June 27, 2014 at 6:30 P.M. Alterations in the size of letters and other defacements of this text have taken place today. I will do my best to repair the harm done.
June 26, 2014 at 2:36 P.M. A list of sources will be added to this text soon. No response to my communication has yet been received from Invicta Watch Company. However, I have received a letter from "Fernando Fernandez," Constituent Services/Outreach Coordinator, Office of the Public Advocate For the City of New York, 1 Centre Street, New York, N.Y. 10007, (212) 669-3571. I am told that my "case number" is 97457.
The floor of the Public Advocate's office is not specified in this letter head. (Interesting stationary from "Letitia James.")
The area, mailing, or zip code on the postage meter used to mail what purports to be the Public Advocate's letter is different from the zip code for 1 Centre Street, New York, N.Y. and no listing for persons named "R. Schnetzler" or "Fernando Fernandez" could be found.
Regrettably, my email accounts are blocked, illegally, for reasons and by persons unknown to me, probably from the New Jersey Supreme Court or Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) acting outside the boundaries of law.
It is a crime to represent yourself as the Public Advocate of the city of New York if you are really a lawyer from Union City, New Jersey in the process of being indicted.
I will post all comments I make to "Mr. Fernandez" online to ensure that there is no misunderstanding of what I have said or why I have said it. I will avoid all telephone conversations by communicating only in writing and posting my comments online.
My statement concerning Invicta is self-explanatory and the Public Advocate's letter was sent and received at my correct address which was supplied with the materials sent to the Public Advocate of the City of New York by certified mail with return receipt also bearing my address.
A copy of the letter received, allegedly from that office, and of the envelope in which it arrived, also of my return receipt and posting receipt, will be returned to the N.Y. Public Advocate for review.
My certified letter 7014 0510 0002 1469 3832 was sent on June 17, 2014; return receipt signed by "R. Schnetzler" on June 23, 2014 bears the same identification number. My mail will be directed exclusively to Letitia James.
I cannot imagine someone inventing the name "Schnetzler."
When I get my watch repaired and returned to me, if I do, I will certainly make sure that everyone knows the good news.
I will also forward a copy of this statement being posted at my blog to "Mr. Fernandez" and/or "R. Schnetzler."
Google Chrome and printing is still unavailable at Morningside Heights laptops. I was subjected to harassments when trying to write at my home laptop. If more than two days pass without alteration at these blogs it means that I am prevented from writing against my will. ("How censorship works in America.")
Michelangelo Conte, "Teacher Charged With Sex Assault," The Star Ledger, June 18, 2014, p. 17. (Keith R. McGee, 37, of Glen Rock, New Jersey is charged with sexual assault of a girl in the teacher's high school classroom.)
Mary Ann Spoto, "Appeals Court Upholds Sex Offender Ruling," The Star Ledger, June 18, 2014, p. 17. (Charles E. Hunt, 58, of Union Beach failed to register as a sex offender under Megan's law and now faces a return to prison.)
Karen Sudol, "Franklin Lakes Man Charged With Fraud: Allegedly Made Up Firm to Bill $3.5 Million," The Record, June 20, 2014, p. L-3. (Allegations of wire fraud with the assistance of attorneys from New Jersey against "Bobby Boye," 50, may implicate more judges and lawyers.)
Brent Johnson, "N.J. Dealt a Losing Hand by High Court: Bid to Legalize Sports Bets Again Rejected," The Star Ledger, June 24, 2014, p. 1. (Stuart Rabner is holding out for more bribe money from the illicit gaming industry.)
Larry Neumeister, "U.S. Memo On Targeted Killings Up For Scrutiny: Documents Justifying Drone Use Released," The Star Ledger, June 24, 2014, p. 1. (Killing Americans outside the boundaries of law is fine.)
Ted Sherman, "Six Public Employees Charged in School Lunch FRAUD: Workers Accused of Falsely Reporting Income So Kids Could Get Subsidized Meals," The Star Ledger, June 14, 2014, p. 9. (Widespread fraud in school lunch and other programs, allegedly involving lawyers in many cases: "New Jersey Lawyers Involved School Lunch Scam.")
Jerry Cantrell, "Pension Reform Must be Revisited," The Star Ledger, June 24, 2014, p. 11. (" ... New Jersey taxpayers would have to come up with $3.35 BILLION per year by 2018. That would equal a 10% addition to the proposed 2015 $34.4 BILLION record budget just for state worker pensions." Much of this sum is due to "bloated" and multiple pensions for N.J. government lawyers and ex-politicians collecting as many as 5 or 6 separate pensions for different government jobs held simultaneously.)
AP, "Man Takes Plea Deal in Child Sex Case," The Star Ledger, June 24, 2014, p. 13. ("A man who took a 13-year-old girl from Rhode Island to his home in New Jersey after meeting her online has agreed to plead guilty.")
John Reimbach, "Whistle-Blower Cases Carry Risk: Plaintiffs Must Meet Strict Guidelines," The Record, June 25, 2014, p. 1. (N.J. politicians wish to discourage whistle-blower lawsuits.)
Matt Arco, "Wiesniewski Phone Logs Cast Doubt On GWB Tale: P.A. Official, Christie Aides Were in Contact," The Star Ledger, June 25, 2014, p. 1. (It looks more and more like Mr. Christie may have lied about what he knew and/or when he knew it.)
Matt Flegenheimer, William K. Rashbaum, Kate Zernike, "2nd Bridge Inquiry Said to be Linked to Christie," The New York Times, June 24, 2014, p. A1. (What role did Christie and his minions -- including the loathsome David Samson, Esq. -- play in alleged securities fraud at the Port Authority damaging the general public? Christie, Samson, and Baroni are lawyers protected in their alleged criminality by N.J.'s tainted Office of Attorney Ethics. Is this an example of New Jersey's legal ethics, Mr. Rabner? Does this inaction by the New Jersey legal ethics machinery comport with your sense of "justice," Chief Justice Rabner? "David Samson Resigns.")
Charlie Savage, "Court Releases Large Parts of Memo Approving Killing of American in Yemen," The New York Times, June 24, 2014, p. A17. (Can Americans be killed on the basis of a secret determination by the U.S. president, for undisclosed reasons that are never communicated to the victim, who is not afforded even the opportunity to respond to accusations nor to offer counter-evidence of any kind, without explanations to family members after the victim's murder? Mr. Obama's administration has determined that such killings are "legal." If so, then I suggest that Mr. Boehner is a "threat to national security" and "beyond capture" by the administration and, hence, a fitting candidate for such a killing. I can certainly write a memo citing more and better sources that will be far more persuasive than the administration's Al-Awalki memo to justify "taking Boehner off the battlefield." This absurd suggestion concerning Mr. Boehner nevertheless falls under the scope of executive power for the imperial presidency claimed in the memo released to the public: "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
"A Thin Rationale For Drone Killings," (Editorial) The New York Times, June 24, 2014, p. A26.
In 2014 a fundamental tenet of all civilized societies that claim to adhere to the rule of law -- however the concept may be understood in different countries -- concerns the dignity of human life that merits unique legal protections.
Human rights conventions and fundamental rights guarantees -- including the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution -- MANDATE some due process of law before a deprivation of liberty.
Much more care must be taken to ensure legal rights when government acts to violate the sacredness of life by killing someone given the finality of death. An appeal by a corpse tends to be worthless.
In 2010, the Obama administration's brilliant lawyers drafted a memo to explain when and why it is O.K. to murder or kill (depending on your point of view) an American citizen without affording the victim due process of law or judicial review of any kind.
The suggestion that due process is satisfied by White House or Justice Department internal review -- without notice to the victim or an opportunity to respond -- makes a mockery of due process, Mr. Holder.
The essence of due process is notice to the affected party together with an opportunity for that person/party to respond to accusations.
The president's lawyers relied on Israeli law to conclude that "exigent" circumstances in a time of war allow for killing a non-Jewish American, like Mr. Al-Awalki, because he could not be captured and posed an imminent threat to U.S. national security.
Actually, Mr. Al-Awalki happened to be located in Yemen, a country not at war with the United States. Besides, Congress has yet to declare war against any nation. These were hardly "exigent" circumstances. Legal deliberations and the weighing of arguments unfolded at a leisurely pace over more than a year.
The authors of the memo, David Barron, Esq. and Mathew Lederman, Esq., have no doubt made their mothers proud by "moving on" to the judiciary and legal academia -- as rewards for their government service -- since they clearly embody today's legal ethics and professional competence in America. ("Is America's Legal Ethics a Lie?" and "American Lawyers and Doctors in the Torture Debate" then "Nihilists in Disneyworld" and "Stuart Rabner's Selective Sense of Justice.")
" ... the memo turns out to be a slap dash pastiche of legal themes [a mere academic exercise?] -- some based on obscure interpretations of British and Israeli law -- that was clearly tailored to the desired result."
It is shocking that in a nation with America's reserves of legal talent, this is the level of analysis justifying a momentous alteration of fundamental U.S. and international law.
The phrase "bootstrap" argument comes to mind to explain this finding of "something, anything" to justify a conclusion that had been reached before the research started. Legal ethics should prohibit such methods and foregone conclusions.
The resort to "slovenly" legal reasoning and method, including faulty research, compares with the Bush lawyers rationalizations of torture.
The "public authorities justification" for extraordinary departures by a nation from legality is invoked and expanded in this memo to permit killings of Americans outside of due process protections that are fundamental to legality itself and not for a limited period of time:
"Mr. Awalki's due process rights are dealt with summarily. The 'realities of combat' [in Yemen?] meant that no serious due process was possible, the memo said, citing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force that allows anti-terror measures anywhere. [Cuba? Russia? China?] And the memo never questioned whether the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, which operate the drone program, would properly follow international law."
Mr. Al-Awalki's sixteen year-old son and thousands of other collateral victims of drones have led to unanimous UN condemnation of the U.S.'s position on the legality of such killings to say nothing of the neglect of "jurisprudence" -- meaning case law -- from the International Court at the Hague concerning time-limitations on "exigent actions" by nations in military contexts.
This is not American legal thinking at its best. Mr. Obama is a superb lawyer and former law professor who must realize that the judgment of history and his colleagues from all over the world will be harsh not only in evaluating this so-called legal memo, but in assessing Mr. Obama's failure to close Guantanamo, continuing allegations of torture used against persons in U.S. custody, illegal use of drone weapons, and retention in secrecy of more than a thousand photographs of the hateful tortures that took place at Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo.
At my local college bookstore the box of mints with Mr. Obama's picture is called: "Disappoint-mints."
