Where: Federal Courthouse, Islip, New York.
When: Friday, August 10, 2001, AT 2:00 P.M.
Why: Issues before Magistrate Arlene Lindsay. Concerning Dittmer, et al. v. County of Suffolk, Civil Action number 96-2206 (TCP-ARL).
Can I get in? Yes. This is a court proceeding. It is not under seal, it is open to the public.
Why should I come? These are your rights as much as those personally
involved in this litigation that are at risk. The camel’s
nose is not only under the tent, it is in the Trough. TThis is
in your back yard - not just the other guy’s.
Basic Facts: The matter to come before the court involves an attempt by the Government through its attorneys to force numerous individuals, many of whom are aged, infirm, in some instances confined to nursing homes, and whose testimony the same attorney who is demanding to force them to appear to be questioned under oath for in most instance 30 to 45 minutes, stated on March 30, 2001 in argument to Federal District Court Judge Thomas C. Platt, “And we believe, regardless of discovery, that there’s no material factual question left in this case, nor could there be, nor will discovery even assist in that . . . ..” and “Deposition testimony isn’t going to change the fact that plaintiff’s properties are vacant and unimproved, and no amount of deposition testimony will change the fact that there was preexisting development at the Calverton facility. . . . They can depose Mr. Amper, Mr LoGrande, they can depose whomever they want, and the fact is that the development will not change, the preexisting development will not change and their undeveloped nature and the fact that their property is in a sensitive ecosystem will not change.” and “There is no need for discovery . . . .” The Attorney General has argued and argued that all these individuals have left in their suit is what he refers to as a “facial challenge” to the law. If what he claims is true, then the sworn testimony the Attorney General wants to drag these private citizens before the Attorney General, a court reporter, and others, allowing not enough time for legitimate questioning about any facts about which these individuals can have no knowledge if all that is left is in fact to a facial challenge of the statute. There is no rational or credible basis for such this harassment to proceed. This ploy used by the Attorney General goes far beyond that of a “fishing expedition” is goes instead to the heart of bad faith, intentional harassment and abuse of authority and position of public trust. Compelling Plaintiffs, who can have no personal knowledge of the pre- and post- statute activities of Defendants or others crafting the legislation and the mapping of the lines, to participate in depositions is ludicrous. Had Plaintiffs as impacted landowners been allowed to participate in that process, rather than being excluded as established by sworn testimony, a remedy other than litigation would have been available to Plaintiffs for relief. Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, established that facts underlying drawing of lines and other relevant issues are solely within the control of others, proving Plaintiffs’ basis for discovery.
This case is a prime example of abuse of governmental power by the office of the Attorney General. That office has a track record which is documented in numerous cases throughout both state and federal courts, of using its very size to compel private litigants to surrender their rights when faced with the full force of numbers, privilege and court protectionism based upon their position in governmental office. This is particularly true in cases involving individuals attempting to protect their property rights against governmental onslaught. The smaller the litigant, the more vulnerable due to age, ill health, lack of funding, and inability to obtain outside assistance, the quicker these governmental attorneys bring full force to bear on these individuals and force them from litigation without compunction, taking with them the rights, property and dignity of the persons whom they are sworn, as “public servants” to protect. The term “public servant” is clearly misplaced, “special interest defender” or “advocate of the privileged few” would more properly describe the view of this office shown to those who, by virtue of having small holdings which they try to maintain, and the limited rights which they have left in this so-called democracy, which they try to protect by force of law and resort to the safe harbor supposed to be provided by the Constitution. Unfortunately, the cloak of status afforded these attorneys by their positions as representatives of the government, does not go unnoticed and the deference accorded them further undermines confidence in the system of government as it presently exists.
Come see for yourself. See your government in action.
| Back to: | |
|
 |