The Jersey Boys Are Back to Business as Usual!

Continuing harassment makes writing very difficult today. I lost access to my Internet connection, briefly, as my cable signal was blocked. My printer is still not 100%. I believe that these attacks are attempts to intimidate me. I am more certain than ever that New Jersey is ruled from behind the scenes by organized crime figures. The majority of New Jersey lawyers and judges I have known are intellectual mediocrities. A few are dishonest and blithering idiots, who are usually elevated to the bench. A number of N.J. lawyers are bright and decent people. Many of them go into real estate.

Efforts to destroy or supress speech directed against me (a new essay was just destroyed by hackers, probably in an effort to provoke an irrational or angry response from me) come from the chromium-saturated home of cancer cells known as the Garden State. Good luck with those Grand Juries, Bob!

Any insertions of "errors" into this text should be attributed to the powers-that-be in Trenton, New Jersey. I will now make a heroic effort to avoid anger and say something nice about New Jersey: "Princeton Township is very pleasant in the Fall." July 3, 2007 at 3:11 P.M.

David Kociniewski, "Judge Rejects Hospitals' Suit Against Chain in New Jersey," in The New York Times, June 28, 2007, at p. B2.
"Trenton: Attorney General's Top New Deputy," in The New York Times, July 3, 2007, at p. B4.
"Paramus: Removal of Tainted Soil at School," in The New York Times, July 2, 2007, at p. B5.
Linda Greenhouse, "Clues to a New Dynamic on the Supreme Court," in The New York Times, July 3, 2007, at p. A11.
Jeffrey Rosen, "Supreme leader: The Arrogance of Anthony Kennedy," in The New Republic, June 18, 2007, at p. 16.


"... St. Barnabas, which grew into New Jersey's largest hospital system starting in the early 1990s, systematically overcharged the federal government" -- that's you and me -- "by at least $630 MILLION from 1995 to 2003, according to court papers, and agreed last year to pay a $230 MILLION settlement [which will come from consumers in New Jersey, that's also YOU] to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. St. Barnabas denied defrauding Medicare and admitted to no deliberate wrongdoing, although it acknowledged the overbilling, calling it a misrepresentation of Medicare rules." (emphasis added)

It sure was, kids. Lawyers representing the hospital were part of this fraud, costing tax payers millions. No one thinks that these lawyers are "unethical." Some will become New Jersey judges or justices. This is because they went to school with regulators ("Boola, Boola! Rah, Rah, Rah!") and wear nice suits: "Shortly after that settlement, the largest ever agreed to at that time, two small hospitals in Maine and Colorado filed a racketeering suit against St. Barnabas and its executives."

In New Jersey, even the hospitals are involved in racketeering. Terry Tuchin and Diana Lisa Riccioli, allegedly, are still scamming federal moneys for their torture services. They must have done so for years. It is impossible to rule out that those two cretins are among the defrauders of the federal government. New Jersey can neither admit nor deny that such an eventuality is at least possible, given the therapist-torturers' demonstrated antisocial tendencies, so that it may be advisable to monitor their activities, indefinitely, to forestall further criminal conduct. I am afraid that much the same may be said for Debbie Poritz and Sybil R. Moses, both of whom (like anyone else) may pose a future danger to the community and a present danger to the administration of law.

Come to think of it, the same may be said of you or anybody. Perhaps Governor Corzine will someday pose a threat to society. His driver certainly poses such a threat right now. Both should be monitored ("for their own good") by therapists hoping to bill the chumps, while doing as little as possible for the monies they receive, except torturing and/or raping victims.

"[The New Jersey hospital] CHEATED thousands of health care facilities nationwide out of HALF A BILLION DOLLARS in federal money they would have been entitled to." (This is in addition to the shenanigans at UMDNJ, where $100 MILLION flew the coop.)

Although the suit has been dismissed at the trial level, the likelihood of success on appeal with a more unfavorable (unfavorable to graft, that is) Circuit Court panel is very high.

"The United States attorney's office reviewed the bookeeping at St. Barnabas -- which at one point operated nine hospitals and 3,200 beds accross New Jersey -- and found that it BILKED the federal goverment out of at least $630 MILLION, according to prosecutors."

That's what I call stealing! They got a deal most minority defendants are not offered. I wonder why? These white people in nice suits walked after scooping almost a billion clams. Sweet.

"Hospital officials agreed to repay $265 million and were spared criminal charges." (This last sentence was altered, after my most recent correction and an "error" was inserted.)

Isn't that nice? They were "spared" criminal charges. Your kid won't be "spared" charges if he takes a pair of sneakers from "Footlockers." That kid -- with some b.s. priors -- is looking at a few months in juvi and a record. I bet he won't go to Harvard. Perhaps he will be described as "mentally impaired" or "retarded," like me. Maybe it is all a matter of "brain chemistry." But then, New Jersey's power structure could not care less about children's health:

"Clean-up crews were scheduled to remove contaminated soil today from a middle school that was the focus of controversy after school officials failed to notify parents and teachers about the problem earlier this year. [Are they lawyers? Did they have the advice of counsel? Where is the OAE to investigate those lying lawyers? Of course, OAE lawyers are also lying lawyers.] School board members and administrators learned of the pesticide contamination -- at levels up to 39 times the state's safety guidelines -- at the West Brook Middle School in January, but did not tell parents and teachers until May. The removal was expected to take about a week, Mario V. Sicari, the school board president, told the Record, in Hackensack, in an article yesterday."

When those children get cancer a few years down the road, if they do, will New Jersey send them a fruit basket? Why not send the families of dying children a portrait of New Jersey's Supreme Court justices?

In an article discussing the current dynamics on the U.S. Supreme Court, which is so filled with jurisprudential errors as to shock a first year law student, we are told by one "Linda Greenhouse":

"A new dynamic emerged in the court's last term, which ended last week with [Justice Kennedy?] standing in the middle, all alone. Not only the lawyers, but also the justices themselves, are now in the business of courting him."

This reporter fails to notice the implications for the legitimacy of decisions resulting from suggesting that 8 of the 9 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have predetermined matters before they come to the Court on the basis of their politics. Only one justice, who is a centrist, is the person at whom lawyers should direct their arguments. This is because "Justice Kennedy" (sometimes it is Justice Stevens) is the only justice on the Court whose politics, allegedly, do not control outcomes regardless of the merits of legal arguments.

This New York Times article succeeds in insulting ALL of the members of the current Court. I hope things are not so farcical and fraudulent on the U.S. Supreme Court. I admit that they are fraudulent when it comes to New Jersey's Supreme Court. I can only assume that Ms. Greenhouse was thinking of New Jersey's tainted and disgraced "supreme" tribunal -- supremely incompetent, that is -- that must bear ultimate responsibility for continuing censorship efforts directed against me. ("Errors" will be inserted in this essay. I will correct them. I will then discover them again in the morning.)

Adding further insult to injury, the Times reporter implies that Justice Kennedy or all the justices should be "pragmatists," settling cases along political lines. However, the United States Supreme Court is not traffic court in North Bergen, New Jersey. One does not make deals, off the record -- regardless of the law -- on a so-called pragmatic basis. Cash in envelopes only works with New Jersey judges. Someday payoffs will not be accepted practice even in New Jersey's municipal courts. (See my essay detailing arrests in Jersey City Municipal Court for "ticket-fixing." More such arrests are likely to be "forthcoming.")

The judicial task for the High Court, according to Ronald Dworkin, is more concerned with applying Constitutional principles with objective merit and historical weight to current controversies -- even when there is a political price to pay for doing so. Maybe especially when there is a political cost to enforcing Constitutional principles, justices must be willing to do so. I often disagree with results. However, I am not willing to give up on the institution of the U.S. Supreme Court as a locus of neutral decision-making in accordance with juridical principles. I am even foolish enough to continue believing in my First Amendment rights.

Hackers continue to obstruct my communicative efforts, illegally, from New Jersey government computers. You do not have First Amendment rights on Monday, but then lose them on Tuesday -- if pragmatic considerations dictate that it's more convenient for "society" that you "little people" (like me) not have such rights. Rights and Constitutional guarantees are antimajoritarian instruments linked to your moral status as a person. This is not idealism. It is basic Constitutional theory. Who decided to destroy my "Philosophy Cafe" and why? Ethics?

New Jersey's so-called "Baby Attorney General" is doing a good job (so far) by hiring experienced prosecutors from the U.S. attorney's office -- like the very able JOHN VAZQUEZ, who brings to state prosecution developed political and legal skills in coping with New Jersey's notorious corruption and mob influence in politics as well as courts. If Ms. Milgram is really concerned to fight child molestation, then start with New Jersey's corrupt judges, who are alleged to be complicit with child exploitation and other mob activities. (Two "errors" were just corrected in this sentence. They were not part of my original post.)

There was a fear that Ms. Milgram was being offered as a sacrificial lamb to the Jersey Boys, who would initiate a smear campaign against her, if she got too ambitious. (An "error" was inserted in this last sentence which was also not part of my original post.) Ms. Milgram promises to be tough-minded and brave in the office that she holds. If she is provided with political protection from media attacks and given the chance to do what she is able to do, then critics will be silenced. I hope. Maybe they'll hack into her computer for a while and leave me alone. However, I doubt it.

Ms. Milgram, I believe, hopes to do the right thing. Governor Corzine should be prepared to provide the resources that will allow her to do the work that needs to be done in New Jersey. Also, Ms. Milgram should be wary of being driven anywhere by state troopers. Maybe she should get a food taster. How about Richard J. Codey or Speaker Roberts? Oh, wait ... they're on their computers a lot and much too busy. I wonder what they're up to? My hopes for Anne Milgram are fading fast, along with the confidence of New Jersey law enforcement officials.

Keep your right hand high, Ann, and give 'em hell -- the bad guys, I mean. Duh ...