secretangel

December 13, 2010

From: Deborah Lamb & John Mecca
write to timetogo2@optonline.net

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
write to timetogo2@optonline.net

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