"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Thursday, April 2, 2015

New York DEC maps of "environmentally protected objects" are bluff, and it is now up to litigants in the Appellate Divisions, 1st, 2nd and 4th judicial departments to bring the NYS Court of Appeals to that realization

We received a "template denial" from the New York State Court of Appeals on our appeals as of right on constitutional questions in a case against New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

I know that such cases have to be decided by panels of 5 judges.

I only see the name of one judge (Jonathan Lippman) who "presided" over the case, and an indication that Leslie Stein did not take part (the same Leslie Stein who has made the decision in this case in the court below after being offered by the Chief Executive Officer, the Governor, what pretty much looks as a bribe, a nomination to that same Court of Appeals).

I also see that Judge Lippman defied his constitutional oath of office in this decision and usurped authority to pick and choose which constitutional questions that he has to review on appeal are "substantial" and which are "insubstantial".

As far as I know, the U.S. Constitution does not make such a distinction, and does not give authority to anybody to make such a distinction.

Yet, here is what we have from the lips of Judge Lippman, the lecturer as to "justice for all" from all imaginable pulpits:

The issues in the case were crystal clear:  the government (and the courts) imposed upon my husband in 2006 notice of prohibited conduct (alleged protected stream) where the alleged stream was allegedly disturbed in 2001, while the notice was created in 2006, and that was not a map, but an affidavit of a DEC biologist, and while the map was and still is BLIND, UNREADABLE and cannot give any notice to anybody else.  Also, the DEC biologist's affidavit could only be used as an official DEC record for purposes of giving notice if it was filed with the NYS Secretary of State, with a notice to the public to give comments - which, of course, was never done, it was a self-serving document prepared for litigation 5 years after the DEC lost its case in criminal court.

Here is the map and my earlier description of issues pertaining to the map and the case.

Please, see for yourself if you can see any "protected streams" or tie the map to any addresses.  If you can, you can be awarded a crystal ball reader award, because in the DEC only one person can allegedly "read" that map - and that is the author of the affidavit of the DEC, biologist (not a map specialist) Jerome Fraine.
Can a notice go backwards?  Of course, not.
Can an affidavit of biologist created in 2006 serve as an official notice of a protected environmental object on the property in 2001? 

Of course, not.
Can a blind map created in 1920s for a purpose that had nothing to do with environmental protection, did not list streams and did not allow to find any addresses, and the map named "Walton" give notice to a party residing in the town of Hamden, whose address is nowhere mentioned in the DEC or state court proceedings?
Of course, not - but this is to a rational mind.
For a mind that wants to favor the government no matter what, and to disfavor the Neronis no matter what, the "rule of law" works differently.
There was litigation in:
1) Hamden Town court - criminal proceedings against my husband were dismissed in 2001;
2) In 2006 DEC revived the same proceedings administratively - and held them in front of two administrative law judges.  The one judge who told the DEC that their case sucks got replaced;
3) in DEC - before the Commissioner of the DEC on appeal;
4) In Delaware County Supreme Court before Judge Becker 
  •       where the appellate quasi-judicial officer, the Commissioner Alexander "Pete" Grannis sued Mr. Neroni ( and me as a now "necessary party") after not allowing me in as a necessary party at the administrative level and while trying to confirm his own decision as a judge while now suing as a party, which is normally not allowed by law;
  • where Judge Becker was at the same time represented by the NYS Attorney General in his individual capacity, which disqualified the NYS Attorney General from appearing in front of that same judge representing other clients - and yet the NYS Attorney General represented the Commissioner in those proceedings in front of Becker and (surprise!) - won! against us.  Of course, recently a witness and I saw Becker shaking an Assistant AG's hand as if he was Becker's long-lost friend
4) In NYS Appellate Division 3rd Department - where Judge Stein got a boost, a nomination to the NYS Court of Appeals, from the NYS Governor (the Chief Executive Officer of the State of New York and DEC Commissioner's superior) a week before  (surprise!) she made a ruling for the DEC.
5)we also tried to bring federal issues before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (that referred all federal constitutional issues back to the State Courts);
6) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit  (that affirmed what the NDNY said, referring all federal constitutional issues back to state courts because state courts allegedly can fairly review federal constitutional issues);

and now 

7) as the culmination of all our efforts, New York state Court of Appeals, with Judge Lippman presiding (whom I described and mocked, along with his recently indicted buddy Silver, in many blogs), rendered a form decision, after harassing us and requiring us to produce voluminous records for their "review", that (surprise!) no "substantial" constitutional questions were violated or even involved.

Once again, our constitutional rights may have been violated, but not "substantially".

So, the court gets to pick and choose if an admitted violation of constitutional rights is "substantial" or "insubstantial".

I am not aware of any such right given by any authority to the New York State Court of Appeals.

So, ladies and gentlemen, the judges of New York's highest court, each one of whom took office by taking an oath to protect the U.S. Constitution, magnanimously allowed the executive branch of the New York State government to violate people's constitutional rights - if the court, in its infinite wisdom, but without any reasoning or explanation, decides that the constitutional violation was "insubstantial".

The court did not provide any criteria by which the violation is substantial or insubstantial.

I would say, if a person is required to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the alleged violation that he could not possibly have notice of at the time he did anything that is now claimed as a violation, that is a substantial constitutional due process violation.

I would say, it is a substantial constitutional violation, a violation of due process and equal protection of laws if a person is mandated by the court to destroy on his property a pond with wildlife on his property to make a stone "wrip-wrap" to allow "trout" to flow down the "stream", where there is no stream, no trout, and where the neighbor downstream ( who reported my husband out of spite and long since died) was allowed by DEC to build a contraption in that same stream that would have blocked any trout if it existed.

And - if a person is mandated to do the above simply because it pointed out to the government that ALL of its maps of "environmentally protected objects" are bluff.  

Yes, all maps in the State of New York allegedly claiming that there is something environmentally protected on them, are bluff.  They are unreadable and do not give homeowners any notice as to what is on them, and do not allow the homeowners to tie addresses of their properties to any "environmentally protected objects", which are not clearly designated in the maps.

We found that out, we raised that issue, we were punished for that.

That's why we are publishing this information and let the public know that, before paying the fines and agreeing to 'consent degrees" for penalties and 'remediation" on their properties, they may check whether the maps actually reflected anything on their properties.

The Court of Appeals did not take the case and did not resolve it on the merits.

Therefore, litigants in the 1st, 2nd and 4th departments - it is your turn challenging validity of DEC's maps of "environmentally protected objects".

When enough lawsuits are brought and when the issue cannot escape review of the New York State Court of Appeals, they will suddenly find the issue a "substantial constitutional violation".

If there is no major public outcry, people's admittedly violated constitutional rights, in the eyes of the highest New York State Court, are insubstantial.


No comments:

Post a Comment