The Appeal to the 4th Department, of the Unified Court System on New York, in Rochester exposes the absolute criminal corruption of the identified elements of the local deep state that exist in the Judicial and Executive Divisions of the Cattaraugus County New York government. The Appeal has been “perfected”, i.e. it falls within the requirements of the layout requirements to be heard on the merits, all the requirements of the record on appeal have been met, whether or not it meets the number of pages, size of the font, space between the font, record requirements, etc…even though a self-represented ‘person’ does not have to follow the ‘guidelines’ based US Supreme Court Rulings, one of which is  Haines v.Kerner 404 U.S. 519 (1972),. However, you have the issues of corruption, is there corrupt elements in the 4th Department? Continue reading
The New York Grand Jury System is one of the most powerful Grand jury systems in the world, however it has broken down because it is controlled by the very people it is intended to investigate and hold accountable; Corrupt District Attorney’s like Lori Rieman; “The primary function of the Grand Jury is to uncover crimes and misconduct in public office for the purpose of prosecution” (see NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 190.65, 190.55). People v Tyler, 46 N.Y.2d 251, 258-259, see also People v Rao 73 A.D.2d 88 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980) . The term “a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich” was coined here in New York. So was “testlying”, the two most dangerous phrases ever to infest American Jurisprudence.
Most New Yorkers fail to understand their power when seated as a Grand Jury member. It was designed to be a “run-away” process where We the People could control and hold accountable corrupt government officials, like the many that inhabit Cattaraugus County New York found in the District Attorney’s Office. It is engrained in the New York State Constitution.
Furthermore, the Grand Jury exists to protect citizens, i.e. We the People, from needless and unfounded prosecutions as well as to investigate crimes (see, e.g., People v Lancaster, 69 N.Y.2d 20 at 25 ; People v Ford, 62 N.Y.2d 275, 282 ; People v Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 594 .
New York State Constitution, Article I, Section 6, Paragraph 2; The power of grand juries to inquire into the wilful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments or to direct the filing of informations in connection with such inquiries, shall never be suspended or impaired by law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (Amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938; further amended by vote of the people November 8, 1949; November 3, 1959; November 6, 1973; November 6, 2001.)
- Never impaired by law; a reasonable and sensible person clearly understands these words and what they means; no law can dictate to a grand jury what they can and cannot do when investigating and handing down indictments against public officials. If any local, county or state government employee tells you otherwise, tell them to review article I, section 6 of the New York State Constitution. Further, if you are a member of a grand jury and any government employee tells you that you can’t do something, subpoena them, put them on the stand and demand they sign a waiver of immunity and make them testify as to what they just said. If they were telling you the truth they would have no problem doing that under oath, now would they? See the powers of the grand jury below, very important…
- Shall never be suspended; that means in time of war, strife or whatever, a grand jury can always be seated and/or in power.
- Absolute; (as defined in blacks law); complete, perfect, final, without any condition or incumbrance; as an absolute bond.
- Indictments: The Grand Jury itself can pass down indictment against corrupt public officials
- Information; A Grand Jury can pass down an indictment against a corrupt public official, or make a recommendation to have charges filed against a corrupt public official. In our opinion, in this age of corruption it is better that a Grand Jury indicts a corrupt public official then allow another public official to charge them.
To give you an example of the power of the New York State Grand Jury System one needs to look back to February, 1934, where a New York Grand Jury made an effort to inquire into the policy racket, similar to what we have today known as ticket quotas. After eleven months of continued activity, it found itself stalemated, and handed up a recommendation that another Grand Jury take up the matter, and devote its entire time to it. The March, 1935, Grand Jury was charged with the duty of investigating all forms of organized crime, and any connection between such acts and law enforcement officials. In order that it might have a free hand and go after corrupt government officials, it threw out the corrupt district attorney running it , like corrupt District Attorney Lori Rieman we have here in Cattaraugus County New York who covers up murders .
The 1935 Grand Jury, though headed by a capable foreman, made no progress . When the futility of the investigation became apparent, the Jury joined with the Grand Jurors’ Association in urging upon Governor Lehman the need of an Extraordinary Grand Jury, and a Special Prosecutor to continue the inquiry. The rackets investigation is now being conducted by a carefully selected jury, with the aid of Thomas E. Dewey, Esq., and an appropriation of a quarter million dollars . This led to the successful prosecution in New York City of criminal organizations, which in Cattaraugus County is mainly comprised of corrupt public employees, their friends and family members.
Accessed December 13, 2018.
 People v Tyler, 46 N.Y.2d 251, 258-259
 People v Rao 73 A.D.2d 88 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)
 People v Lancaster, 69 N.Y.2d 20 at 25
 People v Ford, 62 N.Y.2d 275, 282
 People v Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 594
 Quare as to power to exclude the prosecutor. Pro: Matter of District Attorney’s Relations to the Grand Jury, 14 N. Y. Cr. 431 (1900). Contra: People ex rel. District Attorney v. Dist. Ct., 75 Colo. 412, 225 Pac. 829 (1924).
 Compare, the exposure of the Minneapolis system of graft which was forced through by the foreman. 2 LINCOLN STEFFEN’S AUTOBIOGrAPHY (1931) 327, 379. N.Y.Times, Jan. 17, 1935, p. 3, col. 1; 13 THE PANEL (Sept.-Oct. 1935).