NEWS July 16, 2011!

The Gotfried Bill Dismantling All 50 States CONSTITUTIONS Fails!
The Bill Providing Cover For Allowing Torture Fails!


     We have news as to the effects of our letter that was sent to all of the Senators and Assembly Members in New York to stop the Gottfried Bill from passing into law.  We have been notified that the Gottfried Bill did not pass and did not get voted to go to the floor.  The session for 2011 has ended.  The Gottfried bill will not be being voted on for this year of 2011.  However we were told that the Bill will be assigned a new number and possibly sponsored again in 2012 in an effort to try to seize all 50 States and get voted in. 

    We have asked for information from the office the Bill originated from about having a public hearing of the bill and as of now have “not” received a call back to this inquiry 2 weeks later.  We will update you as soon as we receive information about if there can be a public hearing to air facts and viewpoints to quash the bill.  Thanks to you the public for helping us to take action against this insidious Bill.

    Any Bill can be passed on emergency basis, which means it may not be open to public debate and can be automatically enacted into law, so please keep your ears to the ground for any news of any emergency action and read the analysis about the Gottfried Bill.  Also as the sponsors will try again to put this bill forward in 2012 continue to call and write to your legislators no matter what State you are in and ask them to contact the New York State Senators and Legislators and demand a halt to any progress of such Bill of Attainder legislation.  Don't ever stop fighting back.

Thank You
Deborah Lamb and John Mecca





NEW  June 14th,  2011 REVISED Addition update of  the May 10th, 2011 update.
You thought the Patriot Act was Bad, You have Not Seen Anything Yet, Read This!
   
The following bill is now all of a sudden on a fast track to being passed, you must take action to STOP this Bill, your Freedom now literally hangs in the balance!
It has just passed the Codes Committee and is in the Rules Committee!



BILL ALLOWING TORTURE OF ANYONE ANYWHERE FOR ANY REASON,
CAMOUFLAGED AS PROHIBITING DOCTORS FROM TORTURING

*  *  *

Please call or write The New York  State Senators and Assemblymembers to tell them NOT to vote for The Gottfried Bill A-05891.  If you are not residents of New York, please call or write to your state's Senators and Assemblymembers to tell them to call or write  the New York Senators and Assemblymembers to tell them NOT to vote for the Gottfried Bill A-05891.  WE NEED YOUR HELP,
to stop this Bill from being voted into LAW for all 50 States automatically by the Interstate Compact.

http://www.nysenate.gov/senators - Senators of New York

http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/mem/ - Assemblymembers of New York

Hello to you Sisters and Brothers in Freedom;
 
    We are Deborah Lamb and John Mecca continuing to fight for our freedoms.  We are being used for non-consensual human experimentation, and we are being electronically tortured from covertly installed implanted devices in our bodies, done to us by way of authorities committing fraud.  We are reporting to you the truth that this is happening to us and thousands of other victims; our belief is that the true number is much higher and devices are routinely installed on many people put under anesthesia for activation much later after the surgery.  Are you ready and willing to open your eyes to the atrocities happening right under your own noses in this country?  

    The Bill to Torture Us is not dead, like vampires they have resurrected a new Bill legalizing torture.  Our efforts may well have had the effect of defeating the previous BILL with the same doublespeak where its title claims to stop torture but its words promote and legalize it, we refer to the old Bill as the Ex Duane Bill, the devils own, which did not pass in the House.  Though it did not pass in the House it is still alive in a virtual mirror of the Ex Duane Bill, alive as the New Gottfried TORTURE BILL, is being promoted falsely as it reads as if it is to stop torture, which is false as it supports and spreads torture and it is being supported by other legislators as SPONSORS of State Assembly Member Richard N. Gottfried (D-75th District)
and COSPONSORED by legislators Cahill, Rivera J, Schimel, Glick, Clark, Millman, Robinson, Jeffries,
           Paulin, Hooper, Kellner, Jaffee, Reilly, Barron, Lifton, Cook,
           Lancman, Perry, Englebright, O'Donnell, Arroyo, Markey, Titone,
           Rivera P, Miller J, Rosenthal.

     The 10th Amendment separates the Federal jurisdiction from the State[s] jurisdiction, the Bill is a tool to allow the State[s] to have Federal sanctions upon citizens inside State[s] jurisdictions and also allows for the State[s] authorities to adopt the same Bill for their own use to torture and cause mayhem.  The Bill is unconstitutional as it dismantles the NYS and other 49 State[s] CONSTITUTIONS.  The devilish Gottfried Bill, is a Bill of Attainder, created for purposes of anarchy and to subdue the rule of law by the people, it eliminates due process and is a terminal death sentence to the State[s] and the Nation.  We would have freedom no more and the 1st Amendment of free speech would be carried out in fear, the people fearing their being heard as to their discussions of the controversies of the day.  Those who understand and do nothing are as providers of haven to such tragedy.  You need to spread the word and make your will known.

    The Devils own Gottfried Bill; is a danger to the freedoms we have and if passed so will go our freedoms to create a larger secret society of torturers and killers of innocent people, (several electronic attack victims have died).

    The following is a copy of the letter that will be sent to those legislators whom will sign off on this the new BILL that although it is titled to make us think it is for the prohibition of torture it is actually giving the green light to torture in all 50 States of the United States.  Read the following carefully, the BILL's text and analysis follow the letter. There are many who have supported the BILL without having read it carefully and many believe that the BILL would prohibit torture by physicians and the like, however nothing could be further from the truth.


Yours Truly

Deborah Lamb and John Mecca

-------------------------------------------LETTER TO LEGISLATORS  & COMMITTEES-----------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------LETTER TO LEGISLATORS  & COMMITTEES-----------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------LETTER TO LEGISLATORS  & COMMITTEES-----------------------------------------------

June  2011

FROM: Deborah Lamb & John Mecca
EMAIL timetogo2@optonline.net

TO: Legislative Person in charge of promoting or voting on the A05891 Bill


REGARDING:  Opposition to the A05891 Legislation by Assembly Member Richard N. Gottfried, generically referred to as the Anti-Torture Bill which states;
“Prohibits participation in torture and improper treatment of prisoners by
health care professionals; prohibits a health care professional from engaging,
assisting, planning the torture or improper treatment of a prisoner...
                     
Dear Legislators & Committees Members,


      This letter is from Deborah Lamb and John Mecca, as concerned New Yorkers and victims of non-consensual human experimentation in Suffolk County, New York, we oppose the N.Y.S. Legislation of A05891 the so-called Anti-Torture Bill.  We are in opposition of this legislation, which is a fraud, written in such a way as to be subterfuge, as a secret attack against the very fabric of all we hold dear in this State and Country and considered for a law of N.Y.S. without a N.Y.S. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.  The legislation as a matter of its operation, removes the judiciary from the loop of meting out punishment, effectively and completely placing judicial matters into select secret N.Y.S. Public Health committees hands!

      The Bill which is not about stopping torture but removing liability upon NYS and legalizing torture, improper treatment when sanctioned by N.Y.S. authorities and for that matter the authorities that can sanction these egregious actions can be anyone by the verbiage definitions of the legislation. there are many more issues of equal disturbing importance in the Bill, the legislation is a Bill of Attainder to be initiated into law, that has ex post facto allowances within it.

      Our NYS Legislators swear or affirm to protect the NYS CONSTITUTION, but instead in virtual secret by the legislation's camouflaged language are attacking it.  The legislation once law will through the N.Y.S. Mental Hygiene compact with the other 49 States of the Union will place the entire country under a dictatorship law principal, without justification; as war against the peoples for having beliefs, opinions politically incorrect free speech, its very proposing is a declaration of war against the very intention of the NYS CONSTITUTION'S purposes.  The BILL will inject the real potential of an extermination program among all the states of the Union by the interstate NYS Public Hygiene (PBH) law collaborative with NYS Mental Hygiene (MHY) LAW Section 67.07 interstate compact.
      
      The Bill has purposes and meaning beyond the obvious that arise from a phrase in it as follows, “and related matters”.  The Bill according to “related matters”, has meaning beyond the prohibition of torture, being in part to define torture as being allowed in NYS when torture is allowed by Federal, State or local authorities, indeed factually the Bill encourages torture for political means and is applicable for any person and for any reason.  Any person throughout the 50 States can be tortured by vague definitions of criteria for torture and by its wording will be combined with wavier of consent human experimentation.  Depending on what town a person lives in the authorities there can read the vague law and interpret it to mean whatever they wish, if they want to grab protesters it will be legal to then torture them for re-education or execute them as federal law jurisdiction permits, if a person is doing anything at all the authorities don't like, the same thing can happen to them.  When have district attorneys ever read a law and not extended it where it is vague, they do it all the time!  For those that do not know, today in this country people are being tortured in their homes using the wavier of consent legislation to do human experimentation

      The Bill will be a PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, that will be used for determining who needs a re-education camp or death, where the curriculum is behavior modification by Pavlovian induction of torture, where their “health care professional” could say to the New Yorker under their control, this is NYS Public Health and what we do here is legal and good for you, to the prisoner or human subject, that what they are experiencing is not torture but is instead reactive data transmission the U.S. citizen needs.  Have those that came up with the Bill realized that affording the federal jurisdiction latitude inside NYS includes rape and death sentences without public due process, the allowance to rape is also by being mindful of the federal government implied as included.

THE BILL INCLUDES RAPE OF MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN  BY DEFAULT.

      The following shows how the BILL is contrary to the New York State CONSTITUTION and for that matter the U.S. CONSTITUTION, there are within the following mentions of the words plaintiff, defendant and court, those words are there as a demonstration of how arguments can evolve in a court case showing the BILL to be wholly unconstitutional.

      That the “Military Commissions Act 2006” is used as an example of what is unconstitutional and illegal by New York States CONSTITUTION for it to be in action anywhere inside the borders of the New York State jurisdiction, by that Act of 2006, this
complaint is not limited but inclusive of any and all unconstitutional and illegal NYS, federal, foreign entity laws and policy origin, this complaint and its citing of laws and policy is to be liberally construed as to the coverage against insertion into NYS legislation and policy of egregious nature adversely affecting the New York States sovereigns and persons' NYS Civil Rights and breaching of NYS law.
 
      As further example of onerous prohibited Bill of Attainder legal precept, foreign to the moral nature of New Yorkers that Plaintiffs include is the issue that “rape” is of such a nature by its being unconstitutional and illegal by NYS legal precepts, cannot be a part of "Health Care Professionals" and the like activities nor of  DEFENDANTS' activities, to in any way be propounded as part of any action upon any person inside the borders of NYS.  Such policy as the aforementioned is the allowance propounded by then President of September 4, 2003, to proclaim that rape when it served the government interests of state and federal has the government available to sequester and prevent a complaint of rape from reaching the complaint phase in a court of law, per se inside NYS, is illegal, unconstitutional and a Bill of Attainder  proclamation titled, “Statement on Prison Rape Elimination Act, Statement by the President September 4, 2003”.  That proclamation originated from the law being enacted of, “Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, Law [S. 1435]”; wherein as it is well reported in newspaper accounts that rape is and can be a part of interrogation or coercion within legal sanction therefore through the “Military Commissions Act 2006”.  Wording of the proclamation makes it unsupportable by its words, that it could ever be applicable inside NYS jurisdiction by its unconstitutional trampling of civil rights and illegality.  Where a governor of a state such as NYS serving at the pleasure of the President to accommodate such unconstitutional and criminal acts to close down a court case or investigation into an aggrieved plaintiff(s) raped by use of the proclamations words “authority to withhold information”; such serving of the President by the NYS governor and that office are nevertheless subject to the superior power of NYS CONSTITUTION Civil Rights of NYS of sovereign people and NYS criminal and penal law.  Illustrating that torture including rape is relative to the legal analysis of torture and is that it would be allowed by "Health Care Professionals" of the BILL and the like being wholly unconstitutional and illegal under the NYS CONSTITUTION Civil Rights of sovereign New Yorkers and illegal under NYS laws even for those whom are inmates or prisoners with some reduced rights; that such Bills of Attainder are extant without exposure as to their legality questioned is here shown by example in text from, SEE;

"Then Ex. President George Walker Bush; Proclamation: Statement on Prison Rape Elimination Act, Statement by the President September 4, 2003....The executive branch shall construe sections 7(h) and 7(k)(3) in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information when its disclosure could impair deliberative processes of the Executive or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties and, to the extent possible, in a manner consistent with Federal statutes protecting sensitive information from disclosure."

      The clear implication of the Bush proclamation is that rape may be precluded from seeing a court by a raped plaintiff where so called national security can be claimed, such claim could be an important person is doing a favor for a subordinate to relieve them of having to be brought to court for a hearing as to their raping someone. The Proclamation directs that rape cases can be quashed.

      The Bill as law is so flawed, the following are the ways in which it will affect the N.Y.S. CONSTITUTION and the CONSTITUTIONS of all the other 49 STATES.  This cannot possibly be allowed and is impermissible!

      A.  NYS CONSTITUTION Article Sections Abrogated By The “NYS Legislature BILL or equivalent Bill of Attainder Laws.

      1. The extremes of  the BILL has the effect of it being a treason, fraud and perversion of the law upon all facets of the NYS CONSTITUTION, that illustrate it and the other legislation cited in this complaint are Bills of Attainder.  Therefore the Plaintiffs' complaint will be affected according to such potential and active legislation as a MANIFEST INJUSTICE if they are not mooted by the Court for their actions on such as Plaintiffs and New Yorkers.

1. THE NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SECTION I. RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES. ACCORDING TO THE BILL AS LAW, WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"Bill of Rights Section 1. No member of this state shall be disfranchised, or deprived of  any  of  the  rights  or  privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment  of  his or her peers,...."

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws, has no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 1”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      b.    Where the BILL and similar laws' definitions of prisoner and torture do not have a grounding basis in the phrase “law of the land” as the rest of the Forty Nine states of the Union, have no such law-breaking code on their books as of yet.
                      c.    That the effect of the BILL and similar laws is by its rich wording obviously a PROCLAMATION as  Bill of Attainder to inject the ways and means to create a second class of citizens to be prisoners and tortured and conscripted as “potential subjects” from the NYS PBH list of its current subjects, has the effect to be “prejudice” and purposefully disenfranchised as the rule of law upon the BILL becoming law.
                      d.    The BILL and similar laws effectively deprives the persons affected by new definitions PROCLAMATION inside of New York State and by effect of subsequent litigation arising from such affected persons if they ever are able to escape the illegal prison and torture proposed by the BILL would result in case law that would certainly have a disastrous effect upon the other 49 states of the Union.
                      e.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

2. THE NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  §  2. TRIAL BY JURY; HOW WAIVED. ACCORDING TO THE BILL AS LAW, WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"Bill of Rights Section §  2.  Trial  by  jury  in  all  cases in which it has heretofore been guaranteed by constitutional provision shall remain inviolate forever; but  a jury trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law."

                             a.    Nowhere in the BILL and similar laws is there any reference to the defined “prisoner” it references to, having had public due process in any federal or state court, where such defined prisoners can also be construed by its language to be potential subjects.  The BILL'S reference for physical punishment in its definition of “punishment”, where it states, “any  intentional act or intentional omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental”, is altogether unconstitutional in NY and illegal under statute.  That the BILL is for prohibition of “health care professionals” it is only a prohibition for aiding and abetting acts according to the BILL'S definition of torture.  The definition for “torture” states that the definition holds that,
 “ It  does  not  include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanction.”.  That the Bills definition does not hold that torture is acts equivalent to the definition of torture, is a direct statement that aiding and abetting acts that are defined by the Bills definition of “torture” are allowed where they are, “inherent in or incidental to lawful sanction”.  By the aforementioned true and correct analysis according to contracts, a new class of prisoner is contended by the BILL to be in effect on a selective basis, without public due process mentioned as how the so called prisoners arrived at the status of prisoner nor is it implied that such prisoners will be given public due process of the State of New York as guaranteed by Section 2 of the NYS Bill of Rights.  It should be noted the BILL does not allude to any review of prisoners for their legally being branded with such status whatsoever and the way the Bills language and purpose in allowing the definitions of prisoner and torture to be applied into the legal code is indicative of a BILL that strips the right to due process regarding trial by jury from the NYS CONSTITUTION.
                      b.    Nowhere in the state of New York's criminal or penal code, is there latitude for the actions the BILL and similar laws to the BILLS “§ 22.1.(b) "Torture"... inherent in or incidental to lawful sanction”.  The implication is that the BILL supplants the NYS public due process by a jury to the degree that the Bill of Rights Section that the BILL in creating a new class of prisoner as also “potential subjects” is to have the (BILL A05891) as a PROCLAMATION amounting to a “BILL OF ATTAINDER”.  The definition of Bill of Attainder is generally a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes way the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment.
                       c.    The BILL and similar laws by its reference to “potential subjects” or subject, has language that infers that such are persons as subjects under NYS Public Health waiver of consent experiment.  Such subject(s), persons and or research subject(s) persons, are by the definitions of the harsh treatments of  “torture”, "Improper treatment" and “adversely affect” codified as “prisoners” to thereby fall into the new class of prisoners as a Bill of Attainder, permitting such persons as research and experiment subjects to be treated accordingly; where such persons can be subjected to the acts defined under the BILL'S definition of “torture”, because they are under, “lawful sanction”.  That such persons as experiment or research subjects have become subjects under the unconstitutional NYS PBH wavier of consent laws is codified by the inference in the BILL where, that such experiment or research subjects have become prisoners by the BILLS PROCLAMATION, that such unwitting subjects are thereby not to be allowed NYS public due process before a jury.
                      d.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 2”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.  
                      e.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

3. THE NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  § 3. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP; RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.  ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

“§  3.  The  free  exercise  and  enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be  allowed in  this  state  to  all  humankind; and  no  person  shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his or her opinions on matters of religious belief”

                        a.     Where in the BILL and similar laws definition of §  22.1.  (b)  "Torture", has the words, (including the holding of a belief or membership in any group); such words can be construed to be regarding religion and or worship and is implied.  The BILL by its cavalier approach, has as it would no consideration nor conscience to the history of harsh interrogations, where it has been publicized that the federal government has both Guantanamo internees released and sued only to be given “state secrets privileges” and American headlines stating “America's 250th DNA exoneration raises questions about how often we send the wrong person to prison”; bespeaks that it is bad enough that the system of public due process can be flawed, but that the vague language of the BILL is such that authorities will need only suspicion of guilt to punish without public due process according to the Bills definitions of torture and prisoner has built in flaws, where it may have to do with religious or other “belief” is contrary to allowance by this Article section.
                        b.     Such aforementioned prejudice in the BILL and similar laws is by their action a “Bill of Attainder”.
                        c.     That one person be punished who is innocent is reason to prohibit the purposeful acts of physical harsh treatment.  The point here is, that whatever a person believes, when tortured under the BILL and similar laws exemption of allowance being lawful sanction, is in support that a new class of “prisoner subject” is created by the BILL.  Such that will have whatever religion they have shaken to its foundation.  That extreme acts carried out by a society unfairly upon a person, can cause them to loose faith in that society, it is the same for a religious faith.  That DEFENDANTS are allowed to engage in sanction of the behavior of people by lawful sanction of torture; will absolutely cause many of those new status persons as “prisoners” to loose or question their faith, by being prevented from expressing their faith by the new oppression as a new class of person defined by the BILL as “prisoner”.  The very concept of a “prisoner” as the BILL defines, would plausibly be treated to cause mental duress and or mental discontinuity to the degree that it would cause purposeful or incidental interference with the “prisoner subjects” religious beliefs.  As well as the action of the BILL does not include being a prisoner being given NYS or other public due process, it is as a suppression of freely attending worship services, by being under the egregious treatments the ill considered BILL proclaims to enact upon New Yorkers.
                       d.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 3”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                        e.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

4. NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  § 4. HABEAS CORPUS. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"§  4.  The  privilege of a writ or order of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety requires it."
                     
                      a.    The allowance of Habeas Corpus is defeated by the BILL and similar laws, where it mentions no allowance for any form of public due process before a jury, nor review is intimated, nor that the prisoners and potential subjects of definition under lawful sanction allowed to be tortured legally by health care professionals were given any review or public due process before a jury.  The words of the BILL and similar laws are a PROCLAMATION creating a new class of “prisoner” by the Legislature being “mindful” of the federal and other unknown entities, apparent to use NY as a point of insertion of forming another government within the government of New York.  The issue of not allowing “Habeas Corpus” is of paramount importance, where it shows that the plan of the Legislature is to abrogate completely the New York State authority; otherwise the BILL and similar laws would have had statements saying such prisoners the health care professionals intersected with, had to have it proven the prisoner has had public due process before a jury or “HABEAS CORPUS”.
                      b.    Our state of New York abolished slavery in 1827; where such abolishment was to advocate by NYS law that the holding of a NYS person by use of discrimination or prejudice was illegitimate and illegal.  The connection to “habeas corpus”, is noteworthy as it relates to the BILL.  To have a PROCLAMATION in the BILL as defined is to create slavery once again in a class of persons whom have no rights except those granted by the authorities of the state, federal and unknown entities, is a throwback to a time when the country was primitive and uncivilized.  The hard road of change to abolish slavery was not a capricious one, there were many forces that caused it, among the most important one is, that slavery as compared to the BILL'S PROCLAMATION to institute slavery can only generate uprising as it has in the past.  Slavery is the usurpation of rights of a person on the suspicion that they are inferior to those that hold the person.  The BILL and similar laws have within it the inference that by the words of interrogation that a person is suspected of having information and that because of that information suspected to be in their possession is held by the state or federal or unknown entity, is by presumption of those holding them that they are in the right and superior to those held.  The BILL is based upon the authors psyche of paranoia and compulsion to please those whom are like minded, compulsively paranoid to engender holding a person without “habeas corpus” as legitimate, it is not legitimate by all accords of reasonable thought.  Otherwise why are those that are holding or defining the allowance to hold prisoners leaving out “habeas corpus” to insure that innocent men and women and children are not being held without justification that they are guilty.
                      c.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 4”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

5.  NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  § 5. BAIL; FINES; PUNISHMENTS; DETENTION OF WITNESSES. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"§ 5. ...nor  shall  cruel  and  unusual  punishments  be  inflicted,  nor shall witnesses be unreasonably detained."

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws by PROCLAMATION declares a new class of person in and outside of NY and where such person is defined as being tortured, that definition qualifies it as prohibited for “health care professionals” to aid or abet, except where such torture is by, “lawful sanction”.  The definition is a stated exemption, pointing out what allows “health care professionals” not to define torture as torture where it is authorized by New York State authorities.  The definition of torture and its meaning in the BILL is purposefully coupled to the definition and term of  “prisoners”, where that coupling is directly implicating that those tortured or whom are potential subjects are under the Bills definitions and meanings thereby a “prisoner”.  Such PROCLAMATION of the BILL directly contradicts the scope and meaning of and abrogates the NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC. § 5, where the treatment of the new class of prisoner is permitted by authorities to have “cruel  and  unusual punishments  be inflicted”.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws by PROCLAMATION declares, “witnesses be unreasonably detained”, under the definition of “torture”; a definition that will exist in NYS jurisdiction upon it attaining the status as law, to encompass allowable actions by being a definition of torture inside NYS jurisdiction, to hold suspected witnesses and according to the definition torture them as well, SEE;

"BILL A05891§       15    S  22.  PARTICIPATION IN TORTURE OR IMPROPER TREATMENT OF PRISONERS BY
   16  HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS.  1. DEFINITIONS. AS USED IN THIS SECTION, THE
   17  TERMS "TORTURE" AND "IMPROPER TREATMENT" SHALL BE INTERPRETED IN ACCORD-
   18  ANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW, INCLUDING INTERNATIONAL TREATIES TO WHICH  THE
   19  UNITED STATES IS A PARTY.  HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, IT
   20  SHALL NOT BE AN ELEMENT OF EITHER "TORTURE" OR "IMPROPER TREATMENT" THAT
   21  SUCH  ACTS BE COMMITTED BY A GOVERNMENT OR NON-GOVERNMENT ACTOR, ENTITY,
   22  OR OFFICIAL; UNDER COLOR OF LAW; OR NOT UNDER COLOR OF LAW. AS  USED  IN
   23  THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT CLEARLY REQUIRES OTHERWISE,”

                      c.    The BILL and similar laws seeks by definitions to grant latitude for NYS and federal authorities and unspecified entities the allowance to hold New Yorkers whom are mere suspects of knowing something about another suspect is  to completely gut and abrogate the meaning to the Article Section.
                      d.    The BILL and similar laws injects into the legal code of NYS a definition of “Prisoner”, potential subject”, “Torture”, "Improper treatment",  "adversely  affect", is under this Article Section unconstitutional and under the, N.Y. ADC. LAW § 9-114 : NY Code - Section 9-114: Discipline of inmates, is illegal, SEE;

N.Y. ADC. LAW § 9-114 : NY Code - Section 9-114: Discipline of inmates;
a. Officers in any institution in the department  of  correction  shall  use  all  suitable  means  to  defend   themselves,  to enforce discipline, and to secure the persons of inmates who shall:
    1. Neglect or refuse to perform the work assigned by  the  officer  in
  charge of the institution.
    2.  Willfully  violate  the  rules  and  regulations established by the
  commissioner of correction.
    3. Resist or disobey any lawful command.
    4. Offer violence to any officer or to any other prisoner.
    5.  Injure  or  attempt  to  injure  any  such  institution   or   the
  appurtenances thereof or any property therein.
    6. Attempt to escape.
    7.  Combine  with  any  one  or  more persons for any of the aforesaid
  purposes.
    b. The officers in any institution of  the  department  of  correction
  shall not inflict any blows upon a prisoner except in self-defense or to
  suppress a revolt or insurrection.

                      e.    Where BILL and similar laws clearly states that the use of force is specific in its use and that it is only accorded such sanction of law, where the inmate or prisoner has been under lawful restriction of arrest or incarcerated, under the current NYS code enforceable only by duly appointed administrators following the current code.  Whereas the BILL calls for use of force in many egregious forms and unspecified to exceed the law and accomplished by authorities that at present have no right whatsoever mete out punishment.  The BILL qualifies punishment without purpose, where it does not construe its occurrence is from resisting arrest or disobedience in the traditional sense.
                      f.    The BILL and similar laws indicates that foreigners without training and or knowledge can be the actors meting out torture punishment to prisoners, is contrary to a gamut of laws ranging from health, education, penal and others; placing the exemptions for allowance to punish outside the norms of acceptable societal standards, besides being unconstitutional under this Article Section.
                      g.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 5”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      h.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.  

6. NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC. § 6. GRAND JURY; WAIVER OF INDICTMENT; RIGHT TO COUNSEL;  INFORMING ACCUSED; DOUBLE  JEOPARDY; SELF-INCRIMINATION; WAIVER OF IMMUNITY BY PUBLIC OFFICERS; DUE PROCESS OF LAW. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"§  6.  No  person  shall  be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime (except in cases of impeachment, and in cases of  militia when  in  actual  service, and the land, air and naval forces in time of war, or which this state may keep with the consent of congress  in  time of  peace,  and  in  cases  of pest larceny under the regulation of the legislature), unless on indictment of a grand jury, except that a person held for the action of a grand jury upon a charge for such  an  offense, other  than  one  punishable  by  death  or  life imprisonment, with the consent of the district attorney, may waive indictment by a  grand  jury and  consent  to  be  prosecuted on an information filed by the district attorney; such waiver shall be evidenced by written instrument signed by the defendant in open court in the presence of his or  her  counsel.  In any  trial  in  any court whatever the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel as  in  civil  actions  and shall  be  informed  of  the  nature  and cause of the accusation and be confronted with the witnesses against him or her."

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws does away with grand jury indictment, where the inference by the BILL is that those tortured prisoners under that NYS Public Health law have no mention in the BILL that they have had due process with a jury, where their treatment according to the laws of New York would have to be a very serious crime, the BILL does infer that a crime such persons could be guilty of is suspicion; yet the fact is that suspicion is not a crime in New York if the state even had such punishments allowable under NYS law, that the state has no laws for such harsh treatment defined as torture is contrary to Article 6 Sections.
                      b.     The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 6”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      c.     That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

7. NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  § 7. JUST COMPENSATION FOR TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY; PRIVATE  ROADS; DRAINAGE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"Bill of Rights Section § 7.  §  7.  (a)  Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation."

                      a.    The  Article Section § 7 (a) is understood to be first about property and second predominately about physical land; however this article infers by its first words property can be general. In consideration that the state did not prohibit slavery in the past, slaves could fall under the Articles issue of being property. That such is true, the BILL has the NYS new class of prisoners and as a part of that new class “potential subjects”are inferred to be prisoners, by their receiving harsh treatment equitable to the Bills definition of  ”torture”; becomes extended to have those potential subjects under NYS Public Health under covert waiver of consent experiment or research is a conscription of property, being the persons body and mind.   The fundamental of the loss of NYS CONSTITUTION'S Civil Rights of persons, leads to the issue of conclusion that our bodies are our own property and that the general context of the §  7.  (a) applies to the BILL and similar laws seizing the persons property unconstitutionally according to Article 7.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 7”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      c.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

8. NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  § 8. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS; CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS FOR LIBEL.   ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"Bill of Rights Section § 8.   §  8.  Every  citizen  may  freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible  for  the  abuse  of  that right;  and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments  for libels,  the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and  was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted;  and  the  jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact."

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws in being non-compliant with the NYS CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS, ARTICLE I, Sec. 2 Trial by jury; how waived; where it does not specify those defined as prisoners, tortured and potential subjects qualified by being under legal sanction, have had or are to receive such NYS public due process; such is shown to exist by the meaning and language of the BILL as a prejudice and “Manifest Injustice” to the prisoners, tortured and potential subjects as defined under. Such as is described under a New Yorkers civil rights is accomplished by suppression of the prisoner and or tortured as defined by the BILL, in being unable to bring such issue of need for NYS public due process requirement to the attention of the authorities by being held incommunicado as implied by the nature and language of the BILL.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws as is described affects New Yorkers civil rights, by suppression of the Press, through the BILL being a “Bill of Attainder”, does by its so called holding such prisoners and tortured as defined under secret control by the Bills language and meaning, thereby does prevent the Press from having it's right to know removed; such is shown to exist by the meaning and language of the BILL as a prejudice and “Manifest Injustice” to the prisoners, tortured and potential subjects as defined under the BILL.
                      c.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 8”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

9. NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC. § 9. RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"Bill of Rights Section §  9. 1. No law shall be passed abridging the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government, or any department   thereof;"
 
                      a.    The BILL and similar laws, by allowance to have prisoners, tortured and potential subjects codified as it does as interchangeable actions and status, does by such language and meaning is as a “PROCLAMATION” of a “BILL OF ATTAINDER”, which in consideration that the NYS PBH and MHY and the BILL are combined together, do accomplish such actions by committee; which amounts to such a committee being a “BILL OF ATTAINDER”, enforcing the BILL as another “BILL OF ATTAINDER” law action.  That such is to be extant under NYS law, it's effect will and can be that those that oppose such tyrannical laws, can and could be determined to be persons whom disagreeing as incompetent and duly appreciated as interfering with the sanction of law process to be therefore deemed incompetent.  Such protesters under the Articles right to assemble can be officially labeled “potential subjects” by NYS PBH committee as incompetents and their rights waived for research or experiment without their knowledge and or consent, to the effect that they would therefore become subjects and come in under the BILL as laws criteria for  use of defined torture upon them as pain, suffering and harm.  Such wavier of consent experiments without the knowledge and consent of the unwitting subject sovereign person conscripted is by fraud under the BILL as law or without the BILLS actions, by NYS PBH laws and extensions of those laws policy.  Such as the aforementioned are a prejudice by potential harm by the latitude of the Bills language and meaning, to subscribe any person on mere suspicion, is a prejudice and “Manifest Injustice”, that would be sanctioned by the latitude of the Bills language and meaning; being entirely unconstitutional and illegal under the current CONSTITUTION and laws of NYS.  
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws, has no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 9”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      c.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

10. NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC. § 11 NO PERSON SHALL BE DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR ANY SUBDIVISION THEREOF, ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"Bill of Rights Section § 11.  No  person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his  or her  civil  rights  by  any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state."

                      a.    Would according to the BILL and similar laws be abrogated, according to its words in entirety, does by them the effect as to wholly abrogate the BILL and all of it's meaning, acts and PROCLAMATIONS, where the foundation of this Sections words being generally, “no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof....or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state”. Where the BILL is entirely contrary to this guaranteed right, by the issue that the BILL has defined “torture” and “prisoner” defined in such a way as to be contradictory to the NYS laws and practices currently in force.  As well the BILL seeks to enter foreign to the NYS jurisdiction authority preferences of investigation and treatment of prisoners.  The BILL abolishes this Section 11, in a capitulation to federal and other unknown authorities usurpation of the legal framework of NYS and other states.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 11”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      c.     That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

11.  NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  § 12. SECURITY  AGAINST   UNREASONABLE   SEARCHES,   SEIZURES   AND  INTERCEPTIONS.  ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"xi.   Bill of Rights Section § 12.  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches  and seizures,  shall not  be  violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the  place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of  telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated, and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation  that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained,  and  identifying  the  particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose  communications  are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof."

                      a.    Would according to the BILL and similar laws be abrogated, according to its quoted words as follows, that even in the extreme that a person has “ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and  identifying the particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof”; such act is still and of NYS law to enable the making of a New Yorker a prisoner and thereby is a part of the NYS process of investigative powers of NYS authorities; such extreme acts upon a New Yorker is in context of the BILL, is one of the first steps of enabling the making of a person a prisoner and contradicts the issue of the BILL that defines a prisoner as a person whom as a prisoner would not be subjected to the BILL'S definitions of torture and therefore is as a portion of the process of investigation by it's stating, “no  person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof....or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state”, does represent the limits of the State of New York as pertains to arrest, arraignment, trial, sentencing and punishment, all of which have no torture permitted as defined.
                      b.    Whereas investigative procedures Proclaimed as allowed by the BILL and similar laws are for an investigation in parallel to this Sec. 12, as illegal acts defined as torture for extraction of information under lawful sanction.  The Sec. 11 is as a prohibition of the BILL in questions proposed new methods of investigation, and is illegal to do according to the Sec. 11 being the limits of investigative powers of the State of New York and also according to the laws of NYS, the Bills proclamation that torture is allowed when under lawful sanction is illegal.  If allowed to become law, the BILL will result in onerous legal battles to undo its medieval methods.  In history similar means were used as dunking under water or beat suspects of a crime or ideological issue as a method to make them confess they were guilty and when they did not they were again dunked until they confessed or died of drowning, as persons merely suspected.  Obviously as a matter of self preservation such persons to save themselves from the immediate perceived danger of drowning or beaten confessed even when innocent.  That we have not learned that such behavior by authorities is contrary to obtain information is akin to going back in time.  We must move foreword and leave such actions of torture as activities that deserve to be attacked and brought down or else we will have become what our nation has stood against.  That it is said we become what we hate, must be tempered by the civil laws here in NYS, since the day of the State of NY as a colony began on the nineteenth day of April, one thousand  seven hundred  seventy-five, we have as a colony and state to strive to become more advanced and not more backwards.
                      c.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 12”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      d.    That the BILL contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

12.  “NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  § 14. COMMON LAW AND ACTS OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES.  ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"Bill of Rights Section § 14. Such parts of the common law, and of the acts of the legislature of  the  colony  of  New  York, as together did form the law of the said colony, on the nineteenth day  of  April,  one thousand  seven  hundred seventy-five, and the resolutions of the congress of the said colony, and of the convention of  the State  of New York,  in  force  on  the twentieth  day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-seven, which have not since expired, or been repealed or altered; and  such  acts  of the legislature of this state as are now in force, shall be and continue the  law  of  this state, subject to such alterations as the legislature shall make concerning the same.  But all such parts of  the  common  law, and  such  of the said acts, or parts thereof, as are repugnant to this constitution, are hereby abrogated."

                      a.    would according to the BILL and similar laws be abrogated, according to its quoted words as follows, “...But all such parts of  the  common  law, and  such  of  the said acts, or parts thereof, as are repugnant to this constitution, are hereby abrogated”.  Where the BILL in question does enable not only the principles of many of the NYS Bill of Rights effect and purpose, as well will also cause by its action by and through litigation, evolve into common law that will at that stage of the BILL being law will cause detrimental effects to the cause and effect again of Sec. § 14 being reinstated where the BILL in question had caused its abrogation.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 14”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      c.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

13.  “NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  § 16.  DAMAGES FOR INJURIES CAUSING DEATH.  ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"Bill of Rights Section  § 16. The right of action now existing to recover damages for injuries resulting in death, shall never be abrogated; and the amount recoverable shall not be subject to any statutory limitation."

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws allows for those designated prisoners, tortured, improperly treated, adversely affected persons and potential subjects; where there is no mentioned limit as to whether such treatment “MUST NOT BE LETHAL”.  In the construction of the BILL as a contract, such egregious actions upon persons besides abrogating other NYS Constitution Article Sections has by its vagueness left the issue open ended as to the limits of egregious treatment allowed.  The BILL notwithstanding that it should not exist due to unconstitutionality should have stated that the limits of egregious harm stops short of death or death of all organs and tissue of the human body, not that the BILL in fact should not exist at all, which it should not, it is a cataclysmic catastrophe.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws as an issue of its actions upon its designated prisoners, tortured, improperly treated, adversely affected persons and potential subjects; has notwithstanding that it should not exist due to unconstitutionality, exonerates the State of New York for liability by the conditional prohibition of “torture” as the BILL defines, by the exemption that, “Torture...does  not  include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanction.”.
                      c.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 16”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws have allowance for authorities of NYS, federal and unknown entities to have PROCLAMATION of exemptions as defined by the definition of “TORTURE”  for NYS is not by itself excluding from NYS liability accidental death by the actions of the BILL upon those affected as designated prisoners, tortured, improperly treated, adversely affected persons and potential subjects.  Such a claim of exemption of liability by the BILL'S language that the prohibition of health care providers and authorities of NYS, is a contradiction of this Article Section.
                      e.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

14.  NYS ARTICLE VI JUDICIARY,  (SECTION 18. A.) TRIAL BY JURY; TRIAL  WITHOUT  A  JURY;  CLAIMS  AGAINST  THE STATE.   ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"§ 18.  a. Trial by jury is guaranteed as provided in article one of this constitution.  The legislature may provide  that  in  any  court  of original jurisdiction  a  jury  shall  be composed of six or of twelve persons and may authorize any court which shall have jurisdiction  over crimes  and other  violations  of  law, other than crimes prosecuted by indictment, to try such matters without a jury, provided, however,  that crimes prosecuted by  indictment  shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve persons, unless a jury trial  has  been  waived  as  provided  in section two of article one of this constitution."

                       a.    The BILL and similar laws makes no qualification that those designated prisoners, tortured, improperly treated, adversely affected persons and potential subjects have been given NYS public due process of any kind, with or without a jury; is contrary to this Article Section.  The BILL encroaches upon judicial obligation and destroys the judicial integrity to conform all NYS due process proceedings.
                       b.    The BILL and similar laws will create a new class of “DECIDERS'' as authorities whom can bypass the judicial system of NYS, so that NYS authorities or federal authorities or unknown entities whom have a sanctioned designated prisoner, tortured person, improperly treated person, adversely affected person and potential subject person, can do whatever they want to those persons.  Where the BILL does not imply that any of those designated prisoners, tortured, improperly treated, adversely affected persons and potential subjects have been given public due process advocated by all 50 states of the UNION. Those “Deciders” are the judges, taking the jobs of NYS judges and carrying out actions of the equivalent of NYS judges and justices without any reference to their qualification and training, albeit that the entire issue is unconstitutional to begin with, it is pointed out that the BILL in all of its parts and considerations is unconstitutional and illegal; particularly in regard to the aforementioned issue being the BILL abrogates the meaning and purpose of the judiciary of this Article Section.
                      c.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 18” a., has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

15.  NYS ARTICLE VI JUDICIARY, (Section 18. b.)  THE LEGISLATURE MAY PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER OF TRIAL OF ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE.  ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"§ 18. b. The legislature may provide for the manner of trial of actions and proceedings involving claims against the state."

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws seeks to remove NYS liability linkage from acts of torture legally sanctioned and not legally sanctioned, is by NYS current law and unconstitutional, to have the BILL create a new class of designated prisoners, tortured, improperly treated, adversely affected persons and potential subjects and inferred “DECIDERS” taking the place of judiciary, by their being no mention of whether such egregiously affected persons under the Bills definitions have been given due process or will be given such or habeas corpus. That liability be so restricted where the Legislature is authorizing the egregious acts by creating the definitions of torture and prisoner separate form the typical under current NYS Code as by the NYS CONSTITUTION is unconstitutional.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 18 b.”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      c.    The presumption by tyrants is that they are better judges than the well thought out NYS CONSTITUTION, where such legislator on behalf of any entity federal or foreign, claim for them “illegitimate” unconstitutional right, to be the better judge and abrogate a NYS Article Section or law; is a travesty of the ideal that kings and committees are better to judge a person to be a prisoner or to torture them.  The NYS PBH waiver law by committee has the same composition of unconstitutionality by vagueness and esoteric seeking of knowledge at the expense of a person(s) rights and health, those NYS PBH committees using the bodies of sovereign New Yorkers as subjects in research and or experiment without “PUBLIC DUE PROCESS OVERSIGHT”, pretend to know better, are really pretenders of being brutal royalty.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

16.  NYS ARTICLE VI JUDICIARY,  (Section 33) EXISTING LAWS TO CONTINUE IN FORCE; LEGISLATURE TO IMPLEMENT ARTICLE.  ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"§  33.  Existing  provisions of law not inconsistent with this article shall continue in force until repealed, amended, modified or  superseded in accordance with the provisions of this article. The legislature shall enact appropriate laws to carry into effect the purposes and provisions of this article, and may, for the purpose of implementing, supplementing or clarifying any of its provisions, enact any  laws,  not inconsistent with the provisions of this article, necessary or desirable in promoting the objectives of this article."
                      
                      a.    The unconstitutionality of the BILL and similar laws abrogates “ARTICLE VI Judiciary”, illustrated by Plaintiffs' points of law arguments regarding “ARTICLE VI Judiciary § 18. (a, b)”.  Those arguments are here restated in their entirety as an issue that the Legislature has the BILL as PROCLAMATION of definitions that are “inconsistent” with the  ARTICLE VI Judiciary.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws is theretofore not possible to sanction by the Judiciary under this Article Section, because the “Deciders'” as NYS authorities federal authorities and unknown entities are the new judges and justices, upon the BILL becoming law.
                      c.     In order for the judiciary of judges and justices to exist heretofore the BILL must not be allowed to become law on the First of January the year 2011.  Otherwise NYS judges and justices will become mere ceremonial and their actions allowed by the authorities that conscripted their power selective as to the application of the good old day laws of a fair public due process judicial system.
                      d.    The BILL and similar laws, has no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 33”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      e.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

17.  ARTICLE XIII PUBLIC OFFICERS,   SEC. 1. OATH OF OFFICE; NO OTHER TEST FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.  ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;
                      
"ARTICLE XIII, Public Officers, Section 1. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial,  except  such  inferior  officers as shall be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do  solemnly  swear (or  affirm)  that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution  of  the  State  of  New  York,  and that  I  will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ............, according to  the  best of  my  ability; " and no other oath, declaration or test shall be required as a qualification for any  office  of  public trust,"

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws clearly contradicts and abrogates this Article Section, where the call for all officers, executive and judicial to subscribe the following oath or affirmation, to solemnly swear (or affirm), to support the Constitution of the State of New York. The effect of the BILL becoming law will be that their solemn oath or affirmation will be to a NYS Constitution by the selective enforcement of it beneath the NYS authorities being able to circumvent it through the BILL for issues of, investigation, probable cause, arrest, indictment, arraignment, trial, punishment, habeas corpus and many other civil rights related processes of NYS law enforcement the actions of NYS prosecutors and judiciary and penal institutions.                     
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws effect will be a wild west allowance of authorities becoming the judge, jury and executioner without a NYS duly appointed sworn in judge or jury where their decision is allowed to go to an appealed status.  The BILL allows for DEFENDANTS to hire anybody at all and authorize them by sanction and exemption of the BILL as law, to haul New Yorkers into NYS Public Health facilities on mere suspicion, take them and hold them indefinitely and torture them indefinitely and do wavier of consent experiments on them as subject persons or prisoner(s); as Plaintiffs are being held by DEFENDANTS and egregiously beaten by DEFENDANTS' electronic in vivo devices considered  to be defined as DEFENDANTS' facilities, which are implanted devices in Plaintiffs' bodies to cause pain while in their own house and everywhere they go.
                      c.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 1”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

18.  ARTICLE XIX AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION,  SEC. 1. AMENDMENTS  TO  CONSTITUTION;  HOW  PROPOSED, VOTED  UPON AND RATIFIED;  FAILURE  OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL TO RENDER OPINION NOT TO AFFECT VALIDITY.                                                                                                                                                                                       ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;
                     
"Section  1.  Any  amendment  or amendments to this constitution may be
proposed  in  the  senate  and  assembly  whereupon  such  amendment  or
amendments shall be referred to the attorney-general whose duty it shall
be  within twenty days thereafter to render an opinion in writing to the
senate and assembly as to the effect of  such  amendment  or  amendments
upon  other provisions of the constitution. Upon receiving such opinion,
if the amendment or amendments as proposed or as amended shall be agreed
to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses,  such
proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, and
the  ayes  and  noes  taken  thereon,  and  referred to the next regular
legislative session convening after the succeeding general  election  of
members  of  the  assembly,  and  shall  be  published  for three months
previous to the time of making such choice; and if in  such  legislative
session,  such  proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by a
majority of all the members elected to each house, then it shall be  the
duty  of the legislature to submit each proposed amendment or amendments
to the people for approval in such manner  and  at  such  times  as  the
legislature  shall prescribe; and if the people shall approve and ratify
such amendment or amendments  by  a  majority  of  the  electors  voting
thereon,  such  amendment  or  amendments  shall  become  a  part of the
constitution on the first day  of  January  next  after  such  approval.
Neither  the  failure  of  the  attorney-general  to  render  an opinion
concerning such a proposed amendment nor his or her  failure  to  do  so
timely   shall  affect  th*  validity  of  such  proposed  amendment  or
legislative action thereon.  *So in original. ("th" should be "the".)"

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws abrogates the entire action and purpose of the Article Section, by the BILL'S usurpation of the NYS CONSTITUTION'S many Article's Sections.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws are unconstitutional and illegal in it PROCLAIMING precedence to this NYS CONSTITUTIONS Article and many other Articles' Sections.
                      c.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 1”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

19. ARTICLE XIX AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION, SEC. 2. FUTURE CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTIONS;  HOW  CALLED;  ELECTION  OF DELEGATES;  COMPENSATION;  QUORUM;  SUBMISSION OF AMENDMENTS; OFFICERS; EMPLOYEES; RULES; VACANCIES. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

“§  2.  At the general election to be held in the year nineteen hundred
fifty-seven, and every twentieth year thereafter, and also at such times
as the legislature may by law provide, the question "Shall  there  be  a
convention  to  revise  the  constitution  and amend the same?" shall be
submitted to and decided by the electors of the state;  and  in  case  a
majority  of  the  electors  voting  thereon  shall decide in favor of a
convention for such purpose, the electors of every  senate  district  of
the  state,  as  then organized, shall elect three delegates at the next
ensuing general election, and the electors of the state  voting  at  the
same  election  shall elect fifteen delegates-at-large. The delegates so
elected shall convene at the capitol on the first Tuesday of April  next
ensuing after their election, and shall continue their session until the
business  of  such  convention shall have been completed”                            
                      a.    Restated from the previous Section (19. ARTICLE XIX...) still accurately applies, that the BILL abrogates the entire action and purpose of this Article Section, by the BILL and similar laws usurpation of the NYS CONSTITUTION'S many Article's Sections.
                      b.    Restated from the previous Section still accurately applies, that the  BILL and similar laws are unconstitutional and illegal in it PROCLAIMING precedence to the NYS CONSTITUTION'S this and many other Article's Sections.
                      c.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 2”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

20.  ARTICLE XX  SEC. 1. TIME OF TAKING EFFECT, ACCORDING TO THE (BILL A05891) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;
                       
"When to Take Effect Section  1. This constitution shall be in force from and including the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred thirty-nine, except  as herein otherwise provided."

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws abrogates the NYS CONSTITUTION in so many of its Articles Sections, as to be accurately construed as the NEW YORK ANTI CONSTITUTION BILL, such that it contradicts the general meaning and purpose of the time honored and generally wise creation from wisdom, does constitute a direct relation of this Article XX.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “ARTICLE XX Section 1.”, has language and meaning that the BILL and similar laws abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and 3.
                      c.     If sovereign New Yorkers have such as the BILL and similar law are allowed to attain the status of law or remain law, we as sovereigns shall cease being sovereigns and become common “subjects” of a government that has by the BILL and similar law our reassignment to second class among legislators being then the superior class of persons of the State of New York.  Furthermore such action can be quantified that New Yorkers being placed by the Legislature and Governor into a status of being punished by rescinding our civil rights in accordance with mere suspicion, is by such use of suspicion too easily capricious in its invocation as to be selective and a prejudice to have as a law, therefore accordingly the entire action of creation of a second class of citizens whether directly affected, they are affected by the potential harm of being therefore suspected and by that being a suspect are a subject and altogether being under a “Bill of ATTAINDER”; unconstitutional and illegal to initiate by the definitions and provisions of the BILL under NYS CONSTITUTION.
                      d.    That the actions of the  BILL A05891 are of a “BILL OF ATTAINDER”, the actions of the BILL are by the NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS LAW, are wholly unconstitutional and in breach of the laws of the State of New York.  The BILL seeks to deprive life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by their NYS Civil Rights. Furthermore the BILL qualifies by inclusion NYS PBH wavier of consent in context of this complaints facts and legal analysis of the NYS PBH wavier of consent laws as also being NYS law that is a “BILL OF ATTAINDER”, that must be mitigated as an issue to preclude persons from being conscripted as subjects without public due process; where in the NYS PBH and MHY such “BILL OF ATTAINDER” legislation and policy exist as onerous and supporting of the BILL in question exist, as to be essential to a judicial decision if that decision is not to become a prejudice and “Manifest Injustice“ to all subjects now and in the future under the NYS PBH and MHY, whom have had no NYS public due process.
                      e.    If sovereign New Yorkers have such as the BILL allowed to attain the status of law, we as sovereigns shall cease being sovereigns and become “subjects” OF A SUPERIOR RULING CLASS CALLED THE NYS AUTHORITIES AS THE PRINCES AND PRINCESSES WITH A LORD GOVERNOR SERVING AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT KING.
                      f.    That the BILL contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.   

      We, Deborah Lamb and John Mecca are being experimented on by torture devices proven to be inside our bodies covertly surgically installed, proven by an IEEE test, the local police told John in person they were sanctioning the attacks that destroy a persons immune system too, they are using devices that emit radio and electric energy.  The Bill will combine with and increase the power of the devils' laws vaguely written allowing for us to be assaulted and tortured by the NY Code - Article 24-A: PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS which has been used, we believe to have us used in an experiment involving the implanted torture devices.  We are two citizens of New York and the United States fighting for our lives and our freedoms in which this Bill as law would make it nearly a certainty that it would take away any remedy and due process of stopping such serious atrocities as we being tortured can be thereby asserted by authorities to be prisoners.  Non-consensual human experimentation of electronic torture by implanted devices is happening to us as well as many victims throughout the United States. 

      The legislative authors and supporters of this Bill should remember that despite the Bills wrappers intentions therein, the authorities will ultimately reading a law written into the Public Health Code on the basis of its face value and allowed by law to interpret it as they find it written and they will extend it and make constructions, where the letter of the law is dictated by vague wording, grievous and permanent error will result as it has with our being conscripted for human experimentation, which we are fighting in court with great difficulty.  We invite you to discuss these and further ramifications of the New York Legislature Bill as it is worded now, please call us so that the issues of contention can be further discussed as to how to modify the language so that the Bill is Constitutional according to the revered New York State CONSTITUTION.  We are hoping to hear from you for constructive dialogue.


Sincerely,


John Mecca & Deborah Lamb



CC:  Gottfried (MS)

COSPNSR    Cahill, Rivera J, Schimel, Glick, Clark, Millman, Robinson, Jeffries,
           Paulin, Hooper, Kellner, Jaffee, Reilly, Barron, Lifton, Cook,
           Lancman, Perry, Englebright, O'Donnell, Arroyo, Markey, Titone,
           Rivera P, Miller J, Rosenthal

MLTSPNSR  Brennan, Dinowitz, Galef, Gibson, Heastie, Lupardo, McEneny, Meng,
           Nolan, Peoples-Stokes, Pheffer, Scarborough, Sweeney, Towns,
           Weisenberg, Zebrowski
 
==================================================================================================
==================================================================================================
==================================================================================================
SYNOPSIS OF ANALYSIS OF THE A05891 BILL
SYNOPSIS OF ANALYSIS OF THE A05891 BILL
SYNOPSIS OF ANALYSIS OF THE A05891 BILL

 The NYS A05891 BILL Previously known as the Duane Bill to authorize the use of Torture has been renamed the Gottfried Bill in an effort to make a Law that eliminates the State[s] financial liability, but, grants by statement allowance to torture in all 50 State[s].  The new version is precisely the same as the last, the only difference is that it grants to the federal government access to New York and every State through the State[s] Compact allowance by direct inference to do whatever is desired (torture) apparently without "Due Process" as the Bill states "the following is intended to give effect to, international treaties and standards; federal, state and local law; and professional standards relating to torture, improper treatment of prisoners, and related matters."  Recall that under George Bush torture is not torture and does not require due process, just suspicion without evidence or guilt.  So that the true meaning and purpose of the new Bill will be to give over to the federal government allowance to do what they do in Guantanamo to New Yorkers or Californians or Texans or in any State, whatever they want.  If the Bill passes it will be a factual dismantling of the State[s] CONSTITUTIONS, giving the federal authorities free access to any and all State[s] citizens by the Interstate Compact, where a law such as this passed in New York will become law in all the other 49 State[s].  Currently the Gottfried Bill is before the Higher Education Committee for review to be then sent to the Senate for voting as to whether it would go before the N.Y.S. legislature.

     If the Bill passes you will in effect be living in a country equivalent to the Chinese legal system, except that the stipulations of this Bill allow for the actions stated, to be lawful upon it passing to be done to people in secret without their knowing, as diabolical human experiments and research can be conducted legally for belief or association for suspected allegations only "without formal indictment or due process".  The authorities will have effectively made it much more difficult for current victims of human experimentation to have legal standing to fight their human experiment research torturers in court.  For all others (new victims by suspicion and false unverified allegation) it is a way for the authorities to create a medieval secret torture society, all neatly legalized to rape, steal and kill.  We pray that you all pay attention to the nefarious plans of those whom have no concern for our rights and freedoms and get them out of office, write to your state leaders and decry the new Bill which will affect their State[s] by the Interstate Compact.
 
   
    [ANALYSIS]   The following BILL A05891 is an example of how a legislation is written to fool the reader into thinking that it will prohibit Physicians from participating in TORTURE.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The BILL specifically and purposefully not only makes such acts of torture legal but is loaded with text supporting and condoning TORTURE of New Yorkers and people in all 50 States by their being a Compact between the State[s] which is a mechanism where a law enacted in one State is automatically adopted by said Compact to exist in all other State[s]. The wholesale removal of all 50 State[s] CONSTITUTIONS thereby will take place upon the BILLS passing into law.  The Senators and Assembly Persons are at a disadvantage when reading this well scripted contradictory piece of legislation to discern the true meaning of its text, it is very often that legislators do not know, care or read the legislation they vote on.  It is further known that many legislators have no formal training in reading contracts for hidden meaning and are easily fooled by unscrupulous associate legislators, such is known to have occurred in the early days of legislation in the Third Reich, where gullible and ignorant or scared legislators unaware of their power mad cruel legislative associates cajoled such gullible and ignorant legislators into signing off on legislation that aided in the devastation of the world.  Those legislators whom have responsibility to maintain the rights of free people ought to read the BILL for what it is and refuse to sign off on it and shun those whom presented such a Trojan Horse to them in the name of patriotism.  Without our Rights we are doomed to be mere subjects instead of free people.  We as a nation of people have already lost many rights as a result of terrorist acts, but when terrorism causes the removal of our rights, that is its purpose.  Maintenance of oversight into the actions of government must be the rule of the day.  Decisions of carrying out Torture and adverse treatment and Bill of Attainder laws of human experiment are currently carried out in secret, such secret societies must open their proceedings for judgment by the people, the secrecy this BILL allows by exemptions is a cover for taking away our State[s] rights.  Secrecy in the name of security is a way for removal of our rights, the proposition here is that mere suspicion based on gut instincts is all that is necessary to seize a person and torture them under this BILL, that is a recipe for those with sadistic tendencies to have a field day.  What is worse is that the allowance of TORTURE for BELIEF and or ASSOCIATION is not defined in the BILL and such grievous seizing of a person and torture of them can be done for any reason as you will see from the analysis of this BILL.

     The following analysis follows those points that will dismantle the State[s] CONSTITUTIONS and allow federal laws to usurp the States Constitutions and laws to allow Torture and Adverse Treatment to have the additional egregious effect of causing those persons adversely treated to include persons being experimented upon, which opens the allowance by the BILL to have the additional status of those being experimented upon to be considered prisoners; such adaptation of creating prisoner status for those whom are being experimented upon is in the BILL to make it more difficult for a person to get human experimentation to stop.  The BILL passing into law will destroy the State[s] sovereignty and completely destroys the U.S. Constitutions 10th Amendment specifying the separation between the Federal and State jurisdictions essential for continuance of State[s] as separate entities.  There will be only one law, “Federal Law”, with its tyranny and despotism for the removal of the rights of sovereign people.  The new A05891 Bill is shown in its verbatim text as follows;

==================================================================================================
==================================================================================================
==================================================================================================

ANALYSIS OF THE A05891 BILL'S ACTUAL TEXT
ANALYSIS OF THE A05891 BILL'S ACTUAL TEXT
ANALYSIS OF THE A05891 BILL'S ACTUAL TEXT

Please see the remarks of Deborah Lamb and John's analysis below of the Bill shown in italics!

[ANALYSIS of John Mecca & Deborah Lamb]   The Bill A05891 Prohibits participation in torture and improper treatment of prisoners by health care professionals is a fraud and endorses and promotes the use of torture and adverse treatment in all 50 States, as well it will make persons being experimented on have the added status of being a prisoner if the Bill passes into law.

   The Bill defines when a Physician or Health Care practitioner can legally engage in torture or adverse treatment, the legality being defined by the Bill so that when a person is tortured by officially allowed sanction the physician and New York State cannot be sued.  Torture will be legal in all OF THE  50 STATES upon the Bill becoming law and it will effectively remove New Yorkers Constitutional rights of due process and eliminate statutory protections against assault, battery and rape which is acknowledged to be a part of lawfully allowable interrogation techniques. The Bill makes it legal for torture and adverse treatments of assault, battery rape, and even death by federal laws can be selectively allowed by Federal authorizations to torture, the Bill also by its wording allows State authorities to torture and rape so long as their authorizations are in order.

    Reports of
authorities attacking people using covert surgery to install devices in peoples bodies that incapacitate and kill are widespread right now throughout the nation, the authorities are now using implanting incapacitating devices maliciously as a vendetta action to destroy anyone using their vaguely written laws; where this Bill in blunt convoluted language  now makes such sadistic actions by authorities legal through this BILL to destroy anyone including you.

   Human research subjects,  prisoners, tortured persons, adversely treated persons and mere suspects are the subjects of the Bill, all of these types of persons can according to the language of the Bill have in vivo devices placed into their bodies covertly as a part of the Bills purposes. Such in vivo devices once inside the body can cause cancer, the output of radio frequency energy from such devices into the body can cause artificial conditions such as heart attack, stroke, loss of mental capacity and a wide range of disease due to the devices causing depletion of the immune system.  Several victims of these immoral devices have died, the devices can cause a slow or quick agonizing death by the will of the authorities.  The torture pain and suffering from such devices is immoral to allow to be done to anybody.
[BEGINNING TEXT OF THE BILL]   A05891 Summary:
BILL NO    A05891

SAME AS    No same as

SPONSOR    Gottfried (MS)

COSPNSR    Cahill, Rivera J, Schimel, Glick, Clark, Millman, Robinson, Jeffries,
           Paulin, Hooper, Kellner, Jaffee, Reilly, Barron, Lifton, Cook,
           Lancman, Perry, Englebright, O'Donnell, Arroyo, Markey, Titone,
           Rivera P, Miller J, Rosenthal

MLTSPNSR   Brennan, Dinowitz, Galef, Gibson, Heastie, Lupardo, McEneny, Meng,
           Nolan, Peoples-Stokes, Pheffer, Scarborough, Sweeney, Towns,
           Weisenberg, Zebrowski

Add S22, Pub Health L; amd SS6509 & 6530, Ed L; amd SS740 & 741, Lab L

Prohibits participation in torture and improper treatment of prisoners by
health care professionals; prohibits a health care professional from engaging,
assisting, planning the torture or improper treatment of a prisoner; requires
health care professionals to report torture and improper treatment.
Go to top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A05891 Text:
                           S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
       ________________________________________________________________________

                                         5891

                              2011-2012 Regular Sessions

                                 I N  A S S E M B L Y

                                     March 2, 2011
                                      ___________

       Introduced  by  M.  of  A. GOTTFRIED, CAHILL, J. RIVERA, SCHIMEL, GLICK,
        CLARK, MILLMAN, ROBINSON, JEFFRIES, PAULIN, HOOPER,  KELLNER,  JAFFEE,
        REILLY,  BARRON, LIFTON, COOK, LANCMAN, PERRY, ENGLEBRIGHT, O'DONNELL,
        ARROYO, MARKEY, TITONE, P. RIVERA, J. MILLER, ROSENTHAL -- Multi-Spon-
        sored by -- M. of A. BRENNAN, DINOWITZ, GALEF, GIBSON, HEASTIE, LUPAR-
        DO, McENENY, MENG, NOLAN, PEOPLES-STOKES, PHEFFER, SCARBOROUGH,  SWEE-
        NEY,  TOWNS,  WEISENBERG,  ZEBROWSKI  -- read once and referred to the
        Committee on Higher Education

       AN ACT to amend the public health law, the education law and  the  labor
         law,  in relation to prohibiting participation in torture and improper
         treatment of prisoners by health care professionals

      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND 
ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1    Section  1.  Legislative  policy and intent. This legislation is based
2  on, and is intended to give effect to, international treaties and stand-
3  ards; federal, state and local law; and professional standards  relating
4  to  torture, improper treatment of prisoners, and related matters. It is
5  guided by two basic principles: (1) health care professionals  shall  be
6  dedicated  to  providing  the  highest  standard  of  health  care, with
7  compassion and respect for human dignity and rights; and (2) torture and
8  improper treatment of prisoners are  wrong  and  inconsistent  with  the
9  practice  of the health care professions. The legislature finds that the
10  conduct prohibited by this act violates  the  ethical  and  legal  obli-
11  gations  of  licensed  health care professionals.  This legislation will
12  further protect the professionalism of New York  state  licensed  health
13  care  professionals  by  authorizing  and  obligating  them to refuse to
14  participate in torture and improper treatment  of  prisoners,  which  in
15  turn  will  protect  the  life and health of the people of the state and
16  those with whom New York licensed health care professionals interact.  A
17  health care professional who comes to the aid of a prisoner  should  not
18  be  presumed to be in violation when she or he is fulfilling the ethical

[
ANALYSIS CONTINUED of John Mecca & Deborah Lamb]  The underlined text above by its text, SEE
 (“ Legislative  policy and intent.  This legislation is based on, and is intended to give effect to, international treaties and standards; federal,”) does by design and intent of the BILL include the Bush/Obama era interpretation that torture is not torture and can and would be legal to do in New York and the other forty nine states legally, upon passing into law.  As well torture as defined by the State[s] common law definition, will be by this new N.Y.S. ASSEMBLY BILL no longer be torture when lawfully sanctioned, permissible torture and adverse treatment is proscribed by authorities for politically incorrect beliefs or associations, acts of torture by the BILL are sanctioned for authorities use by the BILL'S exemptions. 

   The acts of torture and so called Bush/Obama definition of torture being not torture when used to get information is legal in federal military jurisdictions whereas currently in New York and all States torture by statutory and common law is illegal; such that the Bush/Obama interpretation is now that non-torture (actually torture) as in rendition existing today leaves open the use of torture and non-torture (adverse treatment) for use inside the 50 State[s] jurisdictions by State and Local authorities. This factually allows for torture and adverse treatment for any reason by considering that information sought can also be to illicit a response and defined as behavior modification, thereby authorities can use the BILL as law to cause a person to obey or believe what you want using torture, the actions of torture or adverse treatment can by the BILL as law be construed as obtaining a response.  The Bill as law will make behavior modification fit within the parameters of allowable exemptions of torture.

   The text of the Bill is organized for purposes of secret loopholes allowing said torture and adverse treatment inside the 50 State[s] jurisdictions by exemption of State[s] Constitutional rights of persons to due process and exemption of statutory laws prohibiting assault and battery.  The text is an open door promoting whatever the authorities want to do with the Bill as law.

   This Bill defines when a doctor can or cannot participate in torture or harsh investigations and they can participate if the action is sanctioned by authorities whom have the authority to authorize it.  It thereby exonerates the State from a Law Suit from victims and makes transgressions of a doctor participating in non sanctioned torture/harsh treatment actions actionable for statutory offense.

   In the recent past the U.S. State Department refused to heed the legal directives of United Nations personnel that represent enforcement of the Convention Against Torture (CAT ACT). Those CAT ACT representatives stated that the United States must adhere to CAT ACT
; in response the U.S. State Dept legal representative Stated that the United States government claimed Lex Specialis as an exemption, that the United States did not have to abide by the international CAT treaty, that Lex Specialis allows for certain actions of the United States are exempt from following the CAT ACT restrictions.  The Bush and now Obama administrations avoid adherrence to the CAT ACT and Geneva Conventions by saying that torture is not torture when there is purpose of gathering DATA, such Data extraction by torture and adverse interrogation includes remote neural monitoring of electronically tortured or adversely treated persons. By this Bill stating it gives effect to international treaties and that such treaties includes such as the CAT ACT, is to have the State Dept Lex Specialis exemption allowance to carry out torture as a priority issue of allowable actions.  The Federal and State authorities with this Bill as law will have allowance to sanction torture, adverse treatment and the new Law would make human experiment victims have the additional status of prisoners.
[THE BILL CONTINUED]   
EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                             [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                                  LBD05380-02-1
 A. 5891                             2

1  principle of beneficence. In contrast, a health care  professional  who,
2  for example, attends to a prisoner in order to allow torture or improper
3  treatment  to  commence  or  continue is not acting beneficently.   Such
4  practices  are  inconsistent  with professional ethics and standards and
5  are violations of this legislation.   The legislature  is  mindful  that
6  ordinarily there are limits on New York state's jurisdiction relating to
7  conduct  outside  the  state  or under federal authority. However, it is
8  proper for the state to regulate health care professional  licensure  in
9  relation  to  a  professional's  conduct,  even where the conduct occurs
10  outside the state; certain  wrongful  out-of-state  conduct  is  already
11  grounds  for professional discipline. Therefore, it is the legislature's
12  intent that this legislation be applied to the fullest extent possible.
13    S 2. The public health law is amended by adding a new  section  22  to
14  read as follows:    
15    S  22.  PARTICIPATION IN TORTURE OR IMPROPER TREATMENT OF PRISONERS BY
16  HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS.  1. DEFINITIONS. AS USED IN THIS SECTION, THE
17  TERMS "TORTURE" AND "IMPROPER TREATMENT" SHALL BE INTERPRETED IN ACCORD-
18  ANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW, INCLUDING INTERNATIONAL TREATIES TO WHICH  THE
19  UNITED STATES IS A PARTY. 
HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, IT
20  SHALL NOT BE AN ELEMENT OF EITHER "TORTURE" OR "IMPROPER TREATMENT" THAT
21  SUCH  ACTS BE COMMITTED BY A GOVERNMENT OR NON-GOVERNMENT ACTOR, ENTITY,
22  OR OFFICIAL; UNDER COLOR OF LAW; OR NOT UNDER COLOR OF LAW. AS  USED  IN
23  THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT CLEARLY REQUIRES OTHERWISE, THE FOLLOW-
24  ING TERMS HAVE THE FOLLOWING MEANINGS:

 
[ANALYSIS CONTINUED of John Mecca & Deborah Lamb]
The underlined text above must be construed to include the Bush era interpretation of torture and the opposite non-torture as in renditions as included in the interpretation to forevermore be allowed in the State[s] as exemptions, which leaves open the use of torture and non-torture for use in the 50 State[s].  The text is an open door promoting whatever the authorities want to do.

   That the underlined text above stating, SEE (“UNLESS THE CONTEXT CLEARLY REQUIRES OTHERWISE”) is noteworthy, such meaning is saying everything stated can be exempted by a perception of the authorities, which is to say that the authorities have an open interpretation as to the meaning of any given action of torture, or so called non-torture and also adverse treatment as to whether those acts are illegal or legal; such characterization of the meaning and definitions of the BILL are therefore open ended and that therefore there are no true restrictions or guidelines, but only exemptions to allow for the carrying out of egregious violations of State[s] Constitution Rights of Sovereign People, Statutory Law and Common Law.

   For example an International Treaty stated by the Bill that would be recognized is the Convention Against Torure (CAT ACT), however the text of the Bill will be abided by in consideration of  the US State Deptment which says Lex Specialis "we the Federal , State and local government authorities do what we think appropriate despite the CAT ACT"  and so such authorities can ignore the CAT ACT and Geneva Conventions.  The Lex Specialis exemption claimed by U.S. authorities allows for  torture etc. by definition of common law (common law is wholly ignored by the Bill) and the Lex Specialis exemption is accordingly included in this Bill as a loophole that allows for torture by any States authorities where such allowance is demonstrated by the analysis of this Bill where it states the words “unless the context clearly requires otherwise” .  The words 
“unless the context clearly requires otherwise” are an out or exclusion as reverse meaning of prohibiting torture by physicians, so whenever the Bill states torture cannot be done by a physician, the words “unless the context clearly requires otherwise” allow for  the opposite of what they say their law means; namely that physicians can torture legally and without it being possible for a victim to sue them or the State of origination of their license when the "proper" authority of a State or the federal governments authorize such torture or adverse treatment.  Such acts of torture by the Bills wording does include secretly installing devices and using them to torture or should we say extract DATA, by way of incorporating the definition of prisoners to include those whom are human research subjects.

   In effect the federal or whatever entity that has the authorities sanction torture or adverse treatment would be able to say  it's OK to DO.

   In effect also a person not being a bona fide human subject first but is seized as a person to make them a prisoner and that they have been legally sanctioned for torture and or harsh treatment, an administrative body such as a NYS Public health committee could vote to state that the person in the position of being seized as stated above could be nominated as incompetent as their actions were contrary to the authorities as in for example jaywalking is a form of incompetence and then be used in human research for data extraction and testing of devices done to them.
[THE BILL CONTINUED]  
25    (A)  "HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL" MEANS ANY PERSON LICENSED, REGISTERED,
26  CERTIFIED, OR EXEMPT TO PRACTICE UNDER (I) ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES
27  OF THE EDUCATION LAW: ONE HUNDRED  THIRTY-ONE  (MEDICINE),  ONE  HUNDRED
28  THIRTY-ONE-B  (PHYSICIAN  ASSISTANTS  AND  SPECIALIST  ASSISTANTS),  ONE
29  HUNDRED THIRTY-TWO (CHIROPRACTIC), ONE HUNDRED  THIRTY-THREE  (DENTISTRY
30  AND  DENTAL HYGIENE), ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-SIX (PHYSICAL THERAPY AND PHYS-
31  ICAL THERAPIST ASSISTANTS), ONE  HUNDRED  THIRTY-SEVEN  (PHARMACY),  ONE
32  HUNDRED THIRTY-NINE (NURSING), ONE HUNDRED FORTY (PROFESSIONAL MIDWIFERY
33  PRACTICE ACT), ONE HUNDRED FORTY-ONE (PODIATRY), ONE HUNDRED FORTY-THREE
34  (OPTOMETRY), ONE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR (OPHTHALMIC DISPENSING), ONE HUNDRED
35  FIFTY-THREE  (PSYCHOLOGY),  ONE  HUNDRED  FIFTY-FOUR  (SOCIAL WORK), ONE
36  HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE (MASSAGE THERAPY),  ONE  HUNDRED  FIFTY-SIX  (OCCUPA-
37  TIONAL  THERAPY), ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-SEVEN (DIETETICS AND NUTRITION), ONE
38  HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE (SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS AND AUDIOLOGISTS),  ONE
39  HUNDRED  SIXTY  (ACUPUNCTURE),  ONE  HUNDRED  SIXTY-THREE (MENTAL HEALTH
40  PRACTITIONERS),  ONE  HUNDRED  SIXTY-FOUR  (RESPIRATORY  THERAPISTS  AND
41  RESPIRATORY THERAPY TECHNICIANS), ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE (CLINICAL LABO-
42  RATORY TECHNOLOGY PRACTICE ACT), OR ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX (MEDICAL PHYS-
43  ICS  PRACTICE), OR (II) ARTICLE THIRTY-FIVE OF THIS CHAPTER (PRACTICE OF
44  RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY).
45    (B) "TORTURE" MEANS ANY INTENTIONAL ACT  OR  INTENTIONAL  OMISSION  BY
46  WHICH SEVERE PAIN OR SUFFERING, WHETHER PHYSICAL OR MENTAL, IS INFLICTED
47  ON  A  PERSON  FOR  SUCH PURPOSES AS OBTAINING FROM THE PERSON OR FROM A
48  THIRD PERSON INFORMATION OR A CONFESSION, PUNISHING THE  PERSON  FOR  AN
49  ACT THE PERSON OR A THIRD PERSON HAS COMMITTED (INCLUDING THE HOLDING OF
50  A  BELIEF  OR MEMBERSHIP IN ANY GROUP) OR IS SUSPECTED OF HAVING COMMIT-
51  TED, OR INTIMIDATING OR COERCING THE PERSON OR A THIRD  PERSON,  OR  FOR
52  ANY  REASON  BASED  ON  DISCRIMINATION OF ANY KIND.  IT DOES NOT INCLUDE
53  PAIN OR SUFFERING ARISING ONLY FROM, INHERENT IN OR INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL
54  SANCTION.

 
[ANALYSIS
CONTINUED of John Mecca & Deborah Lamb]  The underlined text above has the meaning that legal sanctions for torture are allowed for physicians to engage in, if it is legally sanctioned by an entity that has the authority to torture, the physician has no fear of legal harm to themselves.  According to the allowance by treaty and Bush/Obama actions and further extensions of those acts to include by this BILL use of Torture can be by New York State Authorities in secret for obtaining;
1.)      “OBTAINING FROM THE PERSON OR FROM A THIRD PERSON INFORMATION OR A CONFESSION”, there is no limitation definitions as to what this can apply to this is akin to a barbarian culture where suspects can upon mere suspicion be tortured to extract a confession, feasibly it could be regarding discrepancies as to campaign contributions.
2.)       “PUNISHING THE  PERSON  FOR  AN  ACT THE PERSON OR A THIRD PERSON HAS COMMITTED (INCLUDING THE HOLDING OF A  BELIEF OR MEMBERSHIP IN ANY GROUP) ”, is stated without defining what the belief or membership has to do with; for all that the BILL defines it could be that you were a Democrat or Republican or Independent party member or believer.
3.)       “OR IS SUSPECTED OF HAVING COMMITTED, OR INTIMIDATING OR COERCING THE PERSON OR A THIRD  PERSON, OR FOR ANY REASON BASED ON DISCRIMINATION OF ANY KIND”, is stated without defining the suspicion, intimidation or coercion being quantified, maybe a person being fired could claim that their employer threatened to fire them and used suspicion of poor work habits to intimidate and coerce them.

[THE BILL CONTINUED] 
55    (C) "IMPROPER TREATMENT" MEANS (I) CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING, TREAT-
56  MENT OR PUNISHMENT AS DEFINED BY APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL  TREATIES  AND
       A. 5891                             3

1  THEIR CORRESPONDING INTERPRETING BODIES; OR CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
2  AS  DEFINED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  CONSTITUTION OR THE NEW YORK STATE
3  CONSTITUTION; OR (II) ANY VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION THREE OR FOUR OF THIS
4  SECTION.
5    (D)  "PRISONER"  MEANS  ANY  PERSON  WHO  IS  SUBJECT  TO  PUNISHMENT,
6  DETENTION,  INCARCERATION,  INTERROGATION,  INTIMIDATION  OR   COERCION,
7  REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH ACTION IS PERFORMED OR COMMITTED BY A GOVERN-
8  MENT  OR  NON-GOVERNMENT ACTOR, ENTITY, OR OFFICIAL; UNDER COLOR OF LAW;
9  OR NOT UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

[ANALYSIS CONTINUED of John Mecca & Deborah Lamb]   The underlined text above means that if any of the said definition occurs by an entity that has authority to carry it out, it is legal for a physician to do so without fear of legal harm to themselves.  Further the word "interrogation" means that a covertly installed implanted in vivo device as a (facility) can be used and automatically makes one a "PRISONER", interrogation is a formal definition for getting a response from an electronic device.

   People who are human subjects by the Bills definitions that are being punished, detained, interrogated, intimidated therefore fit within the Bills definition of being a prisoner.

   The definition of the Bill makes
anyone who is a human subject automatically a PRISONER by definition, therefore the Bona Fide Research mentioned in the Bill is such that when the Bill becomes law any person experimented upon where they experience adverse treatment or pain and suffering or torture will be considered by the Bills definition of a prisoner, to be effectively a prisoner by definition upon the Bill becomming law.

AND then CATCH 22

    In effect also a person not being a bona fide human subject first but is seized as a person to make them a prisoner for their belief or association and that they have been legally sanctioned for torture and or harsh treatment, an administrative body such as a NYS Public health committee could vote to state that the person in the position of being seized as stated above could be nominated as incompetent, as their actions were contrary to the authorities as in for example jaywalking or talking against government policy is a form of incompetence as far as the authorities are concerned and then be used in human research for data extraction and testing of surgically installed devices done to them; such actions could be done without the person knowing it was done to them.  Such human experimentation to stop a persons beliefs or associations could take the form of a device that could modify their memory using shocking and or pain to cause specified reactions that would be considered stopping a persons belief or associations.
[THE BILL CONTINUED]
10    (E) TO "ADVERSELY AFFECT" A PERSON'S  PHYSICAL  OR  MENTAL  HEALTH  OR
11  CONDITION  DOES  NOT INCLUDE CAUSING ADVERSE EFFECTS THAT MAY ARISE FROM
12  TREATMENT OR CARE WHEN THAT TREATMENT OR CARE IS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE
13  WITH GENERALLY APPLICABLE LEGAL, HEALTH AND PROFESSIONAL  STANDARDS  AND
14  FOR  THE  PURPOSES  OF EVALUATING, TREATING, PROTECTING OR IMPROVING THE
15  PERSON'S HEALTH.
16    (F) "INTERROGATION" MEANS THE QUESTIONING RELATED TO LAW  ENFORCEMENT,
17  THE  ENFORCEMENT  OF  RULES  OR  REGULATIONS  OF AN INSTITUTION IN WHICH
18  PEOPLE ARE DETAINED THROUGH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OR FOR  MILITARY
19  OR  NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS (SUCH AS A JAIL OR OTHER DETENTION FACILI-
20  TY, POLICE FACILITY, PRISON, IMMIGRATION FACILITY, OR MILITARY FACILITY)
21  OR TO MILITARY AND NATIONAL SECURITY INTELLIGENCE GATHERING, WHETHER  BY
22  A  GOVERNMENT  OR  NON-GOVERNMENT  ACTOR,  ENTITY OR OFFICIAL. "INTERRO-
23  GATION" SHALL ALSO INCLUDE QUESTIONING TO AID OR ACCOMPLISH ANY  ILLEGAL
24  ACTIVITY  OR  PURPOSE,  WHETHER BY A GOVERNMENT OR NON-GOVERNMENT ACTOR,
25  ENTITY OR OFFICIAL. INTERROGATIONS ARE DISTINCT FROM QUESTIONING USED BY
26  HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS TO ASSESS THE PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITION  OF
27  AN INDIVIDUAL.

[ANALYSIS CONTINUED of John Mecca & Deborah Lamb]   The text underlined above having the word "facility", means for a device such as an implanted device to be the facility by strict definition.  The wording of what is stated is legal to do in any State by Compact so long as the entity carrying out the interrogation has the authority and the physician attending to or aiding has nothing to fear as to legal harm to themselves due to the authorities legally sanctioning the acts of interrogation, including harsh treatment, torture or other actions.

[THE BILL CONTINUED]  
28    2.  KNOWLEDGE. IT SHALL BE AN ELEMENT OF ANY VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION
29  THAT THE ACTOR KNEW OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE  KNOWN  THAT  HIS  OR  HER
30  CONDUCT  IS  OF  THE  KIND  PROHIBITED UNDER THIS SECTION. A HEALTH CARE
31  PROFESSIONAL WHO RECEIVES INFORMATION THAT INDICATES THAT A PRISONER  AS
32  DEFINED  BY  THIS  SECTION  IS  BEING, MAY IN THE FUTURE BE, OR HAS BEEN
33  SUBJECTED TO TORTURE OR IMPROPER TREATMENT, MUST USE DUE  DILIGENCE,  IN
34  ORDER  TO  ASSESS  THE  NATURE  OF HIS OR HER CONDUCT AS COVERED BY THIS
35  SECTION.
36    3. GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS.  (A) EVERY HEALTH
37  CARE PROFESSIONAL SHALL PROVIDE EVERY PRISONER UNDER HIS OR HER  PROFES-
38  SIONAL  CARE WITH CARE OR TREATMENT CONSISTENT WITH GENERALLY APPLICABLE
39  LEGAL, HEALTH AND PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS TO THE EXTENT THAT HE OR SHE IS
40  REASONABLY ABLE TO DO SO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES,  INCLUDING  PROTECTING
41  THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF PATIENT INFORMATION.
42    (B)  IN  ALL  CLINICAL ASSESSMENTS RELATING TO A PRISONER, WHETHER FOR
43  THERAPEUTIC OR EVALUATIVE  PURPOSES,  HEALTH  CARE  PROFESSIONALS  SHALL
44  EXERCISE  THEIR  PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT INDEPENDENT OF THE INTERESTS OF A
45  GOVERNMENT OR OTHER THIRD PARTY.
46    4. CERTAIN CONDUCT OF HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS PROHIBITED.    (A)  NO
47  HEALTH  CARE  PROFESSIONAL SHALL APPLY HIS OR HER KNOWLEDGE OR SKILLS IN
48  RELATION TO, ENGAGE IN ANY PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP  WITH,  OR  PERFORM
49  PROFESSIONAL  SERVICES IN RELATION TO ANY PRISONER UNLESS THE PURPOSE IS
50  SOLELY TO EVALUATE, TREAT, PROTECT, OR IMPROVE THE  PHYSICAL  OR  MENTAL
51  HEALTH  OR  CONDITION  OF THE PRISONER (EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY PARAGRAPH
52  (B) OR (C) OF SUBDIVISION FIVE OF THIS SECTION).
53    (B) NO HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL SHALL ENGAGE, DIRECTLY OR  INDIRECTLY,
54  IN ANY ACT WHICH CONSTITUTES PARTICIPATION IN, COMPLICITY IN, INCITEMENT
55  TO,  ASSISTANCE  IN,  PLANNING OR DESIGN OF, OR ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY TO
       A. 5891                             4

1  COMMIT TORTURE OR IMPROPER TREATMENT OF A PRISONER. PROHIBITED FORMS  OF
2  ENGAGEMENT INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
3    (I)  PROVIDING MEANS, KNOWLEDGE OR SKILLS, INCLUDING CLINICAL FINDINGS
4  OR TREATMENT, WITH THE INTENT TO FACILITATE THE PRACTICE OF  TORTURE  OR
5  IMPROPER TREATMENT;
6    (II)  PERMITTING  HIS OR HER KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS OR CLINICAL FINDINGS OR
7  TREATMENT TO BE USED IN THE PROCESS  OF  OR  TO  FACILITATE  TORTURE  OR
8  IMPROPER TREATMENT;
9    (III) EXAMINING, EVALUATING, OR TREATING A PRISONER TO CERTIFY WHETHER
10  TORTURE OR IMPROPER TREATMENT CAN BEGIN, BE CONTINUED, OR BE RESUMED;
11    (IV) BEING PRESENT WHILE TORTURE OR IMPROPER TREATMENT IS BEING ADMIN-
12  ISTERED;
13    (V)  OMITTING OR SUPPRESSING INDICATIONS OF TORTURE OR IMPROPER TREAT-
14  MENT FROM RECORDS OR REPORTS; AND
15    (VI) ALTERING HEALTH CARE RECORDS OR REPORTS TO HIDE, MISREPRESENT  OR
16  DESTROY EVIDENCE OF TORTURE OR IMPROPER TREATMENT.
17    (C)  NO  HEALTH  CARE PROFESSIONAL SHALL APPLY HIS OR HER KNOWLEDGE OR
18  SKILLS OR PERFORM ANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICE IN ORDER  TO  ASSIST  IN  THE
19  PUNISHMENT,  DETENTION,  INCARCERATION,  INTIMIDATION,  OR COERCION OF A
20  PRISONER WHEN SUCH ASSISTANCE IS PROVIDED IN A MANNER THAT MAY ADVERSELY
21  AFFECT THE PHYSICAL OR  MENTAL  HEALTH  OR  CONDITION  OF  THE  PRISONER
22  (EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY PARAGRAPH (A) OR (B) OF SUBDIVISION FIVE OF THIS
23  SECTION).
24    (D) NO HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE INTERROGATION
25  OF A PRISONER, INCLUDING BEING PRESENT IN THE INTERROGATION ROOM, ASKING
26  OR  SUGGESTING  QUESTIONS, ADVISING ON THE USE OF SPECIFIC INTERROGATION
27  TECHNIQUES, MONITORING THE INTERROGATION, OR MEDICALLY OR PSYCHOLOGICAL-
28  LY EVALUATING A PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL INTERRO-
29  GATION METHODS OR STRATEGIES. HOWEVER, THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL  NOT  BAR  A
30  HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL FROM ENGAGING IN CONDUCT UNDER PARAGRAPH (D) OF
31  SUBDIVISION FIVE OF THIS SECTION.
32    5.  CERTAIN  CONDUCT  OF HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS PERMITTED. A HEALTH
33  CARE PROFESSIONAL MAY ENGAGE IN THE FOLLOWING CONDUCT SO LONG AS IT DOES
34  NOT VIOLATE SUBDIVISION THREE OR FOUR  OF  THIS  SECTION,  IT  DOES  NOT
35  ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OR CONDITION OF A PRISON-
36  ER OR POTENTIAL SUBJECT, AND IS NOT OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL:
37    (A) APPROPRIATELY PARTICIPATING OR AIDING IN THE INVESTIGATION, PROSE-
38  CUTION, OR DEFENSE OF A CRIMINAL, ADMINISTRATIVE OR CIVIL MATTER;
39    (B)  PARTICIPATING  IN AN ACT THAT RESTRAINS A PRISONER OR TEMPORARILY
40  ALTERS THE PHYSICAL OR MENTAL ACTIVITY OF  A  PRISONER,  WHERE  THE  ACT
41  COMPLIES WITH GENERALLY APPLICABLE LEGAL, HEALTH AND PROFESSIONAL STAND-
42  ARDS,  IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH,
43  CONDITION OR SAFETY OF THE PRISONER, OTHER PRISONERS, OR PERSONS  CARING
44  FOR, GUARDING OR CONFINING THE PRISONER;
45    (C)  CONDUCTING  BONA  FIDE  HUMAN SUBJECT RESEARCH IN ACCORDANCE WITH
46  GENERALLY ACCEPTED LEGAL, HEALTH AND PROFESSIONAL  STANDARDS  WHERE  THE
47  RESEARCH  INCLUDES  SAFEGUARDS  FOR  HUMAN  SUBJECTS EQUIVALENT TO THOSE
48  REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW, INCLUDING INFORMED  CONSENT  AND  INSTITUTIONAL
49  REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL WHERE APPLICABLE;

[ANALYSIS CONTINUED of John Mecca & Deborah Lamb]  The underlined words above are an exemption allowing for those experimented upon to have this Bill cover the physicians legally when a victim is used for testing for example in vivo remote control torture devices with or without an authority sanctioning it.  It also implies that persons whom the authorities do not like their beliefs or associations can experiment upon them and call it research instead of torture or harsh treatment to hide the authorities political fascism.  The word facility mentioned in another part of this Bill in combination with this part implies such testing can be done without notice (in secret) to a person without their knowledge or consent.

   According to their definition of TORTURE, human experiments that involve pain fit within it, human subjects are therefore “POTENTIAL SUBJECTS” of this BILL/LAW.

   ADMINISTRATIVE can be a Guantanamo like Tribunal or a State Public Health Committee to waive consent for human experimentation.

   By  “Federal law”, states agency heads can waive consent, by NYS PBH waiver of consent and do just about anything to a person.

   Under New York Public Health NY Code - Article 24-A: PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS has provisions for human experiment and research written in such a vague and open ended way that the use of nomination of a person for human experimentation of extreme pain and suffering for vendetta usage is all too easy for authorities to abuse.

   The abuse of the law by having human experimentation by NY Public Health is allowed to be done to a person for their being incompetent, where the term incompetent is ill defined lending itself to any interpretation authorities wish.  No one on earth is perfect and therefore fallible and therefore incompetent compared to perfection, is an example of the literal translation that incompetence encompasses whom ever the authorities wish to nominate for a human experiment for retaliation.

   
[THE BILL CONTINUED]  
50    (D)  TRAINING  RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES, SO LONG AS IT IS NOT
51  PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF SPECIFIC ONGOING OR ANTICIPATED INTERROGATIONS:
52    (I) RECOGNIZING AND RESPONDING TO  PERSONS  WITH  PHYSICAL  OR  MENTAL
53  ILLNESS OR CONDITIONS,
54    (II) THE POSSIBLE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EFFECTS OF PARTICULAR TECHNIQUES
55  AND CONDITIONS OF INTERROGATION, OR
       A. 5891                             5

1    (III)  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  EFFECTIVE  INTERROGATION  STRATEGIES  NOT
2  INVOLVING THE PRACTICE OF TORTURE OR IMPROPER TREATMENT.
3    6.  DUTY  TO  REPORT.  A  HEALTH  CARE PROFESSIONAL WHO HAS REASONABLE
4  GROUNDS (NOT BASED SOLELY ON PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION) TO  BELIEVE
5  THAT  TORTURE,  IMPROPER TREATMENT OR OTHER CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THIS
6  SECTION HAS OCCURRED, IS OCCURRING, OR WILL OCCUR SHALL, AS SOON  AS  IS
7  POSSIBLE WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING THE PHYSICAL SAFETY OF HIMSELF OR HERSELF,
8  THE PRISONER, OR OTHER PARTIES, REPORT SUCH CONDUCT TO:
9    (A)  A  GOVERNMENT AGENCY THAT THE HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL REASONABLY
10  BELIEVES HAS LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PUNISH OR PREVENT  THE  CONTINUATION  OF
11  TORTURE  OR THE IMPROPER TREATMENT OF A PRISONER OR CONDUCT IN VIOLATION
12  OF THIS SECTION AND IS REASONABLY LIKELY TO ATTEMPT TO DO SO; OR
13    (B) A GOVERNMENTAL OR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY  THAT  THE  HEALTH  CARE
14  PROFESSIONAL REASONABLY BELIEVES WILL NOTIFY SUCH A GOVERNMENT AGENCY OF
15  THE  TORTURE  OR  THE  IMPROPER  TREATMENT  OF  A PRISONER OR CONDUCT IN
16  VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION OR TAKE OTHER ACTION TO PUBLICIZE  OR  PREVENT
17  SUCH TORTURE, TREATMENT OR CONDUCT; AND
18    (C) IN ADDITION TO REPORTING UNDER PARAGRAPH (A) OR (B) OF THIS SUBDI-
19  VISION: (I) IN THE CASE OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION BY A HEALTH CARE PROFES-
20  SIONAL  LICENSED  UNDER  ARTICLE  ONE  HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE OR ONE HUNDRED
21  THIRTY-ONE-B OF THE EDUCATION LAW, A REPORT  SHALL  BE  FILED  WITH  THE
22  OFFICE  OF  PROFESSIONAL  MEDICAL  CONDUCT;  AND  (II) IN THE CASE OF AN
23  ALLEGED VIOLATION BY ANY OTHER HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL LICENSED, REGIS-
24  TERED OR CERTIFIED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF  THE  EDUCATION  LAW,  A  REPORT
25  SHALL BE FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE; PROVIDED THAT
26  FOR  THE  PURPOSE  OF  THIS  PARAGRAPH,  WHERE A PERSON HOLDS A LICENSE,
27  REGISTRATION OR CERTIFICATION UNDER THE LAWS  OF  A  JURISDICTION  OTHER
28  THAN THE STATE OF NEW YORK THAT IS FOR A PROFESSION SUBSTANTIALLY COMPA-
29  RABLE TO ONE LISTED IN PARAGRAPH (A) OF SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION,
30  THE  PERSON  SHALL  BE  DEEMED  TO BE A HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL AND THE
31  PERSON'S LICENSE, REGISTRATION OR CERTIFICATION SHALL BE  DEEMED  TO  BE
32  UNDER THE APPROPRIATE ARTICLE OF TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW.
33    7.  MITIGATION.  THE  FOLLOWING  MAY  BE CONSIDERED IN FULL OR PARTIAL
34  MITIGATION OF A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION BY  THE  HEALTH  CARE  PROFES-
35  SIONAL:
36    (A) COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION SIX OF THIS SECTION; OR
37    (B)  COOPERATION IN GOOD FAITH WITH AN INVESTIGATION OF A VIOLATION OF
38  THIS SECTION.
39    8. APPLICABILITY. THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY  TO  CONDUCT  TAKING  PLACE
40  WITHIN  OR  OUTSIDE  NEW  YORK  STATE, AND WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER THE
41  CONDUCT IS COMMITTED BY A GOVERNMENTAL OR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, OFFI-
42  CIAL, OR ACTOR OR UNDER ACTUAL OR ASSERTED COLOR OF LAW.
43    9. SCOPE OF PRACTICE NOT EXPANDED. THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED
44  TO EXPAND THE LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE OF ANY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL.
45    S 3. Section 6509 of the education law is  amended  by  adding  a  new
46  subdivision 15 to read as follows:
47    (15)  ANY  VIOLATION  OF  SECTION  TWENTY-TWO OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW
48  (RELATING TO PARTICIPATION IN TORTURE OR IMPROPER TREATMENT OF PRISONERS
49  BY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS), SUBJECT TO MITIGATION UNDER THAT SECTION.
50    S 4. Section 6530 of the education law is  amended  by  adding  a  new
51  subdivision 50 to read as follows:
52    50.  ANY  VIOLATION  OF  SECTION  TWENTY-TWO  OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW
53  (RELATING TO PARTICIPATION IN TORTURE OR IMPROPER TREATMENT OF PRISONERS
54  BY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS), SUBJECT TO MITIGATION UNDER THAT SECTION.
       A. 5891                             6

1    S 5. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of subdivision 2 of  section  740  of  the
2  labor  law, as added by chapter 660 of the laws of 1984, are amended and
3  a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
4    (b)  provides  information  to,  or  testifies before, any public body
5  conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any such  violation
6  of a law, rule or regulation by such employer; [or]
7    (c) objects to, or refuses to participate in any such activity, policy
8  or practice in violation of a law, rule or regulation[.]; OR
9    (D) REPORTS OR THREATENS TO REPORT ANY VIOLATION OF SECTION TWENTY-TWO
10  OF  THE  PUBLIC  HEALTH  LAW  (RELATING  TO  PARTICIPATION IN TORTURE OR
11  IMPROPER TREATMENT OF PRISONERS BY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS).
12    S 6. Subdivision 3 of section 740 of the labor law, as added by  chap-
13  ter 660 of the laws of 1984, is amended to read as follows:
14    3.  Application.  The  protection against retaliatory personnel action
15  provided by paragraph (a) of subdivision two of this section  pertaining
16  to  disclosure to a public body shall not apply to an employee who makes
17  such disclosure to a public body unless the  employee  has  brought  the
18  activity,  policy or practice in violation of law, rule or regulation to
19  the attention of a supervisor of the  employer  and  has  afforded  such
20  employer  a  reasonable  opportunity to correct such activity, policy or
21  practice. HOWEVER, THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY REPORT  OF  A
22  VIOLATION  UNDER  SECTION  TWENTY-TWO  OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (PARTIC-
23  IPATION IN TORTURE OR IMPROPER TREATMENT OF  PRISONERS  BY  HEALTH  CARE
24  PROFESSIONALS).
25    S  7.  Paragraphs  (a)  and (b) of subdivision 2 of section 741 of the
26  labor law, as added by chapter 24 of the laws of 2002, are amended and a
27  new paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
28    (a) discloses or threatens to disclose to a supervisor, or to a public
29  body an activity, policy or practice of the employer or agent  that  the
30  employee, in good faith, reasonably believes constitutes improper quali-
31  ty of patient care; [or]
32    (b)  objects  to, or refuses to participate in any activity, policy or
33  practice of the employer or agent that  the  employee,  in  good  faith,
34  reasonably believes constitutes improper quality of patient care[.]; OR
35    (C) REPORTS OR THREATENS TO REPORT ANY VIOLATION OF SECTION TWENTY-TWO
36  OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (PARTICIPATION IN TORTURE OR IMPROPER TREATMENT
37  OF PRISONERS BY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS).
38    S  8. Subdivision 3 of section 741 of the labor law, as added by chap-
39  ter 24 of the laws of 2002, is amended to read as follows:
40    3. Application. The protection against  retaliatory  personnel  action
41  provided  by  subdivision two of this section shall not apply unless the
42  employee has brought the improper quality of patient care to the  atten-
43  tion of a supervisor and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportu-
44  nity  to  correct  such  activity,  policy or practice. This subdivision
45  shall not apply to an action or failure to act  described  in  paragraph
46  (a)  of  subdivision  two  of this section where the improper quality of
47  patient care described therein presents an  imminent  threat  to  public
48  health or safety or to the health of a specific patient and the employee
49  reasonably  believes  in good faith that reporting to a supervisor would
50  not result in corrective action.   HOWEVER, THIS SUBDIVISION  SHALL  NOT
51  APPLY  TO  ANY  REPORT  OF  A  VIOLATION UNDER SECTION TWENTY-TWO OF THE
52  PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (PARTICIPATION IN TORTURE  OR  IMPROPER  TREATMENT  OF
53  PRISONERS BY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS).
54    S  9. The introduction or enactment of this act shall not be construed
55  to mean that: (a) conduct described by this act does not already violate
56  state law or constitute professional misconduct; or  (b)  conduct  other
       A. 5891                             7

1  than  that  described  by  this  act does not violate other state law or
2  otherwise constitute professional misconduct.
3    S  10.  Severability. If any provision of this act, or any application
4  of any provision of this act, is held to  be  invalid,  that  shall  not
5  affect  the validity or effectiveness of any other provision of this act
6  or any other application of any provision of this act.
7    S 11.   This act shall take  effect  on  the  first  of  January  next
8  succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.
[ANALYSIS CONTINUED of John Mecca & Deborah Lamb]  Remember the above text is to give the reader a sense that torture is illegal and not permitted, however the analysis of the beginning of the Bill clearly states that as long as torture is sanctioned it's legal.  The double speak to mislead the reader is purposeful and geared to disarm  the reader psychologically to make them think the Bill prevents torture, which is true in that the Bill makes it illegal for persons and entities the authorities have not granted allowance to torture and cause adverse treatment

   You should spread the word about this Bill, if it passes anyone for any reason can be tortured and killed.  The ultimate weapon is to legalize tyranny..

   Complain to your legislators as to the evil danger it presents to a democracy and their State[s] CONSTITUTIONS.  Do nothing and upon the Bill becomming law, you may hear a knock on your door or a truck to pick you up from the shopping center parking lot, then you will be one of the people who disappear and it will be done by this new law on the books that you ignored.





 
NEW YORK STATE TORTURE LAW
TO TAKE EFFECT IN ALL STATES,
THROUGH 50 STATE COMPACT!

Dec. 2010 a New BILL in New York, will allow torture of New Yorkers
by NYS for their Belief and or Associations if it becomes law.

SEPTEMBER *** 2010 UPDATE
We have had to rewrite our court case as a result of
discovering that the NYS BILL supposedly to prohibit
torture was found upon careful analysis, that if it became law
it would cause our complaint to be dismissed because the
 BILL makes legal all of the authorities unconstitutional
and illegal actions listed by us in our complaint,
below are excerpt points from our case.
SEPTEMBER *** 2010 UPDATE


THROUGH INTERSTATE COMPACT!

NEW LAW CALLS FOR PENALTIES FOR
SUSPICION OF BELIEFS OR LIFESTYLE IF BILL PASSES!

ALSO DEADLY FEDERAL LEGISLATION USED BY STATE
AUTHORITIES OR DECADES SECRETLY AND ILLEGALLY, COMES OUT IN THE OPEN!


<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>

Below is a letter sent to the Legislators to complain about the BILL!
A long read yes, but the Bill dismantles all of the 50 States CONSTITUTIONS if it passes. Call and complain today before it is too late. Upon passing the opinions of local authorities in all states can secretly elect a person (could be you) to be tortured by covert methods or haul a person off to a torture chamber..

      December 13, 2010


From: Deborah Lamb & John Mecca
119 Whittier Drive
Kings Park, NY 11754

REGARDING:  Opposition to S4495-A Legislation by Senator Tom Duane; 
and A-6665C Legislation by Assembly Member Richard N. Gottfried


Dear Legislators:

Senator Tom Duane
Assembly member Richard N. Gottfried
Senator John J. Flanagan
Assemblyman Michael J. Fitzpatrick 


      This letter is from Deborah Lamb and John Mecca, as concerned New Yorkers and victims of non-consensual human experimentation in Suffolk County New York, we oppose the N.Y.S. Legislation of S-4495-A &
A-6665C, the so-called Anti-Torture Bill.  We are in opposition of this legislation, which is a fraud, written in such a way as to be subterfuge, as a secret attack against the very fabric of all we hold dear in this State and Country and considered for a law of N.Y.S. without a N.Y.S.  CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. The legislation as a matter of its operation, removes the judiciary from the loop of meting out punishment, effectively and completely placing judicial matters into select secret N.Y.S. Public Health committees hands!

      The Bill which is not about stopping torture but removing liability upon NYS and legalizing torture, improper treatment when sanctioned by N.Y.S. authorities and for that matter the authorities that can sanction these egregious actions can be anyone by the verbiage definitions of the legislation. there are many more issues of equal disturbing importance in the Bill, the legislation is a Bill of Attainder to be initiated into law, that has ex post facto allowances within it.

      Our NYS Legislators swear or affirm to protect the NYS CONSTITUTION, but instead in virtual secret by the legislation's camouflaged language are attacking it. The legislation once law will through the N.Y.S. Mental Hygiene compact with the other 49 States of the Union will place the entire country under a dictatorship law principal, without justification; as war against the peoples for having beliefs, opinions politically incorrect free speech, its very proposing is a declaration of war against the very intention of the NYS CONSTITUTION'S purposes. The BILL will inject the real potential an extermination program among all the states of the Union by the interstate NYS Public Hygiene (PBH) law collaborative  with NYS Mental Hygiene (MHY) LAW Section 67.07 interstate compact.
      
      The Bill has purposes and meaning beyond the obvious that arise from a phrase in it as follows, “and related matters”.  The Bill according to “related matters”, has meaning beyond the prohibition of torture, being in part to define torture as being allowed in NYS when torture is allowed by State authorities, indeed factually the Bill encourages torture for political means and is applicable for any person and for any reason. Any person throughout the 50 States can be tortured by vague definitions of criteria for torture and buy its wording will be combined with wavier of consent human experimentation.  Depending on what town a person lives in the authorities there can read the vague law and interpret it to mean whatever they wish, if they want to grab protesters it will be legal to then torture them for re-education or execute them as federal law jurisdiction is, if a person is gay or straight the authorities in an area where such a lifestyle is not condoned in the private policy of authorities the law can be interpreted for their leanings do to them whatever the authorities want to do; we cannot understand the Senator being openly gay cannot have considered that interpretation as plausible, the wrapper aside authorities read a law and see the words of such law as the sum of its words to extend its latitude for actions. When have district attorneys ever read a law and not extended it where it is vague, they do it all the time!

      The Bill is a PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, that will be used for determining who needs a re-education camp or death, where the curriculum is behavior modification by Pavlovian induction of torture, where their “health care professional” could say to the New Yorker under their control, this is NYS Public Health and what we do here is legal and good for you, to the prisoner or human subject, that what they are experiencing is not torture but is instead reactive data transmission the U.S. citizen needs. Have those that came up with the Bill realized that affording the federal jurisdiction latitude inside NYS includes rape and death sentences without public due process, the allowance to rape is also by being mindful of the federal government implied as included.

THE BILL INCLUDES RAPE OF MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN  BY DEFAULT.

      That the “Military Commissions Act 2006” is used as an example of what is unconstitutional and illegal by New York States CONSTITUTION for it to be in action anywhere inside the borders of the New York State jurisdiction, by that Act of 2006, this Plaintiffs' complaint is not limited but inclusive of any and all unconstitutional and illegal NYS, federal, foreign entity laws and policy origin, this complaint and its citing of laws and policy is to be liberally construed as to the coverage against insertion into NYS legislation and policy of egregious nature adversely affecting the New York States sovereigns and persons' NYS Civil Rights and breaching of NYS law.
 
      As further example of onerous prohibited Bill of Attainder legal precept, foreign to the moral nature of New Yorkers that Plaintiffs include is the issue that “rape” is of such a nature by its being unconstitutional and illegal by NYS legal precepts, cannot be a part of "Health Care Professionals" and the like activities nor of  DEFENDANTS' activities, to in any way be propounded as part of any action upon any person inside the borders of NYS. Such policy as the aforementioned is the allowance propounded by then President of September 4, 2003, to proclaim that rape when it served the government interests of state and federal has the government available to sequester and prevent a complaint of rape from reaching the complaint phase in a court of law, per se inside NYS, is illegal, unconstitutional and a Bill of Attainder  proclamation titled, “Statement on Prison Rape Elimination Act, Statement by the President September 4, 2003”. That proclamation originated from the law being enacted of, “Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, Law [S. 1435]”; wherein as it is well reported in newspaper accounts that rape is and can be a part of interrogation or coercion within legal sanction therefore through the “Military Commissions Act 2006”. Wording of the proclamation makes it unsupportable by its words, that it could ever be applicable inside NYS jurisdiction by its unconstitutional trampling of civil rights and illegality. Where a governor of a state such as NYS serving at the pleasure of the President to accommodate such unconstitutional and criminal acts to close down a court case or investigation into an aggrieved plaintiff(s) raped by use of the proclamations words “authority to withhold information”; such serving of the President by the NYS governor and that office are nevertheless subject to the superior power of NYS CONSTITUTION Civil Rights of NYS of sovereign people and NYS criminal and penal law. Illustrating that torture including rape is relative to the legal analysis of torture and is that it would be allowed by "Health Care Professionals" of the BILL and the like being wholly unconstitutional and illegal under the NYS CONSTITUTION Civil Rights of sovereign New Yorkers and illegal under NYS laws even for those whom are inmates or prisoners with some reduced rights; that such Bills of Attainder are extant without exposure as to their legality questioned is here shown by example in text from, SEE;

Then Ex. President George Walker Bush; Proclamation: Statement on Prison Rape Elimination Act, Statement by the President September 4, 2003....The executive branch shall construe sections 7(h) and 7(k)(3) in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information when its disclosure could impair deliberative processes of the Executive or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties and, to the extent possible, in a manner consistent with Federal statutes protecting sensitive information from disclosure.  

      The clear implication of the Bush proclamation is that rape may be precluded from seeing a court by a raped plaintiff where so called national security can be claimed, such claim could be an important person is doing a favor for a subordinate to relieve them of having to be brought to court for a hearing as to their raping someone. The Proclamation directs that rape cases can be quashed.

      The Bill as law is so flawed, the following are the ways in which it will affect the N.Y.S. CONSTITUTION and the CONSTITUTIONS of all the other 49 STATES. This cannot possibly be allowed and is impermissible!

      The following is a portion of a contemplated court complaint we have devised that shows how the BILL is contrary to the New York State and for that matter the U.S. CONSTITUTION, there are within the following mentions of the words plaintiff, defendant and court, those words are there as a demonstration of how arguments can evolve in a court case showing the BILL to be wholly unconstitutional.

      A. NYS CONSTITUTION Article Sections Abrogated By The “NYS Legislature BILL or equivalent Bill of Attainder Laws.

      1. The extremes of  the BILL has the effect of it being a treason, fraud and perversion of the law upon all facets of the NYS CONSTITUTION, that illustrate it and the other legislation cited in this complaint are Bills of Attainder. Therefore the Plaintiffs' complaint will be affected according to such potential and active legislation as a MANIFEST INJUSTICE if they are not mooted by the Court for their actions on such as Plaintiffs and New Yorkers.

1. THE NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SECTION I. RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES. ACCORDING TO THE BILL AS LAW, WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"Bill of Rights Section 1. No member of this state shall be disfranchised, or deprived of  any  of  the  rights  or  privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment  of  his  or  her peers,...."

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws, has no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 1”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      b.    Where the BILL and similar laws' definitions of prisoner and torture do not have a grounding basis in the phrase “law of the land” as the rest of the Forty Nine states of the Union, have no such law-breaking code on their books as of yet.
                      c.    That the effect of the BILL and similar laws is by its rich wording obviously a PROCLAMATION as  Bill of Attainder to inject the ways and means to create a second class of citizens to be prisoners and tortured and conscripted as “potential subjects” from the NYS PBH list of its current subjects, has the effect to be “prejudice” and purposefully disenfranchised as the rule of law upon the BILL becoming law.
                      d.    The BILL and similar laws effectively deprives the persons affected by new definitions PROCLAMATION inside of New York State and by effect of subsequent litigation arising from such affected persons if they ever are able to escape the illegal prison and torture proposed by the BILL would result in case law that would certainly have a disastrous effect upon the other 49 states of the Union.
                      e.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

2. THE NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  §  2. TRIAL BY JURY; HOW WAIVED. ACCORDING TO THE BILL AS LAW, WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"Bill of Rights Section §  2.  Trial  by  jury  in  all  cases in which it has heretofore been guaranteed by constitutional provision shall remain  inviolate forever; but  a jury trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law."

                             a.    Nowhere in the BILL and similar laws is there any reference to the defined “prisoner” it references to, having had public due process in any federal or state court, where such defined prisoners can also be construed by its language to be potential subjects. The BILL'S  reference for physical punishment in its definition of “punishment”, where it states, “any  intentional act or intentional omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental”, is altogether unconstitutional in NY and illegal under statute. That the BILL is for prohibition of “health care professionals” it is only a prohibition for aiding and abetting acts according to the BILL'S definition of torture. The definition for “torture” states that that the definition holds that, “ It  does  not  include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanction.”. That the Bills definition does not hold that torture is acts equivalent to the definition of torture, is a direct statement that aiding and abetting acts that are defined by the Bills definition of “torture” are allowed where they are, “inherent in or incidental to lawful sanction”. By the aforementioned true and correct analysis according to contracts, a new class of prisoner is contended by the BILL to be in effect on a selective basis, without public due process mentioned as how the so called prisoners arrived at the status of prisoner nor is it implied that such prisoners will be given public due process of the State  of New York as guaranteed by Section 2 of the NYS Bill of Rights. It should be noted the BILL does not allude to any review of prisoners for their legally being branded with such status whatsoever and the way the Bills language and purpose in allowing the definitions of prisoner and torture to be applied into the legal code is indicative of a BILL that strips the right to due process regarding trial by jury from the NYS CONSTITUTION.
                      b.    Nowhere in the state of New York's criminal or penal code, is there latitude for the actions the BILL and similar laws to the BILLS “§ 22.1.(b) "Torture"... inherent in or incidental to lawful sanction”. The implication is that the BILL supplants the NYS public due process by a jury to the degree that the Bill of Rights Section that the BILL in creating a new class of prisoner as also “potential subjects” is to have the (BILL S. 4495-A) as a PROCLAMATION amounting to a “BILL OF XIX ATTAINDER”. The definition of Bill of Attainder is  a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes way the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment.
                             c.    The BILL and similar laws by its reference to “potential subjects” or subject, has language that infers that such are persons as subjects under NYS Public Health waiver of consent experiment. Such  subject(s) persons and or research subject(s) persons, are by the definitions of the harsh treatments of  “torture”, "Improper treatment" and “adversely affect” codified as “prisoners” to thereby fall into the new class of prisoners as a Bill of Attainder, permitting such persons as research and experiment subjects to be treated accordingly; where such persons can be subjected to the acts defined under the BILL'S definition of “torture”, because they are under, “lawful sanction”. That such persons as experiment or research subjects have become subjects under the unconstitutional NYS PBH wavier of consent laws is codified by the inference in the BILL where, that such experiment or research subjects have become prisoners by the BILLS PROCLAMATION, that such unwitting subjects are thereby not to be allowed NYS public due process before a jury.
                      d.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 2”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.  
                      e.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

3. THE NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  § 3. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP; RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

“§  3.  The  free  exercise  and  enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be  allowed in  this  state  to  all  humankind; and  no  person  shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his or her opinions on matters of religious belief”

                             a.     Where in the BILL and similar laws definition of §  22.1.  (b)  "Torture", has the words, (including the holding of a belief or membership in any group); such words can be construed to be regarding religion and or worship and is implied. The BILL by its cavalier approach, has as it would no consideration nor conscience to the history of harsh interrogations, where it has been publicized that the federal government has both Guantanamo internees released and sued only to be given “state secrets privileges” and American headlines stating “America's 250th DNA exoneration raises questions about how often we send the wrong person to prison”; bespeaks that it is bad enough that the system of public due process can be flawed, but that the vague language of the BILL is such that authorities will need only suspicion of guilt to punish without public due process according to the Bills definitions of torture and prisoner has built in flaws, where it may have to do with religious or other “belief” is contrary to allowance by this Article section.
                             b.     Such aforementioned prejudice in the BILL and similar laws is by their action a “Bill of Attainder”.
                             c.     That one person be punished who is innocent is reason to prohibit the purposeful acts of physical harsh treatment. The point here is, that whatever a person believes, when tortured” under the BILL and similar laws exemption of allowance being lawful sanction, is in support that a new class of “prisoner subject” is created by the BILL. Such that will have whatever religion they have shaken to its foundation. That extreme acts carried out by a society unfairly upon a person, can cause them to loose faith in that society, it is the same for a religious faith. That DEFENDANTS are allowed to engage in sanction of the behavior of people by lawful sanction of torture; will absolutely cause many of those new status persons as “prisoners” to loose or question their faith, by being prevented from expressing their faith by the new oppression as a new class of person defined by the BILL as “prisoner”. The very concept of a “prisoner” as the BILL defines, would plausibly be treated to cause mental duress and or mental discontinuity to the degree that it would cause purposeful or incidental interference with the “prisoner subjects” religious beliefs. As well as the action of the BILL does not include being a prisoner being given NYS or other public due process, it is as a suppression of freely attending worship services, by being under the egregious treatments the ill considered BILL proclaims to enact upon New Yorkers.
                             d.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 3”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                             e.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

4. NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  § 4. HABEAS CORPUS. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"§  4.  The  privilege of a writ or order of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless, in case of rebellion or invasion, the  public  safety requires it."
                     
                      a.    The allowance of Habeas Corpus is defeated by the BILL and similar laws, where it mentions no allowance for any form of public due process before a jury, nor review is intimated, nor that the prisoners and potential subjects of definition under lawful sanction allowed to be tortured legally by health care professionals were given any review or public due process before a jury. The words of the BILL and similar laws are a PROCLAMATION creating a new class of “prisoner” by the Legislature being “mindful” of the federal and other unknown entities, apparent to use NY as a point of insertion of forming another government within the government of New York. The issue of not allowing “Habeas Corpus” is of paramount importance, where it shows that the plan of the Legislature is to abrogate completely the New York State authority; otherwise the BILL and similar laws would have had statements saying such prisoners the health care professionals intersected with, had to have it proven the prisoner has had public due process before a jury or “HABEAS CORPUS”.
                      b.    Our state of New York abolished slavery in 1827; where such abolishment was to advocate by NYS law that the holding of a NYS person by use of discrimination or prejudice was illegitimate and illegal. The connection to “habeas corpus”, is noteworthy as it relates to the BILL. To have a PROCLAMATION in the BILL as defined is to create slavery once again in a class of persons whom have no rights except those granted by the authorities of the state, federal and unknown entities, is a throwback to a time when the country was primitive and uncivilized. The hard road of change to abolish slavery was not a capricious one, there were many forces that caused it, among the most important one is, that slavery as compared to the BILL'S PROCLAMATION to institute slavery can only generate uprising as it has in the past. Slavery is the usurpation of rights of a person on the suspicion that they are inferior to those that hold the person. The BILL and similar laws have within it the inference that by the words of interrogation that a person is suspected of having information and that because of that information suspected to be in their possession is held by the state or federal or unknown entity, is by presumption of those holding them that they are in the right and superior to those held. The BILL is based upon the authors psyche of paranoia and compulsion to please those whom are like minded, compulsively paranoid to engender holding a person without “habeas corpus” as legitimate, it is not legitimate by all accords of reasonable thought. Otherwise why are those that are holding or defining the allowance to hold prisoners leaving out “habeas corpus” to insure that innocent men and women and children are not being held without justification that they are guilty.
                      c.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 4”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

5. NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  § 5. BAIL; FINES; PUNISHMENTS; DETENTION OF WITNESSES. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"§ 5. ...nor  shall  cruel  and  unusual  punishments  be  inflicted,  nor shall witnesses be unreasonably detained."

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws by PROCLAMATION declares a new class of person in and outside of NY and where such person is defined as being tortured, that definition qualifies it as prohibited for “health care professionals” to aid or abet, except where such torture is by, “lawful sanction”. The definition is a stated exemption, pointing out what allows “health care professionals” not to define torture as torture where it is authorized by New York State authorities. The definition of torture and its meaning in the BILL is purposefully coupled to the definition and term of  “prisoners”, where that coupling is directly implicating that those tortured or whom are potential subjects are under the Bills definitions and meanings thereby a “prisoner”. Such PROCLAMATION of the BILL directly contradicts the scope and meaning of and abrogates the NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC. § 5, where the treatment of the new class of prisoner is permitted by authorities to have “cruel  and  unusual punishments  be inflicted”.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws by PROCLAMATION declares, “witnesses be unreasonably detained”, under the definition of “torture”; a definition that will exist in NYS jurisdiction upon it attaining the status as law, to encompass allowable actions by being a definition of torture inside NYS jurisdiction, to hold suspected witnesses and according to the definition torture them as well, SEE;

"BILL S. 4495-A§  §  22.1.  (b)  "Torture"  means  any  intentional act or intentional omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is inflicted
on a person for such purposes as obtaining from the  person  or  from  a third person information  or a confession, punishing the person for an act the person or a third person has committed (including the holding of a belief or membership in any group) or is suspected of having  commit-ted,  or  intimidating  or coercing the person or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.   It does  not  include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanction." 

                      c.    The BILL and similar laws seeks by definitions to grant latitude for NYS and federal authorities and unspecified entities the allowance to hold New Yorkers whom are mere suspects of knowing something about another suspect is  to completely gut and abrogate the meaning to the Article Section.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws injects into the legal code of NYS a definition of “Prisoner”, potential subject”,  “Torture”, "Improper treatment",  "adversely  affect", is under this Article Section unconstitutional and under the, N.Y. ADC. LAW § 9-114 : NY Code - Section 9-114: Discipline of inmates, is illegal, SEE;

N.Y. ADC. LAW § 9-114 : NY Code - Section 9-114: Discipline of inmates;
a. Officers in any institution in the department  of  correction  shall  use  all  suitable  means  to  defend   themselves,  to enforce discipline, and to secure the persons of inmates who shall:
    1. Neglect or refuse to perform the work assigned by  the  officer  in
  charge of the institution.
    2.  Willfully  violate  the  rules  and  regulations established by the
  commissioner of correction.
    3. Resist or disobey any lawful command.
    4. Offer violence to any officer or to any other prisoner.
    5.  Injure  or  attempt  to  injure  any  such  institution   or   the
  appurtenances thereof or any property therein.
    6. Attempt to escape.
    7.  Combine  with  any  one  or  more persons for any of the aforesaid
  purposes.
    b. The officers in any institution of  the  department  of  correction
  shall not inflict any blows upon a prisoner except in self-defense or to
  suppress a revolt or insurrection.

                      e.    Where BILL and similar laws clearly states that the use of force is specific in it's use and that it is only accorded such sanction of law, where the inmate or prisoner has been under lawful restriction of arrest or incarcerated, under the current NYS code enforceable only by duly appointed administrators following the current code. Whereas the BILL calls for use of force in many egregious forms and unspecified to exceed the law and accomplished by authorities that at present have no right whatsoever mete out punishment. The BILL qualifies punishment without purpose, where it does not construe its occurrence is from resisting arrest or disobedience in the traditional sense.
                      f.    The BILL and similar laws indicates that foreigners without training and or knowledge can be the actors meting out torture punishment to prisoners, is contrary to a gamut of laws ranging from health, education, penal and others; placing the exemptions for allowance to punish outside the norms of acceptable societal standards, besides being unconstitutional under this Article Section.
                      g.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 5”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      h.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.  

6. NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC. § 6. GRAND JURY; WAIVER OF INDICTMENT; RIGHT TO COUNSEL;  INFORMING ACCUSED; DOUBLE  JEOPARDY; SELF-INCRIMINATION; WAIVER OF IMMUNITY BY PUBLIC OFFICERS; DUE PROCESS OF LAW. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"§  6.  No  person  shall  be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime (except in cases of impeachment, and in cases of  militia when  in  actual  service, and the land, air and naval forces in time of war, or which this state may keep with the consent of congress  in  time of  peace,  and  in  cases  of pest larceny under the regulation of the legislature), unless on indictment of a grand jury, except that a person held for the action of a grand jury upon a charge for such  an  offense, other  than  one  punishable  by  death  or  life imprisonment, with the consent of the district attorney, may waive indictment by a  grand  jury and  consent  to  be  prosecuted on an information filed by the district attorney; such waiver shall be evidenced by written instrument signed by the defendant in open court in the presence of his or  her  counsel.  In any  trial  in  any court whatever the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel as  in  civil  actions  and shall  be  informed  of  the  nature  and cause of the accusation and be confronted with the witnesses against him or her."

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws does away with grand jury indictment, where the inference by the BILL is that those tortured prisoners under that NYS Public Health law have no mention in the BILL that they have had due process with a jury, where their treatment according to the laws of New York would have to be a very serious crime, the BILL does infer that a crime such persons could be guilty of is suspicion; yet the fact is that suspicion is not a crime in New York if the state even had such punishments allowable under NYS law, that the state has no laws for such harsh treatment defined as torture is contrary to Article 6 Sections.
                      b.     The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 6”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      c.     That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

7. NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  § 7. JUST COMPENSATION FOR TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY; PRIVATE  ROADS; DRAINAGE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"Bill of Rights Section § 7.  §  7.  (a)  Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation."

                      a.    The  Article Section § 7 (a) is understood to be first about property and second predominately about physical land; however this article infers by its first words property can be general. In consideration that the state did not prohibit slavery in the past, slaves could fall under the Articles issue of being property. That such is true, the BILL has the NYS new class of prisoners and as a part of that new class “potential subjects”are inferred to be prisoners, by their receiving harsh treatment equitable to the Bills definition of  ”torture”; becomes extended to have those potential subjects under NYS Public Health under covert waiver of consent experiment or research is a conscription of property, being the persons body and mind. The fundamental of the loss of NYS CONSTITUTION'S Civil Rights of persons, leads to the issue of conclusion that our bodies are our own property and that the general context of the §  7.  (a) applies to the BILL and similar laws seizing the persons property unconstitutionally according to Article 7.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 7”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      c.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

8. NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  § 8. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS; CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS FOR LIBEL. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"Bill of Rights Section § 8.   §  8.  Every  citizen  may  freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible  for  the  abuse  of  that right;  and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments  for libels,  the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and  was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted;  and  the  jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact."

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws in being non-compliant with the NYS CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS, ARTICLE I, Sec. 2 Trial by jury; how waived; where it does not specify those defined as prisoners, tortured and potential subjects qualified by being under legal sanction, have had or are to receive such NYS public due process; such is shown to exist by the meaning and language of the BILL as a prejudice and “Manifest Injustice” to the prisoners, tortured and potential subjects as defined under. Such as is described under a New Yorkers civil rights is accomplished by suppression of the prisoner and or tortured as defined by the BILL, in being unable to bring such issue of need for NYS public due process requirement to the attention of the authorities by being held incommunicado as implied by the nature and language of the BILL.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws as is described affects New Yorkers civil rights, by suppression of the Press, through the BILL being a “Bill of Attainder”, does by its so called holding such prisoners and tortured as defined under secret control by the Bills language and meaning, thereby does prevent the Press from having it's right to know removed; such is shown to exist by the meaning and language of the BILL as a prejudice and “Manifest Injustice” to the prisoners, tortured and potential subjects as defined under the BILL.
                      c.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 8”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

9. NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC. § 9. RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"Bill of Rights Section §  9. 1. No law shall be passed abridging the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government, or any department   thereof;"
 
                             a.    The BILL and similar laws, by allowance to have prisoners, tortured and potential subjects codified as it does as interchangeable actions and status, does by such language and meaning is as a “PROCLAMATION” of a “BILL OF ATTAINDER”, which in consideration that the NYS PBH and MHY and the BILL are combined together, do accomplish such actions by committee; which amounts to such a committee being a “BILL OF ATTAINDER”, enforcing the BILL as another “BILL OF ATTAINDER” law action. That such is to be extant under NYS law, it's effect will and can be that those that oppose such tyrannical laws, can and could be determined to be persons whom disagreeing as incompetent and duly appreciated as interfering with the sanction of law process to be therefore deemed incompetent. Such protesters under the Articles right to assemble can be officially labeled “potential subjects” by NYS PBH committee as incompetents and their rights waived for research or experiment without their knowledge and or consent, to the effect that they would therefore become subjects and come in under the BILL as laws criteria for  use of defined torture upon them as pain, suffering and harm. Such wavier of consent experiments without the knowledge and consent of the unwitting subject sovereign person conscripted is by fraud under the BILL as law or without the BILLS actions, by NYS PBH laws and extensions of those laws policy. Such as the aforementioned are a prejudice by potential harm by the latitude of the Bills language and meaning, to subscribe any person on mere suspicion, is a prejudice and “Manifest Injustice”, that would be sanctioned by the latitude of the Bills language and meaning; being entirely unconstitutional and illegal under the current CONSTITUTION and laws of NYS.  
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws, has no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 9”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      c.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

10. NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC. § 11 NO PERSON SHALL BE DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR ANY SUBDIVISION THEREOF, ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"Bill of Rights Section § 11.  No  person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his  or her  civil  rights  by  any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state."

                      a.    Would according to the BILL and similar laws be abrogated, according to its words in entirety, does by them the effect as to wholly abrogate the BILL and all of it's meaning, acts and PROCLAMATIONS, where the foundation of this Sections words being generally, “no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof....or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state”. Where the BILL is entirely contrary to this guaranteed right, by the issue that the BILL has defined “torture” and “prisoner” defined in such a way as to be contradictory to the NYS laws and practices currently in force. As well the BILL seeks to enter foreign to the NYS jurisdiction authority preferences of investigation and treatment of prisoners. The BILL abolishes this Section 11, in a capitulation to federal and other unknown authorities usurpation of the legal framework of NYS and other states.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 11”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      c.     That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

11. NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  § 12. SECURITY  AGAINST   UNREASONABLE   SEARCHES,   SEIZURES   AND  INTERCEPTIONS. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"xi.   Bill of Rights Section § 12.  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches  and seizures,  shall not  be  violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the  place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of  telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated, and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation  that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained,  and  identifying  the  particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose  communications  are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof."

                      a.    Would according to the BILL and similar laws be abrogated, according to its quoted words as follows, that even in the extreme that a person has “ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained,  and  identifying  the  particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof”; such act is still and of NYS law to enable the making of a New Yorker a prisoner and thereby is a part of the NYS process of investigative powers of NYS authorities; such extreme acts upon a New Yorker is in context of the BILL, is one of the first steps of enabling the making of a person a prisoner and contradicts the issue of the BILL that defines a prisoner as a person whom as a prisoner would not be subjected to the BILL'S definitions of torture and therefore is as a portion of the process of investigation by it's stating, “no  person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof....or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state”, does represent the limits of the State of New York as pertains to arrest, arraignment, trial, sentencing and punishment, all of which have no torture permitted as defined.
                      b.    Whereas investigative procedures Proclaimed as allowed by the BILL and similar laws are for an investigation in parallel to this Sec. 12, as illegal acts defined as torture for extraction of information under lawful sanction. The Sec. 11 is as a prohibition of the BILL in questions proposed new methods of investigation, and is illegal to do according to the Sec. 11 being the limits of investigative powers of the State of New York and also according to the laws of NYS, the Bills proclamation that torture is allowed when under lawful sanction is illegal. If allowed to become law, the BILL will result in onerous legal battles to undo its medieval methods. In history similar means were used as dunking under water or beat suspects of a crime or ideological issue as a method to make them confess they were guilty and when they did not they were again dunked until they confessed or died of drowning, as persons merely suspected. Obviously as a matter of self preservation such persons to save themselves from the immediate perceived danger of drowning or beaten confessed even when innocent. That we have not learned that such behavior by authorities is contrary to obtain information is akin to going back in time. We must move foreword and leave such actions of torture as activities that deserve to be attacked and brought down or else we will have become what our nation has stood against. That it is said we become what we hate, must be tempered by the civil laws here in NYS, since the day of the State of NY as a colony began on the nineteenth day of April, one thousand  seven hundred  seventy-five, we have as a colony and state to strive to become more advanced and not more backwards.
                      c.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 12”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      d.    That the BILL contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

12. “NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  § 14. COMMON LAW AND ACTS OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES.  ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"Bill of Rights Section § 14. Such parts of the common law, and of the acts of the legislature of  the  colony  of  New  York, as together did form the law of the said colony, on the nineteenth day  of  April,  one thousand  seven  hundred seventy-five, and the resolutions of the congress of the said colony, and of the convention of  the State  of New York,  in  force  on  the twentieth  day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-seven, which have not since expired, or been repealed or altered; and  such  acts  of the legislature of this state as are now in force, shall be and continue the  law  of  this state, subject to such alterations as the legislature shall make concerning the same. But all such parts of  the  common  law, and  such  of the said acts, or parts thereof, as are repugnant to this constitution, are hereby abrogated."

                      a.    would according to the BILL and similar laws be abrogated, according to it's quoted words as follows, “...But all such parts of  the  common  law, and  such  of  the said acts, or parts thereof, as are repugnant to this constitution, are hereby abrogated”. Where the BILL in question does enable not only the principles of many of the NYS Bill of Rights effect and purpose, as well will also cause by its action by and through litigation, evolve into common law that will at that stage of the BILL being law will cause detrimental effects to the cause and effect again of Sec. § 14 being reinstated where the BILL in question had caused its abrogation.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 14”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      c.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

13.  “NYS BILL OF RIGHTS SEC.  § 16.  DAMAGES FOR INJURIES CAUSING DEATH. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"Bill of Rights Section  § 16. The right of action now existing to recover damages for injuries resulting in death, shall never be abrogated; and the amount recoverable shall not be subject to any statutory limitation."

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws allows for those designated prisoners, tortured, improperly treated, adversely affected persons and potential subjects; where there is no mentioned limit as to whether such treatment “MUST NOT BE LETHAL”. In the construction of the BILL as a contract, such egregious actions upon persons besides abrogating other NYS Constitution Article Sections has by its vagueness left the issue open ended as to the limits of egregious treatment allowed. The BILL notwithstanding that it should not exist due to unconstitutionality should have stated that the limits of egregious harm stops short of death or death of all organs and tissue of the human body, not that the BILL in fact should not exist at all, which it should not, it is a cataclysmic catastrophe.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws as an issue of its actions upon its designated prisoners, tortured, improperly treated, adversely affected persons and potential subjects; has notwithstanding that it should not exist due to unconstitutionality, exonerates the State of New York for liability by the conditional prohibition of “torture” as the BILL defines, by the exemption that, “Torture...does  not  include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanction.”.
                      c.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 16”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws have allowance for authorities of NYS, federal and unknown entities to have PROCLAMATION of exemptions as defined by the definition of “TORTURE”  for NYS is not by itself excluding from NYS liability accidental death by the actions of the BILL upon those affected as designated prisoners, tortured, improperly treated, adversely affected persons and potential subjects. Such a claim of exemption of liability by the BILL'S language that the prohibition of health care providers and authorities of NYS, is a contradiction of this Article Section.
                      e.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

14. NYS ARTICLE VI JUDICIARY,  (SECTION 18. A.) TRIAL BY JURY; TRIAL  WITHOUT  A  JURY;  CLAIMS  AGAINST  THE STATE.   ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"§ 18.  a. Trial by jury is guaranteed as provided in article one of this constitution. The legislature may provide  that  in  any  court  of original jurisdiction  a  jury  shall  be composed of six or of twelve persons and may authorize any court which shall have jurisdiction  over crimes  and other  violations  of  law, other than crimes prosecuted by indictment, to try such matters without a jury, provided, however,  that crimes prosecuted by  indictment  shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve persons, unless a jury trial  has  been  waived  as  provided  in section two of article one of this constitution."

                             a.    The BILL and similar laws makes no qualification that those designated prisoners, tortured, improperly treated, adversely affected persons and potential subjects have been given NYS public due process of any kind, with or without a jury; is contrary to this Article Section. The BILL encroaches upon judicial obligation and destroys the judicial integrity to conform all NYS due process proceedings.
                              b.    The BILL and similar laws will create a new class of “DECIDERS'' as authorities whom can bypass the judicial system of NYS, so that NYS authorities or federal authorities or unknown entities whom have a sanctioned designated prisoner, tortured person, improperly treated person, adversely affected person and potential subject person, can do whatever they want to those persons. Where the BILL does not imply that any of those designated prisoners, tortured, improperly treated, adversely affected persons and potential subjects have been given public due process advocated by all 50 states of the UNION. Those “Deciders” are the judges, taking the jobs of NYS judges and carrying out actions of the equivalent of NYS judges and justices without any reference to their qualification and training, albeit that the entire issue is unconstitutional to begin with, it is pointed out that the BILL in all of its parts and considerations is unconstitutional and illegal; particularly in regard to the aforementioned issue being the BILL abrogates the meaning and purpose of the judiciary of this Article Section.
                      c.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 18” a., has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

15. NYS ARTICLE VI JUDICIARY,  (Section 18. b.)  THE LEGISLATURE MAY PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER OF TRIAL OF ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE.  ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"§ 18. b. The legislature may provide for the manner of trial of actions and proceedings involving claims against the state."

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws seeks to remove NYS liability linkage from acts of torture legally sanctioned and not legally sanctioned, is by NYS current law and unconstitutional, to have the BILL create a new class of designated prisoners, tortured, improperly treated, adversely affected persons and potential subjects and inferred “DECIDERS' taking the place of judiciary, by their being no mention of whether such egregiously affected persons under the Bills definitions have been given due process or will be given such or habeas corpus. That liability be so restricted where the Legislature is authorizing the egregious acts by creating the definitions of torture and prisoner separate form the typical under current NYS Code as by the NYS CONSTITUTION is unconstitutional.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 18 b.”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      c.    The presumption by tyrants is that they are better judges than the well thought out NYS CONSTITUTION, where such legislator on behalf of any entity federal or foreign, claim for them “illegitimate” unconstitutional right, to be the better judge and abrogate a NYS Article Section or law; is a travesty of the ideal that kings and committees are better to judge a person to be a prisoner or to torture them. The NYS PBH waiver law by committee has the same composition of unconstitutionality by vagueness and esoteric seeking of knowledge at the expense of a person(s) rights and health, those NYS PBH committees using the bodies of sovereign New Yorkers as subjects in research and or experiment without “PUBLIC DUE PROCESS OVERSIGHT”, pretend to know better, are really pretenders of being brutal royalty.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

16. NYS ARTICLE VI JUDICIARY,  (Section 33) EXISTING LAWS TO CONTINUE IN FORCE; LEGISLATURE TO IMPLEMENT ARTICLE..  ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

"§  33.  Existing  provisions of law not inconsistent with this article shall continue in force until repealed, amended, modified or  superseded in accordance with the provisions of this article. The legislature shall enact appropriate laws to carry into effect the purposes and provisions of this article, and may, for the purpose of implementing, supplementing or clarifying any of its provisions, enact any  laws,  not inconsistent with the provisions of this article, necessary or desirable in promoting the objectives of this article."
                      
                      a.    The unconstitutionality of the BILL and similar laws abrogates “ARTICLE VI Judiciary”, illustrated by Plaintiffs' points of law arguments regarding “ARTICLE VI Judiciary § 18. (a, b)”.  Those arguments are here restated in their entirety as an issue that the Legislature has the BILL as PROCLAMATION of definitions that are “inconsistent” with the  ARTICLE VI Judiciary.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws is theretofore not possible to sanction by the Judiciary under this Article Section, because the “Deciders'” as NYS authorities federal authorities and unknown entities are the new judges and justices, upon the BILL becoming law.
                      c.     In order for the judiciary of judges and justices to exist heretofore the BILL must not be allowed to become law on the First of January the year 2011.  Otherwise NYS judges and justices will become mere ceremonial and their actions allowed by the authorities that conscripted their power selective as to the application of the good old day laws of a fair public due process judicial system.
                      d.    The BILL and similar laws, has no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 33”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      e.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

17. ARTICLE XIII PUBLIC OFFICERS,   SEC. 1. OATH OF OFFICE; NO OTHER TEST FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;
                      
"ARTICLE XIII, Public Officers, Section 1. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial,  except  such  inferior  officers as shall be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do  solemnly  swear (or  affirm)  that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution  of  the  State  of  New  York,  and that  I  will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ............, according to  the  best of  my  ability; " and no other oath, declaration or test shall be required as a qualification for any  office  of  public trust,"

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws clearly contradicts and abrogates this Article Section, where the call for all officers, executive and judicial to subscribe the following oath or affirmation, to solemnly swear (or affirm), to support the Constitution of the State of New York. The effect of the BILL becoming law will be that their solemn oath or affirmation will be to a NYS Constitution by the selective enforcement of it beneath the NYS authorities being able to circumvent it through the BILL for issues of, investigation, probable cause, arrest, indictment, arraignment, trial, punishment, habeas corpus and many other civil rights related processes of NYS law enforcement the actions of NYS prosecutors and judiciary and penal institutions.                     
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws effect will be a wild west allowance of authorities becoming the  judge,  jury and executioner without a NYS duly appointed sworn in judge or jury where their decision is allowed to go to an appealed status. The BILL allows for DEFENDANTS to hire anybody at all and authorize them by sanction and exemption of the BILL as law, to haul New Yorkers into NYS Public Health facilities on mere suspicion, take them and hold them indefinitely and torture them indefinitely and do wavier of consent experiments on them as subject persons or prisoner(s); as Plaintiffs are being held and egregiously beaten using electronic in vivo devices as  DEFENDANTS' facilities today in Plaintiffs bodies in their own house and everywhere they go.
                      c.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 1”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

18. ARTICLE XIX AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION,  SEC. 1. AMENDMENTS  TO  CONSTITUTION;  HOW  PROPOSED, VOTED  UPON AND RATIFIED; FAILURE  OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL TO RENDER OPINION NOT TO AFFECT VALIDITY. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;
                     
"Section  1.  Any  amendment  or amendments to this constitution may be
proposed  in  the  senate  and  assembly  whereupon  such  amendment  or
amendments shall be referred to the attorney-general whose duty it shall
be  within twenty days thereafter to render an opinion in writing to the
senate and assembly as to the effect of  such  amendment  or  amendments
upon  other provisions of the constitution. Upon receiving such opinion,
if the amendment or amendments as proposed or as amended shall be agreed
to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses,  such
proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, and
the  ayes  and  noes  taken  thereon,  and  referred to the next regular
legislative session convening after the succeeding general  election  of
members  of  the  assembly,  and  shall  be  published  for three months
previous to the time of making such choice; and if in  such  legislative
session,  such  proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by a
majority of all the members elected to each house, then it shall be  the
duty  of the legislature to submit each proposed amendment or amendments
to the people for approval in such manner  and  at  such  times  as  the
legislature  shall prescribe; and if the people shall approve and ratify
such amendment or amendments  by  a  majority  of  the  electors  voting
thereon,  such  amendment  or  amendments  shall  become  a  part of the
constitution on the first day  of  January  next  after  such  approval.
Neither  the  failure  of  the  attorney-general  to  render  an opinion
concerning such a proposed amendment nor his or her  failure  to  do  so
timely   shall  affect  th*  validity  of  such  proposed  amendment  or
legislative action thereon.  *So in original. ("th" should be "the".)"

                      a.    The BILL and similar laws abrogates the entire action and purpose of the Article Section, by the BILL'S usurpation of the NYS CONSTITUTION'S many Article's Sections.
                      b.    The BILL and similar laws are unconstitutional and illegal in it PROCLAIMING precedence to this NYS CONSTITUTIONS Article and many other Articles' Sections.
                      c.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 1”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

19. ARTICLE XIX AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION, SEC. 2. FUTURE CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTIONS;  HOW  CALLED;  ELECTION  OF DELEGATES;  COMPENSATION;  QUORUM;  SUBMISSION OF AMENDMENTS; OFFICERS; EMPLOYEES; RULES; VACANCIES. ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;

“§  2.  At the general election to be held in the year nineteen hundred
fifty-seven, and every twentieth year thereafter, and also at such times
as the legislature may by law provide, the question "Shall  there  be  a
convention  to  revise  the  constitution  and amend the same?" shall be
submitted to and decided by the electors of the state;  and  in  case  a
majority  of  the  electors  voting  thereon  shall decide in favor of a
convention for such purpose, the electors of every  senate  district  of
the  state,  as  then organized, shall elect three delegates at the next
ensuing general election, and the electors of the state  voting  at  the
same  election  shall elect fifteen delegates-at-large. The delegates so
elected shall convene at the capitol on the first Tuesday of April  next
ensuing after their election, and shall continue their session until the
business  of  such  convention shall have been completed”           
                 

                      a.    Restated from the previous Section (19. ARTICLE XIX...) still accurately applies, that the BILL abrogates the entire action and purpose of this Article Section, by the BILL and similar laws usurpation of the NYS CONSTITUTION'S many Article's Sections.
                      b.    Restated from the previous Section still accurately applies, that the  BILL and similar laws are unconstitutional and illegal in it PROCLAIMING precedence to the NYS CONSTITUTION'S this and many other Article's Sections.
                      c.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “Bill of Rights Section 2”, has language and meaning that the BILL abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and ARTICLE XX Section 1.
                      d.    That the BILL and similar laws contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.

20. ARTICLE XX  SEC. 1. TIME OF TAKING EFFECT, ACCORDING TO THE (BILL S. 4495-A) AS LAW WOULD ABROGATE THE SECTION, SEE;
                       
"When to Take Effect Section  1. This constitution shall be in force from and including the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred thirty-nine, except  as herein otherwise provided."

                             a.    The BILL and similar laws abrogates the NYS CONSTITUTION in so many of its Articles Sections, as to be accurately construed as the NEW YORK ANTI CONSTITUTION BILL, such that it contradicts the general meaning and purpose of the time honored and generally wise creation from wisdom, does constitute a direct relation of this Article XX.
                             b.    The BILL and similar laws, have no legitimacy to mitigate the current NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws; where this “ARTICLE XX Section 1.”, has language and meaning that the BILL and similar laws abolishes without a “Constitutional Convention”, regarding ARTICLE XIX Sections 1,2 and 3.
                             c.     If sovereign New Yorkers have such as the BILL and similar law are allowed to attain the status of law or remain law, we as sovereigns shall cease being sovereigns and become “subjects” of a government that has by the BILL and similar law our reassignment to second class among legislators being then the superior class of persons of the State of New York. Furthermore such action can be quantified that New Yorkers being placed by the Legislature and Governor into a status of being punished by rescinding our civil rights in accordance with mere suspicion, is by such use of suspicion too easily capricious in its invocation as to be selective and a prejudice to have as a law, therefore accordingly the entire action of creation of a second class of citizens whether directly affected, they are affected by the potential harm of being therefore suspected and by that being a suspect are a subject and altogether being under a “Bill of ATTAINDER”; unconstitutional and illegal to initiate by the definitions and provisions of the BILL under NYS CONSTITUTION.
                             d.    That the actions of the  BILL S. 4495-A are of a “BILL OF ATTAINDER”, the actions of the BILL are by the NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS LAW, are wholly unconstitutional and in breach of the laws of the State of New York. The BILL seeks to deprive life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by their NYS Civil Rights. Furthermore the BILL qualifies by inclusion NYS PBH wavier of consent in context of this complaints facts and legal analysis of the NYS PBH wavier of consent laws as also being NYS law that is a “BILL OF ATTAINDER”, that must be mitigated as an issue to preclude persons from being conscripted as subjects without public due process; where in the NYS PBH and MHY such “BILL OF ATTAINDER” legislation and policy exist as onerous and supporting of the BILL in question exist, as to be essential to a judicial decision if that decision is not to become a prejudice and “Manifest Injustice“ to all subjects now and in the future under the NYS PBH and MHY, whom have had no NYS public due process.
                             e.    If sovereign New Yorkers have such as the BILL allowed to attain the status of law, we as sovereigns shall cease being sovereigns and become “subjects” OF A SUPERIOR RULING CLASS CALLED THE NYS AUTHORITIES AS THE PRINCES AND PRINCESSES WITH A LORD GOVERNOR SERVING AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT KING.
                             f.    That the BILL contradicts the aforementioned Section(s) is grounds for the BILL being prevented from attaining law by judicial decision by its character of a Bill of Attainder and that being the case precludes the BILL from application in this Plaintiffs' instant case; such that the Court must find the BILL or any equivalent fitting law of the Plaintiffs' complaint to be moot as to its legal weight.   

      We, Deborah Lamb and John Mecca are being experimented on by torture devices proven to be inside our bodies covertly surgically installed, proven by an IEEE test, the local police told John in person they were sanctioning the attacks that destroy a persons immune system too, they are using devices that emit radio and electric energy.  The Bill will combine with and increase the power of the devils' laws vaguely written allowing for us to be assaulted and tortured by the NY Code - Article 24-A: PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS which has been used, we believe to have us used in an experiment involving the implanted torture devices. We are two citizens of New York and the United States fighting for our lives and our freedoms in which this Bill as law would make it nearly a certainty that it would take away any remedy and due process of stopping such serious atrocities as we being tortured can be thereby asserted by authorities to be prisoners.  Non-consensual human experimentation of electronic torture by implanted devices is happening to us as well as many victims throughout the United States. 

      The authors and supporters of this Bill should remember that despite the Bills wrappers intentions therein, the authorities will ultimately reading a law written into the Public Health Code on the basis of its face value and allowed by law to interpret it as they find it written and they will extend it and make constructions, where the letter of the law is dictated by vague wording, grievous and permanent error will result as it has with our being conscripted for human experimentation, which we are fighting in court with great difficulty. We invite you to discuss these and further ramifications of the New York Legislature Bill as it is worded now, please call us so that the issues of contention can be further discussed as to how to modify the language so that the Bill is Constitutional according to the revered New York State CONSTITUTION.  We are hoping to hear from you for constructive dialogue.


Sincerely,


John Mecca & Deborah Lamb
631-360-1557




CC:
Senator Tom Duane
Assembly member Richard N. Gottfried
Senator John J. Flanagan
Assemblyman Michael J. Fitzpatrick

<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>


                     In New York it has been discovered that the federal state and local governments are involved in a combined attack upon untold numbers of people in all 50 States. The Plaintiffs in the case, two New Yorkers explain there are State and federal laws as combined policy that allow authorities to do anything they want, to anyone across the Nation. Those laws and policy have been quietly used by local governments for decades. The Plaintiffs court case “excerpt“ exposes the legal methods that have been in use and their legal invocation of their Constitutional rights in a desperate effort to bring a halt to the deadly illegal actions of government gone mad. 

                     We, the Plaintiffs will not win our active case as of September 18, 2010 if the Bill becomes Law; and the Laws that they have on the books that have been used illegally will be made legal by the Bill.  You and your families will  then face the cataclysm of the BILL or other similar legislation. If this case causes those that are promoting the BILL to remove it for political reasons, it may be that those behind the BILL, will start a new BILL in another state without us knowing about it and that it might become law into all other states through the 50 state interstate compact they all belong to. So you “MUST” spread the word and be diligent and keep watch on all legislation, that another similar bill is unable to be sneaked into law in parts, unless you don't mind waking up to a RED CHINESE legal framework.


VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN QUALIFIES, AS FACT THAT IMPLANTS ARE AMONG US NOW!



NOW VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S WORDS HAVE PROPHETICALLY COME TO PASS, WHERE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATORS, ARE BEING MINDFUL OF THE FEDERAL AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS, TO ENTER LAW FOR INCLUSION OF FEDERAL STYLE RENDITIONS INTO THE STATE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE'S OF AS FEW AS 5 PERSONS TO PASS JUDGMENT OF WHETHER YOUR ACTIVISM THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES YOU PROTEST ABOUT BY YOUR ACTIVIST WRITINGS; CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS A CRIME AND HARM TO THE STATE, JUSTIFYING YOU AS GUILTY BY SUSPICION ALONE OF THE NEW PUBLIC HEALTH CRIME LAW. SO THAT YOU CAN NOW BE FOUND GUILTY BY WHAT AND HOW YOU THINK UNDER STATE LAW WITHOUT PUBLIC DUE PROCESS. THE FALABILITY OF MACHINES IS INDISPUTABLE, WE CANNOT RELY ON A MACHINE FOR JUDGMENT OF A HUMAN BEING. IMPLANTS ARE NOW BEING USED IN PEOPLE TO TEST THE IMPLANTS ABILITY TO DEPRECIATE THE IMMUNE SYSTEMS OF THE TEST SUBJECTS AND TO COERSIVELY CAUSE INTENSE PAIN. IMPLANTS ARE THE NEW FACILITY, NO WALLS, NO OVERHEAD COST, CONVIENIENT FOR THE AUTHORITIES IN OUR THROW AWAY SOCIETY, THROWING AWAY PEOPLE WITHOUT PUBLIC DUE PROCESS, SECRETLY AND SILENTLY, THE STATE AUTHORITIES AS JUDGE JURY AND EXECUTIONER! THE PERFECT ADDITION TO MANDITORY HEALTHCARE! THEY THINK OUR CONSTITUTION IS JUST A PIECE OF PAPER, THEY HAVE TESTED YOU AND COUNT ON YOU DOING NOTHING!

                     What you need to do to preserve your family's safety is to call your State representatives and tell them you don't want any laws that allow for federal style renditions or other similar legislation to be allowed in your state, that causes effects that a normal person would call punishment without public due process. Write, call or email them, when you finish reading how such a Law could allow that one day you may wake up to a knock on the door from police with an order to take into custody you or a family member; because the BILL allows for its sanctions of torture on mere suspicion of a politically incorrect belief or association.  Just like it was some misdemeanor in China, to be reeducated by some facility using torture and failing to break their will were executed without your states' public due process.  Or that after a visit to the dentist or hospital you wake up to find you or a family member were somehow changed by covertly implanting devices in your body or you wake up changed from authorities sneaking into your home and installing devices in your bodies without your knowledge or consent; which under the present laws is not legal or allowed. In fact thousands of people across the nation have woken up to have just such tragedy happen to them or a family member, some have found evidence that they have been surgically installed with some device. The laws of the States provides for keeping their actions from the person under research or experiment.

                     When a person is sanctioned under law, the subsequent laws allow for them to be legally kept from that knowledge by the NYS Mental Hygiene 33.16 law for confidentiality. That laws text states clearly that the person they are affecting and their lawyer can be refused even acknowledgment if the information of what is being done to them will cause “liability” to the NYS authorities.

                     The stealthy way legislators have structured laws with additional meaning for legal allowances is important to remember in order to understand what the law actually means and allows, one of those  words is “facility”, often seen in laws has a dual meaning of a remote control device in the body and another word being “interrogation” can mean radio transmissions to and from transceivers located inside the body that the authorities will use to affect a person referenced under the law where those words are used. This is important so that when you read laws you'll understand what the intent of laws can encompass.  They often use language that has hidden meaning in these bills.

                     The BILL appears to have been designed to make legal the horrific actions of causing excruciating pain, destroying the immune system and depreciation of mental acuity of people being experimented on. The BILL allows for persons being experimented on to be boosted to the status of prisoners. The BILL could be used to take those who are being experimented on away to Public or Mental Hygiene facilities to stop them from exposing the activity, besides the laws use for activists, inventors, the politically active and those that the authorities want to get rid of, for knowing of their corruption. The BILL by its wording illustrates that its making torture legal has the connotation that there is a plan to for it to be used on many more people who waking up to the corruption of leading authorities that are responsible for the economic depression. A possible reason for the BILL allowing torture is that the authorities know the current nation wide depression may worsen and people eventually will want the authorities responsible to be punished. The BILL as law will give those authorities the legal tool to attack those that dare to oppose their ruining the country and installing a Nazi government. The use of covert electronic weapons as well will be used legally with the new law to keep the mainstream population from finding out, as the implants and silent radar pulse weapons. The Media are aware and are co-opted to maintain silence. Any possibility of stopping the BILL and similar laws will be to work on a grass roots level, as one person telling as many others as possible and not to depend on media talk show hosts to get the job done for stopping the destruction of our State CONSTITUTIONS.

                     Torture and improper treatment will be legal for state authorities in every state to use on anyone they wish to torture. The BILL enters itself as law into NYS Public Health which overlaps into NYS Mental Hygiene where it  would cause “ALL” states of the Union to be under the New York law by where the states already have a unified interstate compact making the new BILL as law active in any state by overlapping through the compact into the other 49 states, affecting everyone.

 “N.Y. MHY. LAW § 67.07 : NY Code - Section 67.07: Interstate compact”

                     The BILL states it is also for “related matters”, means that the BILL as law allows for its use for other unspecified uses that the state authorities wish to use it for. It also does mean that it grants latitude to allow the NYS authorities, federal authorities and authorized foreigners to use the law for any reason they deem fit; besides the clear and obvious meaning that the law has as is outlined further here in the BILLS description of purpose directly stated.

Section  1.  Legislative  policy and intent. This legislation is based
on, and is intended to give effect to, international treaties and stand-
ards; federal, state and local law; and professional standards  relating
to  torture, improper treatment of prisoners, and related matters.

                     The BILL states NYS authorities are allowed to torture and cause improper treatment of persons described as prisoners, patients and potential subjects, as long as the person to be tortured has “lawful sanction” placed upon them by authorities;

 §  22. 1 Definitions (b)
(b)  "Torture"  means  any  intentional act or intentional omission by
which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is inflicted
on a person for such purposes as obtaining from the  person  or  from  a
third  person  information  or a confession, punishing the person for an
act the person or a third person has committed (including the holding of
a belief or membership in any group) or is suspected of  having  commit-
ted,  or  intimidating  or coercing the person or a third person, or for
any reason based on discrimination of any kind.   It  does  not  include
pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful
Sanction.


                     Nowhere in the BILL is lawful sanction defined as NYS public due process, because there is non given or needed, under NYS PBH 2444 a person faulted for their beliefs or associations is therfore incompetent and thereby allowed by a small committee of Public Health allowed to give a virtual sentence without NYS public due process.

                     That the aforementioned is not bad enough, the BILL grants by “context” the allowance to carry out “torture and improper treatment”, when “not” sanctioned by law and also in the extreme, where “not” under color of law, by a double meaning of the following words, “unless the context clearly requires otherwise”, according to the BILL'S language, SEE;

§  22.  Participation in torture or improper treatment of prisoners by health care professionals.  1. Definitions. As used in this section, the terms "torture" and "improper treatment" shall be interpreted in accord-ance with applicable international treaties, principles and standards as well as the decisions, observations and recommendations  of  the  corre-sponding interpreting bodies. However, for the purposes of this section, it  shall  not be an element of either "torture" or "improper treatment" that such acts be committed by a  government  or  non-government  actor, entity,  or  official; under color of law; or not under color of law. As used in this section, unless the context clearly requires otherwise,


                     The health care professionals are defined by the BILL as being authorized by “exemption”, which means a foreign vagrant can be offered a job to torture and the authorities have them defined by exemption as a health care professional.

(a) "Health care professional" means any person licensed,  registered,
certified, or exempt to practice under (i)

                     The fraudulent BILL is jam packed with double meaning wording that has latitude by verbiage as a subterfuge that allows contradictory and additional meanings as to the BILLS latitude of lawful sanctions for allowing torture and egregious treatment that can by its wording to be based on a persons beliefs of religion, political leanings, lifestyle, associations, business, hairstyle, music, career, hobbies and extends even to what a person eats by its very vague guidelines. As there are no defined guidelines, except by the will of DEFENDANTS secret  NYS Public Health committees and tribunals, composed of as little as five individuals having their identities maintained as a secret by the current DEFENDANTS laws of NYS PBH and MHY and other of DEFENDANTS laws Remember torture is lawful where the say it is and as that is fact the issue is stated below torture can be sanctioned under law and also with exemption by using context for “including the holding of  a belief or membership in any group”, SEE:.

 §  22. 1 Definitions (b)
(b)  "Torture"  means  any  intentional act or intentional omission by
which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is inflicted
on a person for such purposes as obtaining from the  person  or  from  a
third  person  information  or a confession, punishing the person for an
act the person or a third person has committed (including the holding of
a belief or membership in any group) or is suspected of  having  commit-
ted,  or  intimidating  or coercing the person or a third person, or for
any reason based on discrimination of any kind.   It  does  not  include
pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful
sanction.

                     The BILL is a PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, that will be used for determining who needs a reeducation camp or death, where the curriculum is behavior modification by Pavlovian induction of neural tuning being torture, where their “health care professional” could say to the New Yorker under their control, this is NYS Public Health and what we do here is legal and good for you, to the prisoner or human subject, that what they are experiencing is not torture but is instead reactive data transmission the New Yorker needs. If the torture fails the person can be executed, or organically destroy their brain to an incoherent state. The “health care professional”, will say, the pain you feel is not pain but is your brain learning, the professional could explain, is not torture, we are modifying you and aiding society with this new law, your New Yorker beliefs and associations and your way of life are actionable under the new BILL as law.


                     That BILL PROCLAIMS that inside NYS, as it directly states, all forms of entities of unofficial origin without special official status can subject a prisoner to actions that vary from punishment to interrogation to death by the BILL, where also the definition of words in the BILL of “facility” and “interrogation” do potentially imply surgical installation of in vivo devices for purposes of interrogation, intimidation, coercion and execution through connection of NYS PBH law 2444 human research and experiment; is allowable by DEFENDANTS without due process, as no NYS public due process is mentioned in association with the prisoner, it means such person is sanction-able merely by being a person whom is held and or controlled. Such PROCLAMATION of NYS granting permission from NYS or NYS authorities or the federal government is both unconstitutional by NYS Bill of Rights Sections and in NYS illegal to have a prisoner subjected to punishment, detention,  incarceration,  interrogation,  intimidation  or coercion, without NYS public due process before a jury of peers.   The BILL 4495-A definition of prisoner, SEE;

§  22.1.  (d)  "Prisoner"  means  any  person  who  is  subject  to punishment, detention, incarceration,  interrogation,  intimidation  or coercion,regardless of whether such action is performed or committed by a govern-ment  or  non-government actor, entity, or official; under color of law; or not under color of law.

_____________________________________________

The Full Verbatim Text Of BILL 4495—A. 

                              STATE OF NEW YORK   
                                       BILL  4495—A
                               2009-2010 Regular Sessions
                              IN SENATE  April 24, 2009

    Introduced  by  Sens.  DUANE, KRUEGER, PERKINS -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee  on  Health --  committee  discharged,  bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to said committee AN ACT to amend the public health law, the education law and  the  labor law,  in relation to prohibiting participation in torture and improper treatment of prisoners by health care professionals The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and  Assem-bly, do enact as follows:

     1    Section  1.  Legislative  policy and intent. This legislation is based
     2  on, and is intended to give effect to, international treaties and stand-
     3  ards; federal, state and local law; and professional standards  relating
     4  to  torture, improper treatment of prisoners, and related matters. It is
     5  guided by two basic principles: (1) health care professionals  shall  be
     6  dedicated  to  providing  the  highest  standard  of  health  care, with
     7  compassion and respect for human dignity and rights; and (2) torture and
     8  improper treatment of prisoners are  wrong  and  inconsistent  with  the
     9  practice  of the health care professions. The legislature finds that the
    10  conduct prohibited by this act violates  the  ethical  and  legal  obli-
    11  gations  of  licensed  health care professionals.  This legislation will
    12  further protect the professionalism of New York  state  licensed  health
    13  care  professionals  by  authorizing  and  obligating  them to refuse to
    14  participate in torture and improper treatment  of  prisoners,  which  in
    15  turn  will  protect  the  life and health of the people of the state and
    16  those with whom New York licensed health care professionals interact.  A
    17  health care professional who comes to the aid of a prisoner  should  not
    18  be  presumed to be in violation when she or he is fulfilling the ethical
    19  principle of beneficence. In contrast, a health care  professional  who,
    20  for example, attends to a prisoner in order to allow torture or improper
    21  treatment  to  commence  or  continue is not acting beneficently.   Such
    22  practices are inconsistent with professional ethics  and  standards  and
    23  are  violations  of  this legislation.   The legislature is mindful that
    24  ordinarily there are limits on New York state's jurisdiction relating to
    25  conduct outside the state or under federal  authority.  However,  it  is
 
         EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                              [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                                   LBD00774-07-9

        S. 4495--A                          2
 
     1  proper  for  the state to regulate health care professional licensure in
     2  relation to a professional's conduct,  even  where  the  conduct  occurs
     3  outside  the  state;  certain  wrongful  out-of-state conduct is already
     4  grounds  for professional discipline. Therefore, it is the legislature's
     5  intent that this legislation be applied to the fullest extent possible.
     6    § 2. The public health law is amended by adding a new  section  22  to
     7  read as follows:
     8    §  22.  Participation in torture or improper treatment of prisoners by
     9  health care professionals.  1. Definitions. As used in this section, the
    10  terms "torture" and "improper treatment" shall be interpreted in accord-
    11  ance with applicable international treaties, principles and standards as
    12  well as the decisions, observations and recommendations  of  the  corre-
    13  sponding interpreting bodies. However, for the purposes of this section,
    14  it  shall  not be an element of either "torture" or "improper treatment"
    15  that such acts be committed by a  government  or  non-government  actor,
    16  entity,  or  official; under color of law; or not under color of law. As
    17  used in this section, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the
    18  following terms have the following meanings:
    19    (a) "Health care professional" means any person licensed,  registered,
    20  certified, or exempt to practice under (i) any of the following articles
    21  of  the  education  law:  one hundred thirty-one (medicine), one hundred
    22  thirty-one-B  (physician  assistants  and  specialist  assistants),  one
    23  hundred  thirty-two  (chiropractic), one hundred thirty-three (dentistry
    24  and dental hygiene), one hundred thirty-six (physical therapy and  phys-
    25  ical  therapist  assistants),  one  hundred thirty-seven (pharmacy), one
    26  hundred thirty-nine (nursing), one hundred forty (professional midwifery
    27  practice act), one hundred forty-one (podiatry), one hundred forty-three
    28  (optometry), one hundred forty-four (ophthalmic dispensing), one hundred
    29  fifty-three (psychology), one  hundred  fifty-four  (social  work),  one
    30  hundred  fifty-five  (massage  therapy),  one hundred fifty-six (occupa-
    31  tional therapy), one hundred fifty-seven (dietetics and nutrition),  one
    32  hundred  fifty-nine (speech-language pathologists and audiologists), one
    33  hundred sixty (acupuncture),  one  hundred  sixty-three  (mental  health
    34  practitioners),  one  hundred  sixty-four  (respiratory  therapists  and
    35  respiratory therapy technicians), one hundred sixty-five (clinical labo-
    36  ratory technology practice act), or one hundred sixty-six (medical phys-
    37  ics practice), or (ii) article thirty-five of this chapter (practice  of
    38  radiologic technology).
    39    (b)  "Torture"  means  any  intentional act or intentional omission by
    40  which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is inflicted
    41  on a person for such purposes as obtaining from the  person  or  from  a
    42  third  person  information  or a confession, punishing the person for an
    43  act the person or a third person has committed (including the holding of
    44  a belief or membership in any group) or is suspected of  having  commit-
    45  ted,  or  intimidating  or coercing the person or a third person, or for
    46  any reason based on discrimination of any kind.   It  does  not  include
    47  pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful
    48  sanction.
    49    (c)  "Improper treatment" means (i) cruel and unusual; or cruel, inhu-
    50  man or degrading, treatment  or  punishment  as  defined  by  applicable
    51  international  treaties  and their corresponding interpreting bodies; or
    52  cruel and unusual punishment as defined in the United  States  Constitu-
    53  tion or the New York state constitution; or (ii) any violation of subdi-
    54  vision three or four of this section.
    55    (d)  "Prisoner"  means  any  person  who  is  subject  to  punishment,
    56  detention,  incarceration,  interrogation,  intimidation  or   coercion,

        S. 4495--A                          3
 
     1  regardless of whether such action is performed or committed by a govern-
     2  ment  or  non-government actor, entity, or official; under color of law;
     3  or not under color of law.
     4    (e)  To  "adversely  affect"  a  person's physical or mental health or
     5  condition does not include causing adverse effects that may  arise  from
     6  treatment or care when that treatment or care is performed in accordance
     7  with  generally  applicable legal, health and professional standards and
     8  for the purposes of evaluating, treating, protecting  or  improving  the
     9  person's health.
    10    2.  Knowledge. It shall be an element of any violation of this section
    11  that the actor knew or reasonably should have known the nature of his or
    12  her conduct. If a health care professional  who  operates  in  a  closed
    13  institution such as a jail or other detention facility, police facility,
    14  prison,  or psychiatric or military facility, is not given access by the
    15  institution to the information necessary to ascertain whether torture or
    16  improper treatment has occurred, is occurring or will occur, in order to
    17  assess the nature of his or her conduct as covered by this section,  the
    18  health  care  professional  must presume that the prisoner faces risk of
    19  torture or improper treatment.
    20    3. General obligations of health care professionals.  (a) Every health
    21  care professional shall provide every prisoner under his or her  profes-
    22  sional  care with care or treatment consistent with generally applicable
    23  legal, health and professional standards as the health care professional
    24  is  reasonably  able  to  provide  under  the  circumstances,  including
    25  protection of the confidentiality of patient information.
    26    (b)  In  all  clinical assessments relating to a prisoner, whether for
    27  therapeutic or evaluative  purposes,  health  care  professionals  shall
    28  exercise  their  professional judgment independent of the interests of a
    29  government or other third party.
    30    4. Certain conduct of health care professionals prohibited.    (a)  No
    31  health  care  professional shall apply his or her knowledge or skills in
    32  relation to, engage in any professional relationship  with,  or  perform
    33  professional  services  in relation to any prisoner where the purpose is
    34  not to evaluate, treat, protect,  or  improve  the  physical  or  mental
    35  health  or  condition  of the prisoner (except as permitted by paragraph
    36  (b) of subdivision five of this section).
    37    (b) No health care professional shall engage, directly or  indirectly,
    38  in any act which constitutes participation in, complicity in, incitement
    39  to,  assistance  in,  planning or design of, or attempt or conspiracy to
    40  commit torture or improper treatment of a prisoner. Prohibited forms  of
    41  engagement include but are not limited to:
    42    (i)  providing  means  or  knowledge with the intent to facilitate the
    43  practice of torture or improper treatment;
    44    (ii) permitting his or her knowledge or clinical findings or treatment
    45  to be used in the process of torture or improper treatment;
    46    (iii) examining, evaluating, or treating a prisoner to certify whether
    47  torture or improper treatment can begin or be resumed;
    48    (iv) being present while torture or improper treatment is being admin-
    49  istered;
    50    (v) omitting indications of torture or improper treatment from records
    51  or reports; and
    52    (vi) altering health care records or reports to hide, misrepresent  or
    53  destroy evidence of torture or improper treatment.
    54    (c)  No  health  care professional shall apply his or her knowledge or
    55  skills or perform any professional service in order  to  assist  in  the
    56  punishment, detention, or incarceration, interrogation, intimidation, or

        S. 4495--A                          4
 
     1  coercion of a prisoner when such assistance is provided in a manner that
     2  may  adversely  affect the physical or mental health or condition of the
     3  prisoner (except as permitted by paragraph (a)  or  (b)  of  subdivision
     4  five of this section).
     5    (d) No health care professional shall participate in the interrogation
     6  of a prisoner, including being present in the interrogation room, asking
     7  or  suggesting  questions, advising on the use of specific interrogation
     8  techniques, monitoring the interrogation, or medically or psychological-
     9  ly evaluating a person for the purpose of identifying potential interro-
    10  gation methods or strategies. However, this paragraph shall  not  bar  a
    11  health care professional from engaging in conduct under paragraph (c) of
    12  subdivision five of this section.
    13    5.  Certain  conduct  of health care professionals permitted. A health
    14  care professional may engage in the following conduct so long as it does
    15  not violate subdivision three or four  of  this  section,  it  does  not
    16  adversely affect the physical or mental health or condition of a prison-
    17  er or potential subject, and is not otherwise unlawful:
    18    (a) appropriately participating or aiding in the investigation, prose-
    19  cution, or defense of a criminal, administrative or civil matter;
    20    (b)  participating  in an act that restrains a prisoner or temporarily
    21  alters the physical or mental activity of  a  prisoner,  where  the  act
    22  complies with generally applicable legal, health and professional stand-
    23  ards,  is necessary for the protection of the physical or mental health,
    24  condition or safety of the prisoner, other prisoners, or persons  caring
    25  for, guarding or confining the prisoner;
    26    (c)  training  related to the following purposes, so long as it is not
    27  provided in support of specific ongoing or anticipated interrogations:
    28    (i) recognizing and responding to  persons  with  physical  or  mental
    29  illness or conditions,
    30    (ii) the possible physical and mental effects of particular techniques
    31  and conditions of interrogation, or
    32    (iii) the development of effective interrogation strategies.
    33    6.  Duty  to  report.  A  health  care professional who has reasonable
    34  grounds (not based solely on publicly available information) to  believe
    35  that  torture,  improper treatment or other conduct in violation of this
    36  section has occurred, is occurring, or will occur shall, as soon  as  is
    37  possible without jeopardizing the physical safety of himself or herself,
    38  the prisoner, or innocent parties, report such conduct to:
    39    (a)  a  government agency that the health care professional reasonably
    40  believes has legal authority to punish or prevent  the  continuation  of
    41  torture  or the improper treatment of a prisoner or conduct in violation
    42  of this section and is reasonably likely to attempt to do so; or
    43    (b) a governmental or non-governmental entity  that  the  health  care
    44  professional reasonably believes will notify such a government agency of
    45  the  torture  or  the  improper  treatment  of  a prisoner or conduct in
    46  violation of this section or take other action to publicize  or  prevent
    47  such torture, treatment or conduct; or
    48    (c)  in the case of an alleged violation by a health care professional
    49  licensed under articles one hundred thirty-one or  one  hundred  thirty-
    50  one-b  of  the  education  law, a report may be filed with the office of
    51  professional medical conduct. In the case of an alleged violation by any
    52  other health care professional licensed under title eight of the  educa-
    53  tion  law,  a report may be filed with the office of professional disci-
    54  pline.

        S. 4495--A                          5
 
     1    7. Mitigation. The following may be  considered  in  full  or  partial
     2  mitigation  of  a  violation  of this section by the health care profes-
     3  sional:
     4    (a) compliance with subdivision six of this section; or
     5    (b)  cooperation in good faith with an investigation of a violation of
     6  this section.
     7    8. Applicability. This section shall apply  to  conduct  taking  place
     8  within  or  outside  New  York  state, and without regard to whether the
     9  conduct is committed by a governmental or non-governmental entity, offi-
    10  cial, or actor or under actual or asserted color of law.
    11    9. Scope of practice not expanded. This section shall not be construed
    12  to expand the lawful scope of practice of any health care professional.
    13    § 3. Section 6509 of the education law is  amended  by  adding  a  new
    14  subdivision 15 to read as follows:
    15    (15)  Any  violation  of  section  twenty-two of the public health law
    16  (relating to participation in torture or improper treatment of prisoners
    17  by health care professionals), subject to mitigation under that section.
    18    § 4. Section 6530 of the education law is  amended  by  adding  a  new
    19  subdivision 50 to read as follows:
    20    50.  Any  violation  of  section  twenty-two  of the public health law
    21  (relating to participation in torture or improper treatment of prisoners
    22  by health care professionals), subject to mitigation under that section.
    23    § 5. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of subdivision 2 of  section  740  of  the
    24  labor  law, as added by chapter 660 of the laws of 1984, are amended and
    25  a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
    26    (b) provides information to, or  testifies  before,  any  public  body
    27  conducting  an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any such violation
    28  of a law, rule or regulation by such employer; [or]
    29    (c) objects to, or refuses to participate in any such activity, policy
    30  or practice in violation of a law, rule or regulation[.]; or
    31    (d) reports or threatens to report any violation of section twenty-two
    32  of the public health  law  (relating  to  participation  in  torture  or
    33  improper  treatment  of prisoners by health care professionals), subject
    34  to mitigation under that section.
    35    § 6. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subdivision 2 of  section  741  of  the
    36  labor law, as added by chapter 24 of the laws of 2002, are amended and a
    37  new paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
    38    (a) discloses or threatens to disclose to a supervisor, or to a public
    39  body  an  activity, policy  or practice of the employer or agent that the
    40  employee, in good faith, reasonably believes constitutes improper quali-
    41  ty of patient care; [or]
    42    (b) objects to, or refuses to participate in any activity,  policy  or
    43  practice  of  the  employer  or  agent that the employee, in good faith,
    44  reasonably believes constitutes improper quality of patient care[.]; or
    45    (c) reports or threatens to report any violation of section twenty-two
    46  of the public health law (participation in torture or improper treatment
    47  of prisoners by health care professionals), subject to mitigation  under
    48  that section.
    49    § 7. Severability. If any provision of this act, or any application of
    50  any  provision of this act, is held to be invalid, that shall not affect
    51  the validity or effectiveness of any other provision of this act or  any
    52  other application of any provision of this act.
    53    §  8. This act shall take effect on the first of January next succeed-
    54  ing the date on which it shall have become a law.

_____________________________________________



*  *  *



                     The following laws are being used today illegally in every State of the United States, the Duane Bill if it becomes law, will make all of those laws legal for New York State Authorities to use on New Yorkers and in each of the other 49 states, their authorities can use those laws on their states citizens through the interstate compact.

A.     How Anyone Can Be a Covertly Targeted Victim From Current Law that is
being Illegally Interpreted by Sadistic Authorities. To allow people to be attacked.
The New BILL as law will make them legal in all 50 States by the States Compact.


1.                     The Plaintiffs by analysis show how a person(s) such as Plaintiffs, can wind up being defined under the criteria for the BILL, that as law will be under NYS law PBH 22. Where the BILLS effects can be extremely harsh treatment or death. As well the following is an analysis as to how the Plaintiffs can and have been conscripted under NYS PBH 2444 and MHY 33.16 or similar laws.

                      a.    Such conscription can originate from a “Threat Assessment Program  (TAP)” investigation coupled to NYS DEFENDANTS, which is actionable upon every person of the United States, no matter what demographic or status or background they have, as a consequence that the TAP program has a history of being born from investigating threats to high profile persons and that study of subsequent historical acts of violence to high profile persons found a common denominator of the attackers profiles, which was that there is “no” common denominator indicator; the final analysis by TAP administrators was that every person poses a potential threat because there is no common denominator to identify a potential threat accurately. In fact persons whom have attacked high profile persons were factually as an example an “FBI informant” and another who drove their small plane towards the White House was a person with very common personal problems unrelated to the White House, which in great part resulted in a TAP policy that “everyone” has to be investigated. Which leads to the issue that law enforcement authorities with ill will or spite towards a person(s), can investigate any person multiple number of times as in a, “fishing expedition” vendetta, that can result in the claim by the law enforcement authorities, that the investigated subject person is a threat to national security, which leads to the fact that just for being investigated numerous times turning up nothing actionable is deemed to be a threat to local or federal security for the investigated person using up valuable investigative resources, that they had no idea was being used by say a county attorney, policeman or doctor or neighbor with a malicious attitude. All it takes is a person even a neighbor to call police or a medical professional for any reason on a person and they will be investigated, that the neighbor calls enough times causing subsequent investigations can cause the person they call about to be investigated and come under TAP, which lead to a next step automatically. The maliciously reported person will without probable cause and on mere suspicion is caused to be sent onto further consideration for a potential death sentence, for really no reason except that the laws are structured that way for DEFENDANTS.

                      b.    Such as the aforementioned designation of a person can propel them from the  status of an innocent person to a further level of sanction beyond TAP which allows investigators to be able to indirectly harass a person out of their job, family relationships and professional associations by TAP as DEFENDANTS interviewing a person's employer, neighbors and even family under qualification they not tell the subject person of the interview, causing the family and associates of the investigated person to become alienated towards the investigated person. Further sanction can be the inclusion for a person using resources by investigative malicious vendetta fishing expedition by authorities to  “ANTI TERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996 (ADEPA)”. Thereby the aforementioned is the first stepping stone that can cause any New Yorker to also be declared incompetent by NYS PBH 2444 and MHY 33.16 for subsequent inclusion also under the BILLS definition of its “potential subjects”.

B. The “ANTI TERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996” Public Law 104-132 104th Congress (ADEPA)”.

2.                     Being investigated by any of  DEFENDANTS' authorities repetitively leads to a person falling under TAP, that leads to the person being classified under further insidious criteria of two classifications or both combined. Where the classifications are for the person to be under DEFENDANTS control, secured first as an incompetent person for allowance of DEFENDANTS to conscript into NYS  PBH 2444 waiver of consent human experiment and secondly or  in combination being also placed under ADEPA.

                      a.    The ADEPA legislation has in its foreword the words, “and for other purposes”, allows fishing expeditions by DEFENDANTS quantified as repeat investigations representative of a security threat by waste of such investigative resources, therefore  ADEPA, can have a person(s) included by broad criteria also entered under NYS PBH 2444 law as incompetent for subsequent inclusion of them in human experiment or research quantified as a lawful investigation to be used in experiments as an example of surgical installation of in vivo implanted radio frequency transceiver devices with tracking or pain induction capability to decommission the person by destruction of their immune system, health and degrade their ability to remain coherent. Such is done to sideline a supposed threat, where the actions to sideline the person are considered a solution for freeing up investigation resources. Such persons where the DEFENDANTS capriciously can merely be tracked or virtually put down  and killed at the whim of DEFENDANTS. That many investigated persons can be watched by a single DEFENDANTS surveillance operator is believed to be DEFENDANTS qualifying such methods as a freeing up of DEFENDANTS surveillance resources. Such DEFENDANTS activity is wholly unconstitutional and illegal in NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws. It is a sadistic and power mad action to carry out and or sanction by DEFENDANTS. Whomever offends the DEFENDANTS or has beliefs and associations that DEFENDANTS do not like can be placed on such a program without NYS public due process before a jury of their peers; that the actions are as a Bill of Attainder qualifies such actions under what DEFENDANTS will term color of law is moot, being illegal and criminal. By the true and correct legal reasoning of the aforementioned constitutional and legal tenets.

                      b.    The general incidence of qualification through which TAP can lead to person(s) fitting the criteria for coming under ADEPA, is where the person(s) are investigated multiple times without result for lawful sanction of arrest, can by the DEFENDANTS using of investigation resources based on suspicion or vendetta, thereby designates the subject person(s) a resource of terrorists, without probable cause, despite that no such activity exists, that the repeated investigation could be for suspicion of even any minor or no municipal infraction whatsoever, even for having a business located in ones own home or any report or reason as the origination for suspicion that something illegal “may” be going on.
                      c.    The ADEPA legislation calls for those person(s) found to be aiding terrorists according to the aforementioned, is anyone who has been investigated numerous times. That the resources of investigation were used without illegal activity being found is irrelevant. The subject person is nevertheless guilty thereby of being a resource of terrorists by DEFENDANTS. Such application of TAP and ADEPA is illegal and unconstitutional to carry out under NYS CONSTITUTION Civil Rights of guaranteed due process and NYS law, nevertheless such is a way for any person(s) to be found guilty of a crime without a crime being committed. Where the ADEPA legislation foreword states it can be for any purpose as, “and for other purposes”, that allows for fishing expeditions by DEFENDANTS to conclude on a basis of the vague criteria of ADEPA to quantify that a person used up resources and was therefore a resource of terrorists. The DEFENDANTS by human experiment decommissioning the person or killing the person prevent resources to look for terrorists being used up, by, SEE;

 “ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996 (ADEPA)” Public Law 104-132 104th Congress. ``Sec. 2339A. Providing material support to terrorists...(a) Offense.--Whoever, within the United States, provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source...”

                      d.    The trouble is the DEFENDANTS are out of control to the point of DEFENDANTS becoming terrorists themselves; such acts as can be in action by DEFENDANTS laws have been reported by Plaintiffs to be in action upon them in this complaint according to the aforementioned ADEPA quoted text passage, is written that any person(s) found to be a resource to terrorists is legal criteria by which a repeatedly investigated person can come under that law, by the implication of the Title of ADEPA, which states that the ACT can be used for unspecified, “other purposes”, SEE;

An Act: To deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes.

                      e.    That ADEPA has as a part of its title the words, “death penalty”, Plaintiffs point out that a death sentence or a lesser sentence can be given under it. As an example an offender person(s) as Plaintiffs and or any New Yorker found actionable under ADEPA for using up valuable resources of investigation and thereby found to be in support as a resource of terrorists, may be nominated for use in egregious investigative methodology. Such investigative methodology can be to sentence person(s), such as Plaintiffs, to be nominated under NYS PBH 2444 waiver of consent human experiment or research as punishment or as an action to decommission them into a state of health to sideline them into a hospital or the morgue.

                      f.    Hence the issue of ADEPA's, “other purposes”, is that it can be applied as a new law of NYS through the BILL S4495-A making the activity legal until countenanced in a court of law. The actions of ADEPA are also allowed under DEFENDANTS unconstitutional color of law under generic equivalent legislation as Bills of Attainder NYS PBH and MHY laws mentioned as well. Such can also be used in combination with,“50 U.S.C. § 1520a: Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents”, which also is a Bill of Attainder, where it as legislation, identifies a group or person as those law enforcement designate as needy of having 1520a affect them, where the allowance of law enforcement is to use military systems upon designated New Yorkers such as Plaintiffs, is without first them being given NYS public due process, where then law enforcement use of 1520a is by Plaintiffs construed to be a punishment by allowance in using military means and materials upon such New Yorkers as Plaintiffs that law enforcement designates to take action upon them and implies also the use of electronic warfare techniques including in vivo devices upon such designated person(s) as Plaintiffs and is construed in its effects by designated persons such as Plaintiffs as punishment; therefore fulfilling the four requirements for a Bill of Attainder, that where such is in action upon Plaintiffs in the NYS jurisdiction is unconstitutional and illegal. The flaw in the DEFENDANTS use of egregiously acting laws is where and if such can be exposed in a court of law, where otherwise a condition of absolute dictatorship exists. The DEFENDANTS by their careful compartmentalization have the several parts of such operations personnel isolated and under legal constraints that such really evil activity would never be exposed with the prohibition upon all DEFENDANTS enforceable under NYS MHY 33.16, where a whistle blower would find themselves under the same qualification as the victims.

                      g.    The  investigative methodology, to nominate a person as a punishment under ADEPA or without ADEPA is possible to utilize human experimentation for any law enforcement purpose whatsoever, through, “50 USC SECTION 1520a” in conjunction with the mentioned NYS PBH and MHY laws would also include the BILL upon it becoming law. This title 50 authorizes any law enforcement to be given aid and material by military authorities to carry out actions upon a person without their knowledge or consent. The consent requirement for an individual to be affected is superseded by 1520a stating it can be used for any law enforcement purpose whatsoever; unconstitutional and illegal in NYS.

                      h.    Any person(s) can thereby have any sort of egregious methodology done to them by DEFENDANTS capriciously separately or together with ADEPA and by other laws too numerous to mention; that a means and method be demonstrated by Plaintiffs is sufficient to illustrate that torture and improper treatment by all sorts of methods, to cause egregious effects upon Plaintiffs have been available to DEFENDANTS since at least 1997 and in other forms decades earlier in the form of vendetta nomination in secret for a person to be placed on a list of egregious human experimentation.

                      i.    The AUMF was unsuccessfully cited by the George W. Bush administration in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the administration's military commissions at Guantanamo Bay were not competent tribunals as constituted and thus illegal. Such is relevant, that NYS PBH committees are no more competent as equivalent to those tribunals and the lack of public oversight is unconstitutional in NYS to use such legislations for use as Plaintiffs describe.   

C. THE BILL ALLOWS FOR THE EXTREMES OF THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT 2006 TO BE BLENDED WITH HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION.

3.                     The aforementioned facts of the BILL, its definitions and general purposes, together with, the fact the BILLS section of, “Section 1.” has within it the statement, that directly indicates the BILL, is for other purposes other than the preliminary introduction, by the words, “and related matters”. Those other matters Plaintiffs illustrate, have legitimately discerned extra meaning. The BILL inserts the Military Commissions Act 2006, by way of the egregious effects the BILL defines as to torture and prisoner is conclusively an introduction of that MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT into NYS. The Military Commissions Act 2006, is by every point of fact, where in action in NYS, is a Bill of Attainder; being legislation that defines a group or person for pains and punishments without NYS public due process; is without need for further qualification by NYS CONSTITUTION and NYS laws unconstitutional and illegal.

D. THE BILL INCLUDES RAPE OF MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN  BY DEFAULT.

4.                     That the “Military Commissions Act 2006” is used as an example of what is unconstitutional and illegal by New York States CONSTITUTION for it to be in action anywhere inside the borders of the New York State jurisdiction, by that Act of 2006, this Plaintiffs' complaint is not limited but inclusive of any and all unconstitutional and illegal NYS, federal, foreign entity laws and policy origin, this complaint and its citing of laws and policy is to be liberally construed as to the coverage against insertion into NYS legislation and policy of egregious nature adversely affecting the New York States sovereigns and persons NYS Civil Rights and breaching of NYS law.

5.                     As further example of onerous prohibited Bill of Attainder legal precept, foreign to the moral nature of New Yorkers that Plaintiffs include is the issue that “rape” is of such a nature by its being unconstitutional and illegal by NYS legal precepts, cannot be a part of "Health Care Professionals" and the like activities nor of  DEFENDANTS' activities, to in any way be propounded as part of any action upon any person inside the borders of NYS. Such policy as the aforementioned is the allowance propounded by then President of September 4, 2003, to proclaim that rape when it served the government interests of state and federal has the government available to sequester and prevent a complaint of rape from reaching the complaint phase in a court of law, per se inside NYS, is illegal, unconstitutional and a Bill of Attainder  proclamation titled, “Statement on Prison Rape Elimination Act, Statement by the President September 4, 2003”. That proclamation originated from the law being enacted of, “Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, Law [S. 1435]”; wherein as it is well reported in newspaper accounts that rape is and can be a part of interrogation or coercion within legal sanction therefore through the “Military Commissions Act 2006”. Wording of the proclamation makes it unsupportable by its words, that it could ever be applicable inside NYS jurisdiction by its unconstitutional trampling of civil rights and illegality. Where a governor of a state such as NYS serving at the pleasure of the President to accommodate such unconstitutional and criminal acts to close down a court case or investigation into an aggrieved plaintiff(s) raped by use of the proclamations words “authority to withhold information”; such serving of the President by the NYS governor and that office are nevertheless subject to the superior power of NYS CONSTITUTION Civil Rights of NYS of sovereign people and NYS criminal and penal law. Illustrating that torture including rape is relative to the legal analysis of torture and is that it would be allowed by "Health Care Professionals" of the BILL and the like being wholly unconstitutional and illegal under the NYS CONSTITUTION Civil Rights of sovereign New Yorkers and illegal under NYS laws even for those whom are inmates or prisoners with some reduced rights; that such Bills of Attainder are extant without exposure as to their legality questioned is here shown by example in text from, SEE;

Statement on Prison Rape Elimination Act, Statement by the President September 4, 2003....The executive branch shall construe sections 7(h) and 7(k)(3) in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information when its disclosure could impair deliberative processes of the Executive or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties and, to the extent possible, in a manner consistent with Federal statutes protecting sensitive information from disclosure.  

6.                     That the BILL is entered as NYS PBH law to mitigate NYS laws of health, education and labor, is by the issues of recorded BILL text shown to be unconstitutional and illegal for the BILL to become law. That there is no law allowing for torture and improper treatment in NYS, that the laws of the State of New York will be changed by the very BILLS introduction to thereby be the first law that allows for torture and improper treatment and “rape" is of paramount concern for those of us New Yorkers that hold our freedoms and liberties of our NYS CONSTITUTION'S  Civil rights dearly that, daily protects our life and limb, it would therefore be a tragedy to, have this a self effectuating law allowing in NYS what the BILL seemingly purports to prevent; which is torture and improper treatment as a common and everyday egregious standard.

E. MULTIPLE LAWS THE BILL ALLOWS TO BE LAWFUL INSIDE NYS ARE ALL ILLEGAL BILLS OF ATTAINDER TO BE OPERATING IN NYS.

7.                     By the fact that the BILL is as a specific law being introduced under NYS PBH, therefore it allows the following legislations to enter with it, being  TAP, ADEPA, 1520a, Statement on Prison Rape Elimination Act, Statement by the President September 4, 2003 and the MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT 2006; where the BILL opens the door for the aforementioned federal legislations, by NYS CONSTITUTION Civil Rights of New Yorkers such legislation is unconstitutional and illegal to be in action in NYS jurisdiction.

8.                     The Court must make decision as to this matter in order to be thorough as to this proceeding and their decision must be to prohibit the aforementioned legislation's being allowed to infect the NYS jurisdiction. The Court must quantify its stand and prohibit in any form the BILLS allowances and aforementioned piggy back legislation's that technically are inferred will be  accompanying the BILL.

9.                     That such action by the Court is true and correct the following criteria proves the aforementioned legislative actions of  “TAP,  ADEPA, Title 50-1520a, Statement on Prison Rape Elimination Act, Statement by the President September 4, 2003, MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT 2006” and any similar action legislation's, are “BILL(s) of Attainder(s)”, according to NYS CONSTITUTION and laws as follows. The aforementioned legislative acts conform to the following four criteria.

                      a.    First, the claim of an action of government must arise from a legislative act. In that the aforementioned legislations of this section do so conform to the criteria of having arisen from a legislative act and that the statement of the President, also conforms, by that offices allowance to have a self effectuating legislative effect, by its utterance, was legislated into law, thereby also does too conform to the definition of legislation.

                      b.    Second, that the legislation pertains to a particular or easily defined group or individual. That the BILL has within it the allowance by the NYS Legislature of opening the door to the aforementioned various legislations to allow the use of torture and egregious actions upon New Yorkers such as Plaintiffs too, the inclusion of those legislation's aforementioned are by default included within this complaint as a necessity by the direct implication of the BILL injecting the most assaultive of legislations by the BILLS general description, being the MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT 2006, that by its inclusion in NYS PBH legislation is by the NYS Legislatures being “mindful” as stated in the BILL, “The legislature is mindful that ordinarily there are limits on New York state's jurisdiction relating to conduct outside the state or under federal  authority.”. The aforementioned legislations have reference to specific persons or groups. 

                      c.    Third, a punishment – well-established in American jurisprudence to including the loss of life, liberty, property, and or freedom to work, is in action.  The BILL has as it does definitions that by all accounting under NYS penal law treatment of inmates as prisoners and laws regarding assault and battery and rape and the attendant criminal sanction of punishment for such breaches of the law as well as the issues of breach of NYS CONSTITUTION rights akin to property rights of a person held in abeyance by the aforementioned legislation's effects upon New Yorkers to be so or currently affected is without further qualification in accord with this third requirement, that the legislation's as aforementioned and stated are punishment and incur the loss as variously related.

                      d.    Fourth, and the last being the lack of a judicial trial. The BILL has stated the existence of legal sanction, without description of what it means by legal sanction; such lack of definition of legal sanction is without substance as to what is legal sanction to the degree Plaintiffs point out makes the issue that the BILL is worded inadequately to be legal in NYS where the issue of lawful sanction is actually unsubstantiated to have occurred according to NYS CONSTITUTION Civil Rights guarantee of public due process. By the BILLS general language and meaning “legal sanction” can easily be construed that a “judicial trial”, is not inferred where the BILL mentions “legal sanction”. Rather the direct implication is by the BILLS entering itself into the NYS PBH law, that the “lawful sanction”, is by NYS PBH committees in secret. Until such issue of lawful sanction to torture and thereby punish is qualified by the Legislature that public due process before a jury of an accused peers is their meaning of “lawful sanction”, this Court is obligated to uphold public due process  Article Section, to guarantee that the lawful sanction of the BILL is not in abeyance of the NYS CONSTITUTION guaranteed due process and freedom of speech.

10.                     What you have just read is factual.  It is a serious emergency that you as an individual spread the word that Legislation like the Duane Bill are potentially going to become Law.  All of the States belong to a compact.  What one State passes into Law becomes Law in all other States.  Do not count on someone else watching out for Legislation like this.  Everyone must do something when the Legislators interested in turning us into a Red Chinese Country are trying to sneak in Laws, be vigilant. 

11.                     There are also federal laws that are potentially as bad, however any law that is enacted in the state like the Duane BILL that will enter NYS Public Health affects all other states by the Mental Health interstate compact law. The reason the BILL is being entered into the Public Health is that it will affect everyone with more power than a federal law, through your own local jurisdiction authorities.


Sincerely, Deborah Lamb and John Mecca
 EMAIL ADDRESS TO WRITE BE CONCISE CLICK HERE

PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD ASAP!



CLICK HERE TO GO NOW TO THE PREVIOUS WEBSITE FRONT PAGE