THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 17, 2018 at 11:30 am
Paul Plante says :
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?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
SONIA SOTOMAYOR SHOULD BE IMPEACHED
Re: SONIA SOTOMAYOR SHOULD BE IMPEACHED
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 20, 2018 at 7:08 pm
Paul Plante says:
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.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
Paul Plante says:
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.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
Re: SONIA SOTOMAYOR SHOULD BE IMPEACHED
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 24, 2018 at 10:10 pm
Paul Plante says :
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.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
Paul Plante says :
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.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
Re: SONIA SOTOMAYOR SHOULD BE IMPEACHED
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 28, 2018 at 1:35 pm
Paul Plante, NYSPE says:
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?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
Paul Plante, NYSPE says:
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?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
Re: SONIA SOTOMAYOR SHOULD BE IMPEACHED
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 29, 2018 at 10:00 pm
Paul Plante says :
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?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
Paul Plante says :
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?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
Re: SONIA SOTOMAYOR SHOULD BE IMPEACHED
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 30, 2018 at 7:03 pm
Paul Plante, NYSPE says:
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.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
Paul Plante, NYSPE says:
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.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
Re: SONIA SOTOMAYOR SHOULD BE IMPEACHED
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 31, 2018 at 9:22 pm
Paul Plante says :
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?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
Paul Plante says :
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?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
Re: SONIA SOTOMAYOR SHOULD BE IMPEACHED
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 2, 2018 at 6:56 pm
Paul Plante says :
“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.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
Paul Plante says :
“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.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
Re: SONIA SOTOMAYOR SHOULD BE IMPEACHED
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 3, 2018 at 7:04 pm
Paul Plante says :
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.”
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
Paul Plante says :
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.”
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-79710
Re: SONIA SOTOMAYOR SHOULD BE IMPEACHED
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 12, 2018 at 10:44 pm
Paul Plante says :
In another thread in here http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... 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!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-80063
Paul Plante says :
In another thread in here http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... 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!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-80063