford, 51, began fretting again.
“Her mind-set was, ‘I’ve got this terrible secret.”
“. . .What am I going to do with this secret?’” her husband, Russell Ford, 56, recalled.
“She was like, ‘I can’t deal with this.'”
“‘If he becomes the nominee, then I’m moving to another country.'”
“‘I cannot live in this country if he’s in the Supreme Court,’” her husband said.
“She wanted out.”
These were the lengths that Ford, a professor and mother of two, once considered to avoid revisiting one of her most troubling memories — one she’d discussed only in therapy and with her husband.
Instead her deeply held secret would come to dominate the headlines, putting her and her family at the center of an explosive debate about the future of the Supreme Court.
end quotes
The future of the Supreme Court, indeed!
As for me, I did not say that I was going to move to another country if Sotomayor became the nominee, because running simply is not my style.
But I must confess that I was beyond uneasy – I was in fact sick to my stomach at the thought of Sonia Sotomayor sitting on the Supreme Court, almost to the point of vomiting.
And when this Blasey Ford story came out, and I started hearing everyone screaming and hollering that Brett Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court, it brought it all back to me, in spades – why is Sonia Sotomayor a United States Supreme Court Justice?
And that feeling of being sick to my stomach at the thought of Sonia Sotomayor sitting on the United States Supreme Court keeps being brought back day after day after day by news stories such as this one from the Cuomo News Network (CNN) entitled “Key House Democrats outline Trump investigations if they take back House Majority” by Lauren Fox and Jeremy Herb on 15 October 2018, as follows:
Nadler (Rep. Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee) has also said he wants more information on Kavanaugh, who was accused in the 11th hour of his confirmation process of sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford when they were both teenagers.
“It is not something we are eager to do,” Nadler told The New York Times earlier this month.
“But the Senate having failed to do its proper constitutionally mandated job of advise and consent, we are going to have to do something to provide a check and balance, to protect the rule of law and to protect the legitimacy of one of our most important institutions.”
end quotes
Now, that is interesting because what Rep. Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is saying there is that in his vision of how things in Washington should work, despite the clear and explicit language of the Constitution, is that now, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee has an oversight role over the United States Senate, which is pure horse****, but there it is, nonetheless.
As to protecting the rule of law and protecting the legitimacy of one of our most important institutions, that being the United States Supreme Court, Barack Obama and the Senate Democrats, as this thread clearly demonstrates, failed big time on both scores by putting the openly dishonest Sonia Sotomayor on the United States Supreme Court, where she clearly does not belong.
So is Sonia Sotomayor going to get to skate, while Brett Kavanaugh gets tied to the whipping pole?
That is what this thread is now contemplating.
So please stay tuned as this subject becomes more developed as to why Sonia Sotomayor should be impeached for dishonesty and removed from the United States Supreme Court where she does not belong.
And to put things into their proper perspective here as to the dishonesty of Sonia Sotomayor that should disqualify her as a United States Supreme Court Justice, and to see what it was that Sonia Sotomayor was covering up as a circuit judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City on 2005, a cover-up pro-corruption Poestenkill Town attorney Patrick Tomaselli was cheering to the Poestenkill Town Board in a writing above dated December 19, 2005, the conduct of the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation complained of in paragraphs 11 through 16 of the April 25, 1996 sworn affidavit I filed with the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme court in Albany, New York, in response to a libelous rant or screed Tomaselli had filed with the same court as Poestenkill Town Attorney in a vain attempt to turn the judges of that Court against me with respect to litigation I was involved in as a plaintiff against endemic public corruption involving the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, was a clear violation of New York Penal Law § 175.40, entitled “Issuing a false certificate,” to wit:
A person is guilty of issuing a false certificate when, being a public servant authorized by law to make or issue official certificates or other official written instruments, and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another person, he issues such an instrument, or makes the same with intent that it be issued, knowing that it contains a false statement or false information.
Issuing a false certificate is a class E felony.
end quotes
That is the course of conduct in corrupt New York State that Sonia Sotomayor was protecting in 2005 as a federal judge.
For doing so, Barack Hussein Obama put her on the United States Supreme Court as her reward!
But the story of her dishonesty does not end there, it only begins, so please, stay tuned.
https://www.projectveritasaction.com/2018/10/15/mccaskill-1/
They represent a clear and present danger…
They do, indeed, Stuart Bell!
Before I get back to that April 25, 1996 sworn affidavit I filed with the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme court in Albany, New York, in response to a libelous rant or screed pro-corruption lawyer Patrick Tomaselli had filed with the same court as Poestenkill Town Attorney in a vain attempt to turn the judges of that Court against me with respect to litigation I was involved in as a plaintiff against endemic public corruption involving the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, as was made clear in paragraph 13 of that sworn affidavit, the clear violation of New York Penal Law § 175.40, entitled “Issuing a false certificate,” by the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which states in clear and unequivocal language that “(A) person is guilty of issuing a false certificate when, being a public servant authorized by law to make or issue official certificates or other official written instruments, and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another person, he issues such an instrument, or makes the same with intent that it be issued, knowing that it contains a false statement or false information,” a class E felony in New York State, was to benefit Tomaselli’s client R.J. Valente, Inc., to wit:
13. At page three, the Court will note that the petitioners in that petition were asking the Court to determine that the DEC’s decision to proceed in issuing a mined land reclamation permit to Mr. Tomaselli’s client R.J. Valente Gravel, Inc. without requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement was unlawful.
end quotes
Hence Tomaselli’s glee in his December 19, 2005 writing to the Poestenkill Town Board where he was expressing his joy that “(T)hus, it appears that yet another Plante matter has been concluded successfully (for the Town), albeit after years of protracted litigation.” that thanks to Sonia Sotomayor “doing the right thing” by lying and burying evidence in order to deprive me of my civil rights!
The other point that needs to be made, because it is germane to the on-going course of conduct in this Town of Poestenkill that led to the civil rights case being filed with the federal district court for the Northern District of New York before it made its way to Sotomayor at the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in 2005 is that Zweig, the pro-corruption/anti-regulation/anti-law and order Poestenkill Town Supervisor did not simply call me a liar in paragraph 16 of his April 22, 1996 affidavit to the Appellate Court in New York State – he actually submitted to the Court a resolution passed by the Poestenkill Town Board wherein I was officially denounced on the record by the Poestenkill Town Board as a liar, which of course, was and remains a libel, just as that resolution remains a permanent part of the records of the Town of Poestenkill to this day, and that is thanks to the dishonesty of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Hence this call for her impeachment.
And getting back to the dishonesty of Sonia Sotomayor which should have disqualified her from a seat on the United States Supreme Court, as can be seen from the on-going course of corrupt conduct in the state of New York that she put the federal government seal of approval on in 2005 as outlined in the April 25, 1996 sworn affidavit I filed with the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme court in Albany, New York, in response to a libelous rant or screed pro-corruption lawyer Patrick Tomaselli had filed with the same court as Poestenkill Town Attorney in a vain attempt to turn the judges of that Court against me with respect to litigation I was involved in as a plaintiff against endemic public corruption involving the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, we have as follows:
18. Annexed hereto as Exhibit D and made a part hereof is a February 15, 1994 decision of Honorable Edward O. Spain, J.S.C. in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 177914.
end quotes
That lawsuit was a companion to the lawsuit filed against the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation detailed above where the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation willfully violated New York Penal Law § 175.40, entitled “Issuing a false certificate,” “(A) person is guilty of issuing a false certificate when, being a public servant authorized by law to make or issue official certificates or other official written instruments, and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another person, he issues such an instrument, or makes the same with intent that it be issued, knowing that it contains a false statement or false information,” a class E felony, by issuing a bogus mining permit to R.J. Valente, Inc., a client of Poestenkill Town Attorney Patrick Tomaselli who is seen above in his December 19, 2005 writing to the Poestenkill Town Board expressing his joy that “(T)hus, it appears that yet another Plante matter has been concluded successfully (for the Town), albeit after years of protracted litigation.” that thanks to Sonia Sotomayor “doing the right thing” by lying and burying evidence in order to deprive me of my civil rights!.
This companion lawsuit involved the laundering of that bogus DEC mining permit through the corrupt Town of Poestenkill Planning Board in an attempt to make it “legitimate” by doing so.
The results of that lawsuit were as follows:
19. In that decision which was based upon my pro se petition in that proceeding, Hon. Justice Spain annulled a special use permit which the Planning Board of the Town of Poestenkill had improperly issued to R.J. Valente Gravel, Inc. of Troy, New York, Mr. Tomaselli’s client, on June 17, 1992.
end quotes
Thus, I became a personal enemy of Poestenkill Town Attorney Patrick Tomaselli, the Poestenkill Town Board, the New York State Attorney General, and ultimately, Sonia Sotomayor herself.
But again, this does not stop there, there is much more yet to come, so please stay tuned.
To keep this in its proper perspective vis-à-vis this bogus paper being shuttled back and forth between the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the corrupt Town of Poestenkill acting as a laundry, when Poestenkill Town Attorney Patrick Tomaselli’s client R.J, Valente, Inc. filed that bogus New York State Department of Environmental Conservation mining permit with the Town of Poestenkill Planning Board, that was a violation of New York Penal Law § 175.30, entitled “Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree,” to wit:
A person is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, he offers or presents it to a public office or public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office or public servant.
end quotes
Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor in the State of New York.
When the corrupt Town of Poestenkill Planning Board took that bogus NYSDEC permit in, and then issued R.J. Valente, Inc. a Town of Poestenkill Special Use Permit based on nothing more than that bogus NYSDEC permit, the Planning Board of the Town of Poestenkill then knowingly and willfully violated New York Penal Law § 175.40, entitled “Issuing a false certificate,” “(A) person is guilty of issuing a false certificate when, being a public servant authorized by law to make or issue official certificates or other official written instruments, and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another person, he issues such an instrument, or makes the same with intent that it be issued, knowing that it contains a false statement or false information,” a class E felony, by issuing a bogus special use permit to R.J. Valente, Inc., a client of Poestenkill Town Attorney Patrick Tomaselli who is seen above in his December 19, 2005 writing to the Poestenkill Town Board expressing his joy that “(T)hus, it appears that yet another Plante matter has been concluded successfully (for the Town), albeit after years of protracted litigation.” that thanks to Sonia Sotomayor “doing the right thing” by lying and burying evidence in order to deprive me of my civil rights!
And there is no way that Sonia Sotomayor, had she been held to account before the United States Senate, which she wasn’t, because the Senate failed to do its proper constitutionally mandated job of advise and consent in her case, would have been able to say that she was unaware of all of that, because despite the bull**** peddled by Hillary Clinton Conservative Republican district court judge Gary Sharpe of the federal Northern District of New York that “(T)his Court has attempted to summarize the litany of unintelligible and conclusory allegations in Plante’s convoluted complaint and attached exhibits,” the truth of the matter is that the 609-page Record before Sotomayor in 2005 was a regurgitation of the above fleshed out by FBI records, which is what Pat Tomaselli, Town Attorney for Poestenkill, and the New York State Attorney General, the attorney for the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation needed covered up, a service that was provided by Hillary Clinton Judge Gary Sharpe in the federal district court for the Northern District of New York, and Sonia Sotomayor who sealed the deal as a circuit judges on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005.
Hence Tomaselli’s letter to the Poestenkill Town Board as follows to cheer getting in federal court what he was unable to get in the Appellate Division of New York State Supreme Court in 1996, to wit:
Patrick J. Tomaselli, Attorney at Law
Weatherwax Road Law Offices
P.O. Box 97
Poestenkill, New York 12140
April 25, 2005
Poestenkill Town Board
Poestenkill Town Hall
P.O. Box 210
Poestenkill, New York 12140
RE: PAUL R. PLANTE vs EUGENE BECHARD, Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, et al
United States District Court – Northern District of New York
Civil Case No. 03-CV-0753 (GLS/RFT)
My File No. 2003.132
Dear Board Members:
As I reported at the last Town Board meeting, the long-pending Federal civil rights action commenced by Paul Plante against Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Eugene Bechard and Poestenkill Town Justice David Gebhardt (as well as 20 other named defendants) was recently dismissed, with prejudice, by a March 31, 2005 Decision and Order of United States District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe, a copy of which has been provided to you.
While the Decision is lengthy and cites much case law, its basis is relatively simple.
As stated by Judge Sharpe, “Plante fails to establish any violation of a constitutional right by the defendants” and “As to the numerous conspiracy claims, Plante, likewise fails to provide any facts to support any of them.”
In sum, “This complaint offers only conclusory allegations without any factual support and fails to state a claim.”
Perhaps as indicative of the Court’s impression of Plante’s Complaint as anything in the body of the Decision is the very first footnote thereto wherein Judge Sharpe refers to the fact “This Court has attempted to summarize the litany of unintelligible and conclusory allegations in Plante’s convoluted complaint and attached exhibits.”
While I would hope this matter is now concluded, the possibility of an appeal of course remains.
If you have any questions regarding these matters, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
PATRICK J. TOMASELLI, ESQ.
Poestenkill Town Attorney
To see just how patently absurd these claims were of pro-corruption Poestenkill Town Attorney in his April 25, 2005 letter above to the Poestenkill Town Board, where Tomaselli states “Plante fails to establish any violation of a constitutional right by the defendants” and “As to the numerous conspiracy claims, Plante, likewise fails to provide any facts to support any of them,” and “This complaint offers only conclusory allegations without any factual support and fails to state a claim,” it is only necessary to go to p.598 of the 609 page record that was before Sonia Sotomayor at the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals where we find this Hillary Clinton Conservative Republican federal district court judge Gary Sharpe stating that District Judge David N. Hurd had issued an order directing me to file an amended complaint, and that on August 4, 2003, I did in fact file an amended complaint.
That right there puts the lie to Sharpe’s claim that “Plante fails to establish any violation of a constitutional right by the defendants,” because as any first-year law school student knows, if a complaint fails to establish any violation of a constitutional right by the defendants, it is dismissed out of hand.
If, as Sharpe claimed in the March 31, 2005 decision Poestenkill Town Attorney was crowing about to the Poestenkill Town Board in his April 25, 2005 letter above, I had failed to establish any violation of a constitutional right by the defendants in the original complaint, that would have been the end of the matter, because it is also a fact known to beginning law students that the court will not waste its resources on frivolous lawsuits.
That the complaint was amended is proof positive that Gary Sharpe was full of **** when he stated “Plante fails to establish any violation of a constitutional right by the defendants,” but as was made incandescently clear in the April 30, 2015 Decree of Chief Judge Bobby Katzmann of the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals above, a federal judge in the federal 2d Circuit can be as full of **** as they want to be, tossing facts and established law aside the way a spoiled child tosses aside toys which bore him or her, and there is absolutely nothing someone like myself without the money or political clout to buy the protection of the judge can do about it.
Further evidence of just how full of **** Sharpe was in making that specious claim that “Plante fails to establish any violation of a constitutional right by the defendants,” can be seen at p.599 of the 609 page record before Sotomayor in 2005, where Sharpe writes as follows concerning the procedural history which puts the lie to everything Tomaselli was crowing about in his April 25, 2005 letter above, to wit:
On December 8 (2003), Plante filed his opposition papers to the defendants’ motions.
On February 20, 2004, this case was reassigned to this court, then it was temporarily assigned to Visiting District Judge Walter.
On July 15, Plante filed a letter asking Judge Walter to resolve the procedural and jurisdictional issues in the case.
However, on July 16, the case was once again reassigned to this court.
On July 21, Plante made another request asking the court to resolve the jurisdictional issues as to the state law claims.
On July 29, the court advised Plante that such requests are properly brought in the form of a motion.
On August 19, Plante proceeded to file a motion for preliminary injunction.
end quotes
So, to recap, on June 18, 2003, I filed the original complaint, which was admitted by District Judge David N. Hurd based on the fact that I had in fact established violations of my constitutional right by the defendants, which then posed a serious problem for not only the Town of Poestenkill, but for the County of Rensselaer and the State of New York, as well, along with the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, so that eight months later, on February 20, 2004, the case was taken away from Judge Hurd, whose case law my standing was based on, and transferred over to Hillary Clinton Conservative Republican district court judge Gary Sharpe for proper disposal into the judicial toilet to protect corruption in New York state, which Hillary was a champion of in her capacity as U.S. senator from New York.
Further proof that I had standing is found at p.598 of the 609 page record before Sotomayor in 2005, where Sharpe states “Plante’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied as moot.”
Right there, Sharpe trips himself up and exposes himself as a liar, because if I did not have standing before the court in the first place, which means I had to have presented Judge Hurd with valid civil rights violations based on established precedent from the United States Supreme Court, there would not have been such a motion.
And again, that is something a beginning law school student would know, so what is up with Tomaselli then when he informed the pro-corruption/anti-regulation/anti-law and order Town Board on April 25, 2005 as follows:
Perhaps as indicative of the Court’s impression of Plante’s Complaint as anything in the body of the Decision is the very first footnote thereto wherein Judge Sharpe refers to the fact “This Court has attempted to summarize the litany of unintelligible and conclusory allegations in Plante’s convoluted complaint and attached exhibits.”
end quotes
And based on the actual record, as opposed to the bull**** from Sharpe cited by Tomaselli on April 25, 2005, why did Sharpe write those words?
If your answer is “to cause me harm for the rest of my life,” you have nailed it.
So from this detailed accounting of actual reality, we can clearly see the bull**** nature of the calls of the Democrats to investigate Brett Kavanaugh for dishonesty, because there is no requirement whatsoever, as Bobby Katzmann and the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals prove in writing above, that a federal judge be honest in the first place.
If the Democrats are going to go after Brett Kavanaugh for being dishonest, then they had better add the judges of the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals to the list, including Bobby Katzmann, who has endorsed judicial dishonesty in writing, and Sonia Sotomayor, who epitomizes judicial dishonesty, and Hillary Clinton Conservative Republican judge Gary Sharpe in the federal Northern District of New York.
Staying with the subject of the open and outright dishonesty of Hillary Clinton Conservative Republican federal district court judge Gary Sharpe in the federal Northern District of New York, and Sonia Sotomayor as a circuit judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005, this in the face of a FOX News article “Pelosi filing FOIA request for key Kavanaugh documents, prolonging fight” by Samuel Chamberlain on 8 October 2018, wherein Nancy said Kavanaugh’s confirmation “has wounded the very soul of justice in our country,” as if there actually was such a thing in America as a “soul of justice,” given these federal judges are put in place by hack politicians like Hillary Clinton who wouldn’t know justice if it reared up and bit her in her ample ***, and a Los Angeles Times article entitled “Calls to impeach Kavanaugh pose awkward challenge for Democrats” by Laura King on 8 October 2018, wherein Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, who would likely take over the chairmanship from Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., if Democrats win control of the House, said “(I)f he is on the Supreme Court, and the Senate hasn’t investigated (Kavanaugh), then the House will have to, we would have to investigate any credible allegations of perjury and other things that haven’t been properly looked into before,” and a CBS News article entitled “Pelosi calls Kavanaugh “hysterical,” says he’s unfit for Supreme Court” by Grace Segers on 30 September 2018 where our very own Nancy Pelosi, the heart and soul of the Democrat party in the House of Representatives said “I will say this — if he is not telling the truth to Congress or to the FBI, then he’s not fit not only to be on the Supreme Court, but to be on the court he’s on right now,” and a Washington Post article entitled “Roberts refers judicial misconduct complaints against Kavanaugh to federal appeals court in Colorado” by Ann Marimow and Tom Hamburger on 11 October 2018, wherein was stated that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. referred more than a dozen judicial misconduct complaints filed recently against Brett M. Kavanaugh to a federal appeals court in Colorado with the allegations centering on whether Kavanaugh was dishonest, to see the kind of judicial dishonesty on the part of Judge Sharpe and Sonia Sotomayor that pro-corruption Poestenkill Town Attorney Patrick Tomaselli was cheering and crowing about in his letters above to the Poestenkill Town Board, let’s go back to the April 25, 1996 sworn affidavit I filed with the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme court I Albany, New York, in response to a libelous rant or screed Tomaselli had filed with the same court as Poestenkill Town Attorney in a vain attempt to turn the judges of that Court against me with respect to litigation I was involved in as a plaintiff against endemic public corruption involving the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, where we have as follows:
20. Now, according to Mr. Tomaselli’s operative theory at page one of his April 22, 1996 letter annexed to Mr. Zweig’s affidavit as Exhibit D, and according to the averments at paragraph 17 of Mr. Zweig’s April 22, 1996 sworn affidavit, I am supposed to have allegedly “targeted” the Poestenkill Planning Board with “untruthful, unwarranted, and downright vicious personal invectives” allegedly “launched” like so many Scud missiles to serve some particular agenda or cause of mine, which in reality is First Amendment redress of grievance, and I am further alleged by Messrs. Zweig and Tomaselli to have ignored or distorted facts and/or law, concentrating instead on “personal insults and name-calling” against the members of the Poestenkill Planning Board in order to induce Judge Spain, a very respected jurist who now sits on this Court, to annul the permit in question and award me costs in that matter, and according to that operative theory, Judge Spain is supposed to have fallen like a ton of bricks for such bunkum and twaddle in annulling the permit.
21. Such a theory by Messrs. Zweig and Tomaselli of course requires this Court to assume that Judge Spain is a fool, and I personally will have no part in such gratuitous “judge-bashing,” which conduct I extremely revolting and repugnant.
22. In applying the Tomaselli/Zweig “theory” of how the law allegedly works in the County of Rensselaer, where according to Mr. Tomaselli, respected Judges like Justice Spain allegedly annul Town of Poestenkill special permits based on nothing more than distorted facts and/or law and personal insults, I would ask this Court to take note of the fact that costs against planning boards in the State of New York are awarded only when the Court has before it evidence that the planning board acted with gross negligence, or in bad faith or with malice in making the decision appealed from, as was the case in that matter.
23. Apparently, according to the Tomaselli/Zweig theory, my alleged distortions of fact and/or law and personal insults and name-calling in that matter before Judge Spain would have “buffaloed” this Court, and so an appeal would not have succeeded, so “silver a tongue” am I alleged to have.
24. Based upon these two decisions alone, it becomes readily apparent that there is no merit whatsoever to the averments of Mr. Zweig based upon the assertions of Mr. Tomaselli that I am a “liar,” and based upon these two decisions alone, the contempt that these two gentlemen have for the judges who serve the public in the County of Rensselaer becomes readily apparent.
25. It does not end there, however, unfortunately.
26. Annexed hereto as Exhibit E and made a part of is a transcript decision of Judge Spain dated March 28, 1994, in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Poestenkill Town Board, Jay F. Nish, Paul Sieloff, Nelson Armlin, Mark Dunlea and Kristine Legenbauer, Rensselaer County Index No. 179138, wherein Judge Spain annulled a resolution of the Poestenkill Town Board made on November 10, 1992 based upon facts stated under oath by myself in my pro se petition in that matter.
27. It is respectfully submitted that nowhere in that decision is there any mention made of distortion of fact, and/or law by myself, nor is there mention made by the Court of alleged personal insults or name-calling by myself, as Messrs. Zweig and Tomaselli would have this Court believe is my “style,” nor was Plante v. Town Board ever appealed from.
28. I would also ask the Court to note that defendant Kristine Legenbauer in that action remains on the Poestenkill Town Board to this date.
29. As above, if what Messrs. Tomaselli and Zweig say is true in their respective submissions to this Court, they would require that this Court treat Judge Spain as nothing more than a “fool” who is easily duped by someone like myself who according to Mr. Tomaselli, allegedly engages in deception and outright lies to the courts of Rensselaer and Albany Counties to further some alleged “agenda” or “cause” I am alleged by Mr. Tomaselli to have.
30. As before, I refuse to countenance such assertions by these two gentlemen, and I ask this Court to find such assertions to be both unprofessional and unwarranted, especially by an attorney like Mr. Tomaselli who himself is allegedly in charge of the ethics of other attorneys in Rensselaer County.
32. Annexed hereto as Exhibit F and made a part hereof is a September 18, 1995 decision of Honorable James B. Canfield in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 183977, wherein Judge Canfield annulled a local law passed by the Poestenkill Town Board in July of 1994 because the Town Board failed to comply with the law as it is written in the State of New York.
33. In that decision at pages two and three, this Court will note that I moved the Court below to intervene in that matter and that I was successful in that motion.
34. At pages four and five of that decision, and based upon my affidavit testimony in that proceeding, Judge Canfield found that Poestenkill Town Councilman Keith Hammond had an insurmountable appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest.
35. Councilman Hammond remains on the Poestenkill Town Board at the time of this writing.
36. At pages six and seven, the Court found based upon my affidavit testimony that the Poestenkill Town Board had “completely” failed to comply with the requirements of SEQRA when it passed Local Law No. 2 of 1994.
37. According to the operative theory of Messrs. Tomaselli and Zweig, Judge Canfield must also be a “fool” who is easily misled by someone like myself who allegedly distorts facts and/or law and allegedly engages in insults and name-calling.
38. If what Mr. Tomaselli says at page one of his April 22, 1996 letter annexed hereto as Exhibit B is taken at face value and is assumed to be true, then we now have three judges who do not know the law, but instead simply hand out rulings against my alleged “adversaries” based upon nothing more than distortions of fact and outright lies.
39. Quite frankly, however, such an assertion by Mr. Tomaselli is ludicrous and beneath the dignity of this Court.
40. Annexed hereto as Exhibit G and made a part of is an affirmation of Assistant New York State Attorney General Kathleen Liston Morrison dated October 14, 1993, in Matter of the Application of Paul R. Plante v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany County Index No. 4840-93.
41. In that particular matter, Assistant Attorney General Morrison conceded to Judge Robert C. Williams, J.S.C., based upon the averments in my petition alone that in fact, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation was in error when it issued the permit in question.
42. Specifically, in paragraph 2 of Exhibit G, Assistant Attorney General Morrison can be seen stating that based on the averments in my petition in that matter, DEC was in error in part because it had not complied with the New York State Uniform Procedures Act, the New York State Solid Waste Management Act, and SEQRA.
43. Thereafter, in a November 19, 1993 decision annexed hereto as Exhibit H and made a part hereof, Justice Williams annulled that permit, based on nothing more than the averments in my petition in that matter.
44. Matter of Plante v. DEC, Albany County Index No. 4840-93 was never appealed from.
45. According the Messrs. Tomaselli and Zweig, of course, Assistant Attorney General Morrison must also be a fool who is easily duped by distortions of law and fact and mere name-calling, because in that action, she conceded that the State of New York was wrong without any other proof than my word alone.
46. At this point, based upon the evidence which I have annexed hereto, I believe that it is readily apparent that Mr. Tomaselli and Mr. Zweig never really had anything of substance to say to this Court concerning my conduct as a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York, and so I will my demonstration of that fact at this juncture.
47. Based upon Exhibits C through H, I submit that I am not a “liar” as Mr. Zweig alleges in his April 22, 1996 affidavit, and I do not engage in such deceitful and deceptive tactics as Mr. Tomaselli alleges in his April 22, 1996 letter.
48. To the contrary, as a New York State licensed professional engineer and qualified associate public health engineer, I have a great deal of real assistance to offer the Courts of this state, and I take that responsibility to the citizens of this State very seriously.
49. Accordingly, Mr. Tomaselli’s statements to the contrary in his April 22, 1996 letter must be dismissed out of hand by this Court as being nothing more than pure unsupported and unsubstantiated bunkum and twaddle, and being based upon nothing more than pure bunkum and twaddle, the averments of Mr. John E. Zweig in paragraph 16 of his April 22, 1996 affidavit that I am a “liar” can be seen to be both unsupported and false.
DATED: Poestenkill, New York
April 25, 1996
end quotes
Unable to get the Appeals Court in New York State to go along with his efforts to get me banned from being able to bring suits against the Town of Poestenkill, the County of Rensselaer and the State of New York for corrupt practices as outlined above in an appeal I prevailed in despite the efforts of Tomaselli to have it be otherwise, he finally struck paydirt with Gary Sharpe, who did not mind being dishonest for “the cause,” and Sonia Sotomayor, who did not mind being dishonest, either.
So no wonder Tomaselli was so giddy with glee in 2005.
If I was a crooked lawyer, I would have been, too.
So if Kavanaugh is going to be investigated for lying and being dishonest, why not Gary Sharpe and Sonia Sotomayor, too?
And with respect to Nancy Pelosi’s comment in the FOX News article “Pelosi filing FOIA request for key Kavanaugh documents, prolonging fight” by Samuel Chamberlain on 8 October 2018, that Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation “has wounded the very soul of justice in our country,” as if Nancy Pelosi even has a clue as to what the word “justice” means, if we go back to paragraph 26 of my April 25, 1996 sworn affidavit filed with the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme court I Albany, New York, in response to a libelous rant or screed Tomaselli had filed with the same court as Poestenkill Town Attorney in a vain attempt to turn the judges of that Court against me with respect to litigation I was involved in as a plaintiff against endemic public corruption involving the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, we have as follows:
26. Annexed hereto as Exhibit E and made a part of is a transcript decision of Judge Spain dated March 28, 1994, in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Poestenkill Town Board, Jay F. Nish, Paul Sieloff, Nelson Armlin, Mark Dunlea and Kristine Legenbauer, Rensselaer County Index No. 179138, wherein Judge Spain annulled a resolution of the Poestenkill Town Board made on November 10, 1992 based upon facts stated under oath by myself in my pro se petition in that matter.
end quotes
That happens to be the second confirmed willful violation of New York Penal Law § 175.40, entitled “Issuing a false certificate,” “(A) person is guilty of issuing a false certificate when, being a public servant authorized by law to make or issue official certificates or other official written instruments, and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another person, he issues such an instrument, or makes the same with intent that it be issued, knowing that it contains a false statement or false information,” a class E felony, by the corrupt Town of Poestenkill in a little more than a month, the first one willful violation, another class E felony, being found at paragraph 18 of the April 25, 1996 sworn affidavit to the New York State Appellate Court, as follows:
18. Annexed hereto as Exhibit D and made a part hereof is a February 15, 1994 decision of Honorable Edward O. Spain, J.S.C. in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 177914.
end quotes
Having two confirmed felonies by the corrupt Town of Poestenkill brought before him by myself caused Judge Spain some consternation because in New York State, a Supreme Court judge can determine that indeed a felony has been committed, but lacks the authority, jurisdiction and discretion to order that the felonies be prosecuted, especially when the New York State Attorney General was actively involved in defending the commission of the felonies at the state level, which brings us to paragraphs 40-43 of my April 25, 1996 sworn affidavit to the New York State Appellate Court, as follows:
40. Annexed hereto as Exhibit G and made a part of is an affirmation of Assistant New York State Attorney General Kathleen Liston Morrison dated October 14, 1993, in Matter of the Application of Paul R. Plante v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany County Index No. 4840-93.
41. In that particular matter, Assistant Attorney General Morrison conceded to Judge Robert C. Williams, J.S.C., based upon the averments in my petition alone that in fact, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation was in error when it issued the permit in question.
42. Specifically, in paragraph 2 of Exhibit G, Assistant Attorney General Morrison can be seen stating that based on the averments in my petition in that matter, DEC was in error in part because it had not complied with the New York State Uniform Procedures Act, the New York State Solid Waste Management Act, and SEQRA.
43. Thereafter, in a November 19, 1993 decision annexed hereto as Exhibit H and made a part hereof, Justice Williams annulled that permit, based on nothing more than the averments in my petition in that matter.
end quotes
And there we see the second confirmed willful violation of New York Penal Law § 175.40, entitled “Issuing a false certificate,” “(A) person is guilty of issuing a false certificate when, being a public servant authorized by law to make or issue official certificates or other official written instruments, and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another person, he issues such an instrument, or makes the same with intent that it be issued, knowing that it contains a false statement or false information,” a class E felony, by the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in six months, the first willful violation, another class E felony, being found at paragraph 11 of the April 25, 1996 sworn affidavit to the New York State Appellate Court, as follows:
11. Annexed hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof is a twenty (20) page decision of Honorable Robert C. Williams, J.S.C. in Matter of Lascari, Kaskoun, Mouawad, Plante, Valentine and Powley v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation et al., Albany Co. Index No. 3943/92, dated May 18, 1993.
end quotes
Having two confirmed felonies by the corrupt New York State Department of Environmental Conservation brought before him by myself caused Judge Williams some consternation as well because as stated above, in New York State, a Supreme Court judge can determine that indeed a felony has been committed, but lacks the authority, jurisdiction and discretion to order that the felonies be prosecuted.
As we were walking out of Albany County Supreme Court after that court appearance, I specifically asked Asst. AG Morrison if the Attorney General was finally going to prosecute DEC personnel involved in the issuance of these bogus permits, she literally laughed in my face, telling me the Attorney General was the lawyer for the DEC, not the prosecutor of the DEC, and it was myself who was going to find himself in trouble, not the DEC personnel, a threat that came true on 22 August 2001, when the fraudulent New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 order that caused me to be incarcerated in the secure mental facility of the Stratton VA Hospital was issued by a political doctor at the Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York, a fraudulent document which destroyed my life as a licensed professional engineer in New York state, so that I could no longer bring suirt against the corrupt NYSDEC or Town of Poestenkill, the issuance of which, another crime, was first upheld by Hillary Clinton Conservative Republican federal district court judge Gary Sharpe of the federal Northern District of New York in 2005, and then by federal circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor of the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City, the Wall Street branch of the federal court system in 2005, which then caused pro-corruption Poestenkill Town Attorney Patrick Tomaselli in his December 19, 2005 writing to the Poestenkill Town Board above to express his joy that “(T)hus, it appears that yet another Plante matter has been concluded successfully (for the Town), albeit after years of protracted litigation,” that thanks to Sonia Sotomayor “doing the right thing” by lying and burying evidence in order to deprive me of my civil rights!
For that, Sonia Sotomayor should be impeached and thrown off the federal Supreme Court as unfit to serve because of her patent dishonesty which has truly wounded the very soul of justice in our country.
And this statement above that Sonia Sotomayor should be impeached and thrown off the federal Supreme Court as unfit to serve because of her patent dishonesty which has truly wounded the very soul of justice in our country, that brings us to this relevant existential question, as follows:
If there were no requirements that a judge in the federal 2d Circuit be honest, and no censure or opprobrium forthcoming if a judge was openly and patently dishonest, which point was confirmed in writing by 2d Circuit Chief Judge Bobby Katzmann in his Decree of April 30, 2015, and by the Judicial Council of the federal 2d Circuit on June 26, 2015, then how on earth could Sonia Sotomayor be impeached for dishonesty?
And that answer is obvious – she can’t be.
But then, neither can Brett Kavanaugh!
If Sonia Sotomayor as a federal circuit judge could openly and blatantly lie to the PEOPLE of the United States of America in a written judicial decision in 2005, which she did, then so too could Brett Kavanaugh, another federal circuit judge, lie to the representatives of the PEOPLE of the United States of America in the U.S. Senate during the recent Blasey Ford hearings because there cannot be one standard for Sonia Sotomayor, because she is a Democrat and a Latina, and another standard for Brett Kavanaugh because he is a white Republican male!
That would be the grossest kind of discrimination, afterall, and we cannot have that in our federal court system, because it would truly wound the very soul of justice in our country!
And the above answer to this relevant existential question, “if there were no requirements that a judge in the federal 2d Circuit be honest, and no censure or opprobrium forthcoming if a judge was openly and patently dishonest, which point was confirmed in writing by 2d Circuit Chief Judge Bobby Katzmann in his Decree of April 30, 2015, and by the Judicial Council of the federal 2d Circuit on June 26, 2015, then how on earth could Sonia Sotomayor be impeached for dishonesty,” brings us to an article in The Daily Beast entitled “GOP Sen. Jeff Flake: ‘I Don’t Know if I Believed’ Brett Kavanuagh” by Pilar.Melendez@thedailybeast.com (Pilar Melendez) on 23 October 2018, as follows:
Several weeks after delaying the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh only to vote in the judge’s favor, Republican Sen. Jeff Flake on Tuesday admitted that he’s not actually sure who he believes: Kavanaugh or his accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.
“You know, she was very compelling,” Flake said during an interview on ABC’s The View, in response to being grilled over his eventual support for Kavanaugh after calling for a week-long delay to allow an FBI investigation into the sexual-misconduct allegations leveled against the judge.
The retiring Arizona senator continued: “[Kavanuagh] was very persuasive.”
“I don’t know.”
“I don’t know.”
“I wish I had the certitude that some of my colleagues expressed.”
“But I said on the [Senate] floor before that hearing, we’re likely to hear the hearing with as much doubt as certainty.”
“And that’s how I felt afterwards.”
end quotes
How exactly Cristine Blasey Ford could be compelling with all her different versions of what she says happened back in 1982, when Brett Kavanaugh was either incoherently drunk, which would seem to imply that he was blotto, passed out, or stumbling drunk in another version at the same time Brett Kavanaugh was very persuasive in saying none of it ever happened quite frankly eludes me, but then, I am not a United States Senator having to pick his way along with the press, lest he offend someone, which takes us back to The Daily Beast, as follows:
Co-host Joy Behar asked the conservative lawmaker why Kavanaugh was the only option and not another nominee previously included on Trump’s shortlist.
Flake explained that a “mere allegation” was not sufficient evidence to disqualify Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court.
“If the mere allegation with no corroboration is sufficient to disqualify someone, we’ve entered a new phase that we probably don’t want to enter,” Flake added.
end quotes
But the fact of the matter, as this thread proves bey0nd a shadow of a doubt, with respect to myself, anyway, being unable to render honest services as a licensed professional engineer to the people of the state of New York as a result of being branded as being mentally ill and dangerous by a political doctor at the Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York on 22 August 2001, as of December 2005, which destroys my credibility as an expert witness on behalf of the people, we did in fact enter a new phase we clearly shouldn’t have entered, thanks to Sonia Sotomayor as a circuit judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City, where the mere allegation that a licensed professional engineer is mentally ill and dangerous with no corroboration is sufficient to disqualify someone, in this case, myself, from being able to practice as a licensed professional engineer.
Whether Senator Jeff Flake, who doesn’t know whether to believe Christine Blasey Ford or Brett Kavanaugh, is aware of it or not, thanks to Sonia Sotomayor as a circuit judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in December of 2005, we have gone past a tipping point of where the judges of the federal court system have become independent of the law itself, so that they can openly support and protect endemic public corruption in New York state, which truly has wounded the very soul of justice in our country, especially since that wounding of the soul of justice in our country in December of 2005 is what got her onto the bench of the United States Supreme Court.
As to how shallow-thinking these reporters are, we have this from that same Daily Beast article, to wit:
During his confirmation process, Judge Kavanaugh was accused of sexual misconduct by three separate women, including former classmate Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who said that, in the early 1980s, when they were teenagers, he allegedly pinned her down on a bed at a house party and attempted to sexually assault her.
end quotes
Except Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was never a classmate of Brett Kavanaugh.
She was younger than he by two years, if we can believe her on that score, and they went to different schools.
Christine Blasey Ford was a Holton Girl, while Kavanaugh went to the exclusive Georgetown Prep
But should details like matter to the press in this country?
Should we expect them to be accurate in their reporting?
And the answer is apparently not, which takes us back to The Daily Beast article as follows:
Following the FBI investigation, brought on by Flake’s request, Kavanaugh was confirmed in a 50-48 vote, despite widespread protests.
And when View co-host Sunny Hostin asked Flake, point-blank, whether he believed Ford, he delivered a stunning response.
“I don’t know,” Flake admitted.
“I don’t know if I believed him either.”
end quotes
And there we have it, people from hot off the press!
Which takes us back in time to FEDERALIST No. 37, “Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government,” from the Daily Advertiser to the People of the State of New York by James Madison on Friday, January 11, 1788, as follows:.
The history of almost all the great councils and consultations held among mankind for reconciling their discordant opinions, assuaging their mutual jealousies, and adjusting their respective interests, is a history of factions, contentions, and disappointments, and may be classed among the most dark and degraded pictures which display the infirmities and depravities of the human character.
end quotes
And there he is talking about the recently concluded Blasey Ford hearing before the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate where this poor, obviously emotional distressed woman Christine Blasey Ford was shamelessly exploited for partisan political gain by United States Senator Dianne Feinstein and the Democrat party of America, and what a sad day for America it has been all the way around.
Jemmy, dude, you nailed it!
“What is important is those human values we share and those human feelings that we share.”
“But I worry that we forget about that too often.”
Those are words uttered by United States Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the CNN article “Sotomayor says Kavanaugh a part of the Supreme Court ‘family'” by Paul LeBlanc on November 17, 2018, and clearly, she has forgotten the human values we are supposed to share, but clearly do not, or she would not have lied and buried evidence in 2005 in Plante v. Bechard et. al., 05-2133-CV, which is proof that Sonia Sotomayor does not share human feelings with us, either.
If she ever did, by the fact of her lying and burying evidence in Plante v. Bechard et. al., 05-2133-CV, she clearly has forgotten them, and that is something she truly should worry about, because somebody who doesn’t share those human feeling and human values is a psychopath, and we should not have psychopaths sitting on the United States Supreme Court.
Some Humans ain’t Human.
There’s a whole lot of truth in that statement, John Prine.
Unfortunately for us, some of those humans who aren’t really human are made into federal judges, even Supreme Court justices, for precisely that reason – it makes them more politically reliable, like Sonia Sotomayor.
This is an insanely low bar to demand the resignation of a Supreme Court justice. I’m pretty sure the author believes that Thomas is squeaky clean and has no issues whatsoever.
A “low bar?”
Interesting!
Do tell!
So, you are for Supreme Court Justices who are not truthful?
You prefer liars to be judges in America on the Supreme Court?
Why would that be?
Are you a crooked lawyer, perhaps, who does well when you have as a judge somebody like Sotomayor who is ready and willing to tell lies on your behalf, or rather, your client’s?
Are you one of those who feels there is nothing wrong with a Supreme Court Justice taking a dive in the right political; circumstances, to maintain government corruption?
Are you a crooked politician, then?
And Thomas or anybody else for that matter has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this, as they had no involvement, as the lies were Sotomayor’s, not anybody else’s.
But it’s America, and in America, you have the freedom to be for liars on the United States Supreme Court, don’t you.
And so, you are!
For your information, Mister Sterling, which “sterling” might have more than a bit of tarnish on it, given that you are for judges like Sonia Sotomayor who don’t mind lying in the proper circumstances to be determined by her, this following describes the type of person I am for as a judge, and it is a far cry from how I would describe Sonia Sotomayor, who is none of these things and has none of these qualities, being nothing more than an untruthful person, herself, the lowest of the low in my estimation, which is why Hussein Obama put her on the supreme court, because he had none of those qualities, either:
HISTORY OF WARREN COUNTY WITH ILLUSTRATIONS AND BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF SOME OF ITS PROMINENT MEN AND PIONEERS
EDITED BY H. P. SMITH
1885
He was a man of broad views, of extensive and varied information, and endowed by nature with great intellectual qualifications, which were always used for the improvement and advancement of human thought and progress.
He was a man among men, a philosopher among philosophers, and may be justly regarded as one of the bright spirits who adorned every walk of life, always defending the right fearless of consequences, dying as he had lived, esteemed and venerated by all who knew him.