Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Judson Witham, Petitioner v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, et al.
Supreme Court briefFeb 14, 2018
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
I
+
No.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
VS
JUDGE TARRENCE BOYLE
4TH
CIRCUIT DISTRICT COURT NORTH CAROLINA
Witham v. DEC New York State et al (5:17-cv-00171), North Carolina
THE US COURT OF APPEALS
4TH
CIRCUIT RICHMOND VIRGINIA
Appeals 17-1791
4TH
US COURT OF APPEALS LAST RULED ON THE FRAUDS OF THE DISTRICT COURT
PLAINTIFF JUDSON WITHAM'S APPEAL TO THE US SUPREME COURT
Judson Witham
15215 Aiken Rd.
Wake Forest, NC 27587
801-602-9131
1
.
I
Jurisdiction and Venue
This Case was originally filed and Docketed in the US District Court in Raleigh North
Carolina and was permitted to proceed IFP. The Case and Pleadings were improperly
4th
Circuit Court of Appeals in
treated and the Cause was Filed and Docketed in the
Richmond Virginia , the case was permitted to be filed and proceed IFP as well in the
Appellate Court.
The Courts of the United States. Under Article Three of the United States Constitution,
the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court of the United
States and the inferior courts established by law.
The Jurisdiction of Last Court being an Appellate Court was 28 U.S. Code § 1291
The Jurisdiction of the District Court was permitted by 28 U.S. Code § 1332 Diversity
-
of citizenship as well as 28 U.S. Code § 1367 Supplemental jurisdiction
-
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Can District Judges Summarily Dismiss Cases FRAUDULENTLY by concocting
Delusional and Fantastical FALSE Narratives and OUT OF THE THIN AIR STORIES upon
FALSE PRETENSES ?
Are the 35 Interstate Compacts that New York conducts sufficient DAILY OFFICIAL
BUSINESS with in North Carolina to constitute Minimum State Contacts in the
4th
Circuit of North Carolina to constitute New York Conducting large amounts of Official
Business in North Carolina ?
Is the State of New York IMMUNE from Property Damage and Takings Claims in
light of the United States Constitution Amendment 5?
2
f.
What are Minimum Factual Pleadings allowable per Federal Rule of Procedure 8 (a)
(2) the Notice Rules of Pleading in the matter of a PRO SE LITIGANT that has been
denied all Open Records Requests and All Records from New York State ? See
Rule 8 F
What are the Threshold Requirements for Pro Se Pleadings under Rule 9 wherein
the State of New York has Stone Walled and Blocked all Open Records and
Information Requests by a Pro Se Litigant.
Are the Civil and Criminal Provisions of New York State Penal Laws for Vandalism
and Property Damage for DESTRUCTION of The Witham Family Marina Docks and
Docks and Boat Houses, Shoreline and Sea Wall / Bulk Heads on Lake George NY
Applicable to Taking of Property in Violation of US Const. Amendment 5 ? See NY
PENAL LAW Sections 145.05 and 145.10
What are the Standards for Rocket Docket, Trash Can Treatment of Pro Se Pleadings
wherein FANTASTICAL STORIES and DELUSIONAL Narratives are Fabricated by
District and Appellate Courts to COURT STRIP and Deny Due Process and Equal
Protection of the Constitution and Laws to Pro Se Plaintiff's ?
List of Parties
NOTE.
This Case was NEVER Properly Served on the listed Defendants RATHER it was
preempted by a SUMMARY, SUMMARY Judgement whereby the SCREENING PROCESS was
fraudulently employed to Rocket Docket and Trash Can the Case. The District Court NEVER
SERVED the Defendants on account of the FRAUD employed by Judge Boyle to dismiss the
action
3
I
New York State Department of Conservation / NYS Conservation Commission
The State of New York as Operators and Owners of Dam "A" Lake George NY
The State of New York DBA The Lake George Park Commission
NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo
NYS DEC Commissioner Basil Seggos and Unknown Conservation Commission Agents
Jane and John Does 1-10 (Bivens Action)
United States District Judge Terrence W. Boyle
The
4th
4th
District Judge
Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Niemeyer, Motz and King
IV.
Statement of the Case
This Case involves the Intentional and Reckless destruction Lake Wide State and
Private Property including Shoreline, Islands, Boat Houses, Sea Walls / Bulkheads and Docks
as well as the Witham Family Marina on Lake George, NY. The Witham Marina being a Full
service 250 Berth Marina on 600 Acres at Lake George New York. SAID LAKE and Water
and Winter Ice and Snow Levels has been before the Federal Courts previously when the
STATE of Vermont sued the STATE of New York over vast dumping and flushing of TOXIC
Mill Wastes and SEWAGE into Lake Champlain at Fort Ticonderoga (See LaChute River) In
the Case Styled. Many New York State Criminal Prosecutions and Civil Actions have for
many decades been pursued by NYS District Attorneys, County Attorneys and State
Attorney Generals for New York State. Succinctly stated the Officials of New York State's
Law Enforcement Authorities, Several State Governors and the NYS Legislature have
undertaken Prosecutions and Civil Litigation regarding these matters ON MANY OCCASSIONS
and over an EXTENDED Period of DECADES.
1. The Factual Basis of the described Property Damages and Financial Damages and the
History of the VAST Property Destruction is a matter of the Public and Judicial
Records of the State of New York and the United States Congress and United States
Agencies and Courts
4
State of VERMONT v. State of NEW YORK et al.
417 U.S. 270 (94 S.Ct. 2248,41 L.Ed.2d 61
No. 50, Orig.
Decided: June 3, 1974
These Matters Also Appear HERE
United States Supreme Court: Original Jurisdiction Cases and Materials
https://books.google.com/books?id=vCvCDAAAQBAJ&IpgPP1&dgisbn%3A1442272775&Pg
=PP1#v=onepage&g&f=false
Gordon L. Weil 2016 Law
-
-
VERMONT v. NEW YORK ET AL. 417 U.S. 270, 94 S.Ct. 2248,41 L.Ed.2d 61 No. 50,
Orig. Decided June 3, 1974 ON BILL OF COMPLAINT Syllabus
On a bill of complaint by Vermont charging New York and paper company with polluting
Lake Champlain, impeding navigation, and creating a public nuisance, this Court will
2. This Case also involves New York State's Marathon Litigation against the Operators
of the Wholly Inadequate Release Spillways and Dam Operations which control the
WINTER TIME Lake Levels on Lake George. Said Cases reveal VAST Property
Damage and Destruction of Docks, Boat Houses, Islands, Shoreline and Sea Walls
caused by INTENTIONAL Lake Level Manipulations during Winter and Spring LAKE
ICE COVER by those responsible for and Who are obligated to Control the Lake Ice
Sheet Levels
See
....
New York Supreme Court Record on Appeal
https://books.google.com/books?id=D8V-7yFX-yB
5
Ii
PEOPLE v. SYSTEM PROPERTIES, 281 App. Div. 433 (N.Y. App. Div
https://casetext.com/case/people-v-system-properties
This action was originally brought by the People of the State of New York for a
judgment decreeing and declaring that the State was the owner of the bed of Lake
George and of the Ticonderoga River, the outlet of Lake George, and that the State
had the paramount right to control the use of the waters of Lake George and the
PEOPLE v. SYSTEM PROPERTIES, 2 N.Y.2d 330 (N.Y. 1957) I Casetext
https://casetext.com/case/people-v-system-properties-3
This action was brought by the State of New York in 1942 against System Properties,
Inc., then the operator of the dam. Seven individual owners, called herein the
"Langmuir" group of intervenors, of homes on Lake George intervened on plaintiff's
side. Other intervenors were three counties, seven interested townships, the
The Long History of WINTER TIME LAKE ICE Has a Long and Factual Record in the
Courts of the United States. The VAST Winter Time Ice Fluctuations being under the
Control of New York State are the SOLE Destructive Force causing repetitive
destruction of the Witham Family Marina.
When this case was initially field Judge Terrance Boyle IMMEDIATELY characterized
the Averments of Witham's Pleadings as FANTASTICAL and DELUSIONAL ahead of
even a SCITILLA of Discovery or a FACT Findings on the ENORMOUS BODY of Proof
and Evidence that in REALITY Exists. Judge Terrence William Boyle SUMMARILY
DISPOSED OF AND CLOSED THE CASE
Fraudulently and IMPROPERLY
I
Judge Terrence William Boyle subjected the Witham Pleadings to Inferior review
even making DISPARAGING and FRAUDULENT assertions regarding the VERACITY of
the Allegations. Using SUMMARY DISMISSAL without allowing ANY DISCOVERY the
Presentation of Any Evidence or Testimony
....
Judge Boyle's Court simply TRASH
CANNED and WASTE BASKETTED the Case using ROCKET DOCKET PRACTICES. Said
Rocket Docket Treatment COURT STRIPPED Witham of all Due Process and All Equal
Protection.
"a Pro Se complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it
appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his
claim which would entitle him to relief." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520 (1972).
This case clearly reveals that the Case was dismissed before the Complaint was
served upon New York State
....
The Case was DISMISSED Summarily without a
SCINTILLA of consideration of Evidence, Facts, Discovery
....
Judge Boyle simply
ROCKET DOCKECTED and sua sponte or suo motu "on Judge Boyle's own motion"
dismissed the case AND IT WAS NEVER SERVED on New York State.
A case should not be dismissed unless it can be said "with assurance that under the
allegations of the pro se complaint, which [is held] to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of
facts in support of [her] claim which would entitle [her] to relief." McDowell v. Delaware
State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972).
This case involves many years of the MASSIVE GARGANTUAN 242 Square Mile ICE
SHEET on Lake George being wildly manipulated causing the TOTAL Destruction of
the Witham Business causing the 600 Acre Marina to experience CATASTROPHIC
Financial Damages resulting ultimately in NEW YORK STATE and Others to Take from
7
the Witham Family Their Home and Business on Lake George. COPIOUS AMOUNTS
of Historical Records, Evidence and Material Witnesses STATE and FEDERAL Court
Records and State and Federal Engineering and Environmental Investigations and
Main Stream Media Reporting PROVES the REALITY of the Facts as Cited by
Witham to the District Court and the Appellate Court.
10. "The District Court referred to CHUNKS OF ICE Being Dumped into Lake Champlain
Clearly revealing the Pleadings were NOT Properly reviewed or Liberally Construed.
Judge Terrence William Boyle, His Clerks and Staff simply Made Up a PLAUSIBLE
and False Narrative to SUMMARILLY DISMISS THE CASE in the so called
SCREENING PROCESS"
VI.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
/
Federal Rule Civil Procedure 8 and 9
US Constitution Amendment 5 and
14th
Amendment (Due Process Equal
Protection )
The COMMON LAW STANDARDS for the Proper Treatment of Pro Se
Constitutional and Human Rights Cases
FRAUD UPON AND BY COURTS
Fraud on the court occurs when the judicial machinery itself has been tainted, such as
when a Judge or an attorney, who is an officer of the court, is involved in the
perpetration of a fraud or makes material misrepresentations by or to the court. Fraud
upon the court makes void the orders and actions of said Courts.
H.
S. The Proper and Lawful Treatment of Pro Se Pleadings before the Federal Courts See
Illiberal Construction of Pro Se Pleadings Semantic Scholar
-
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/18a9/716ebb00dd1c36cf1d7bbbf8575fe383b91f.pdf
by Rl( SCHNEIDER
-
See generally Richard L. Marcus, The Revival of Fact Pleading Under the Federal Rules.
CASTRO V. UNITED STATES (02-6683) 540 U.S. 375 (2003) 290 F.3d 1270
6. In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) the Supreme Court announced
the new plausibility standard by which pleadings are to be judged: a complaint must
allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A facially
plausible complaint is one that "raise[s] a reasonable expectation that
discovery will reveal evidence" of the alleged wrongdoing.
Also see
The Pro Se Litigant's Right to Notification of the Requirements of the Summary Judgment
Rule
http://www.ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic1e2754&contextflr
by JM McLaughlin 1987 Cited by 39 Related articles
-
-
-
See United States v. Plattner, 330 F.2d 271,. 273-74 (2d Cir. 1964). For an extensive
discussion of the historical origins of the right of self-representation, see
...
Litigant:
An Inside View of the Pro Se Actions in the Federal Courts, 47 N.Y.U. I. Rev. .... courts'
liberal treatment of pro se pleadings is consistent with the judge's.
VII.
Constitutional Provisions
Laws and Statutes Involved
1.
The Private Property Protection Provisions of the US Constitutional Takings Clause
I
Penn Central v. New York City (1978) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
438 U.S. 104 June 26, 1978, Decided
Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374 (1994) Decided June 24, 1994
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Com'n. (1992) 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) U.S.
SUPREME COURT Decided June 29, 1992
Tahoe Preservation Council v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002)
Decided April 23, 2002
Kelo v City of New London (2005) Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 23, 2005
2. The Instant Case is an Inverse condemnation case and a claim brought against the
government on the State of New York in which Withams, owners of a 600 Acre
Marina on Lake George NY seeks compensation for massive DAMAGES to his
property under the Fifth Amendment. New York State prohibits the
uncompensated taking or damaging, physical damage to property which is
included in this definition. The term "inverse" is used, because usually
condemnations are brought by the government. In the inverse condemnation
context, it is the property owner who sues the government, alleging a taking (or
damaging) of property without just compensation.
See
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. City of San Diego, 450 U.S. 621, 638 n.2 (1981)
(Justice Brennan dissenting);
United States v. Clarke, 445 U.S. 253, 257 (1980);
Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 258 n.2 (1980).
The Intentional and Reckless Damaging and Taking of Property being the Primary
Modis Operandi, Brothers V. US, C.A. Oregon 594 Fd 2nd 740, 741,
It is not essential that Seizure or Appropriation occur only that material or actual
interference with Property Rights constitutes the taking.
10
Board of Com'rs Lake County v. Mentor Lagoons Inc., Corn. P1., 6 Oh. 216
N.E. 2d 643, 646
Aris Gloves Inc. v. U.S., Ct. Cl. 420 I'd 2nd 1386,
Penn Central Transportation Company v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978)
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, sos U.S. 1003 (1992)
City of Keller v Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 808 (Tex. 2005).
3. New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law PEN § 145.00 Reckless and Intentional
-
Property Destruction is Civilly and Criminally Actionable in New York
a. NY Penal Law section 145.10 are Felonies.
4. The civil action for RICO is defined in 18 U.S.C.A. § 1964 (c): "Any person injured in
his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may
recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a
reasonable attorney's fee
5. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971
6. The federal Clean Water Act, 33 USC § 1251, et seq
7. "Minimum State Contacts" in the forum State, the Jurisdictional minimum per
the 14th Amendment is proper.
Ellicott Mach, 995 F. 2d at 477
International Shoe. Co vs. Washington 366 U.S. 310, 316
8.
The "Minimum contacts Rule " with the forum state requirement includes
OFFICIAL BUSINESS carried out through INTERSTATE COMPACTS and
AGREEMENTS and is generally fulfilled if there are "minimum contacts" with the
forum state
a. International Shoe v. Washington, 326 US 310
11
Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186
Traditional forms of establishing minimum contacts include: purposefully selling
goods in the state
World-Wide Volkswagon Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 maintaining a
physical office or store in the state, entering into a contract with someone in
the state
Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 or committing a tortious act within the
state.
VIII.
Proper Lawful Treatment of Prose Pleadings
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 520 (1971)
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959)
Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240
Pucket v. Cox, 456 Fed 2nd 233
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v.
Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335;
Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425
Conley v. Gibson. 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957)
"Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do
substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in
which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that
the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited
Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
12
•
13
Davis v. Wechler 263 U.S. 22, 24
Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359
NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905
"...
the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution
and laws."
Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants'
pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925)
Platsky v. CIA, 953 F.2d 25, 26 28 (2nd Cir. 1991)
"Court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient
and how to repair pleadings."
Appendix ... The Lower Court's Orders are Appended to the Pleadings
IX.
Notice Pleading Standards Rule 8 and FRCP 9
Rule 8. General Rules of Pleading .... Notice Pleading and the Rule 9b which only
requires slightly more notice than would be forthcoming under Rule 8
See the Supreme Court's endorsement of notice pleading in Conley v. Gibson 355 U.S. 41, 4748(1957)
FRCP Rule 9 Slightly More Stringent Pleading Requirements than FRCP 8 Notice
Pleading https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/rule8frcp.pdf
a. DIOGUARDI v. DURNING, 139 F.2d 774 (2d Cir. 1944)
13
See WRIGHT, supra note 1, at 474-75 (stating and rejecting the strict pleading argument);
b. JACK H. FRIEDENTHAL, MARY KAY KANE, & ARTHUR R. MILLER, CIVIL PROCEDURE § 5.8, at
261 (3d ed. 1999) (describing criticism of Dioguardi and its role as a focal point for
opposition to the new rules).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts
upon which he bases his claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is "a short and plain
statement of the claim" that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is
and the grounds upon which it rests. Thus, "simplified 'notice pleading," made possible by
the liberal discovery and pretrial procedures of the Rules, controls. While the Court-created
label "notice pleading" has been criticized, its essential components are plain. The Rule
8(a)(2) mandate that a federal pleading be "a short and plain statement of a claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief" requires that a claim be stated with brevity, conciseness,
and clarity. The Rule was designed to avoid technicalities. FRCP Rule 8 and 9 Apply
9. 2012 US Code Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Chapter 27 OCEAN
-
-
DUMPING (§§ 1401 1445)
-
X.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
1. The Record of the Case reveals Judge Boyle simply TRASH CANNED and WASTE
BASKETTED the Case by Summarily dismissing on Sophisms and Prevarications
and a FALSE NARRATIVE and FRAUD. The Screening Process shows Judge Boyle's
assertions that New York State does NOT have the requisite In State Contacts is
ABSURD, He simply Ignored the Vast Official Business New York State
Conducts in the
4th Circuit EVERY DAY. New York conducts Interstate Official
Business by reason of Participation in as many as 25 (Twenty Five Interstate
14
ra
Compacts) and continually engages in Solicitations and Offerings of State
Services, Business, Commerce and Industry within the
4th
Circuit DAILY.
2. The Record Reveals the Standards of Review of Pro Se Pleadings were IGNORED.
This case was Summarily Dismissed, the Defendants Never Served, Amendment
of Pleadings never instructed or suggested, and New York State's Immense
Official Business Activities in the
4th
Circuit IGNORED.
3. The Record Reveals from the VERY START of the Case The District Court NEVER
SERVED the Action on New York State and Simply disposed of the Pleadings
Summarily. Witham's Constitutional Due Process, Property and Human Rights
were STIPPED and DENIED by Judge Boyle's CAVALER and FAKSE assertions that
Witham's pleadings are FANTASTICAL and DELUSIONAL. Said Prevarications,
Sophisms and Frauds simply employed to CONCOCT a Record to make it appear
the Pleadings were Wholly Insufficient.
THE VAST PUBLIC RECORD OF THE POISONING OF Lake George, LaChute River, Lake
Champlain, Richelieu River, The Saint Lawrence River and the Atlantic Ocean are
COPIOUS and ABUNDANTLY AVAILABLE.
The Vast and Immense Property Destruction set forth throughout Witham's
Pleadings is On A Gargantuan Scale REALITY and very well Chronicled in the Records
of New York State Law Enforcement and Judicial History. There are MILLIONS of
Material Witnesses and Relevant Evidence that reveals Witham's Complaint IS IN NO
WAY SHAPE OR FORM
....
Delusional or Fantastical.
4. The District Court NEVER advised Witham to Amend His Petition or in any way
nor allowed Witham to Amend the Pleadings ......The
4th
Circuit Court of Appeals
RUBBER STAMPED and as well THREW THE CASE IN THE TRASH BASKET in
violation of Fair and Honest Due Process and Equal Protection Standards for Pro
15
•
Se Complaints See
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/18a9/716ebb00dd1c36cf1d7bbbf8575fe383b91f.
S. New York State Recklessly and Intentionally engaged in Vast Poisoning of the
Interstate Waters of Lake Champlain a New York and Vermont NAVIGABLE
WATERWAY of the United States. While making vast profits from Industrial
Processing of New York's Forests and Flushing the Sewers of New York State into
Lake Champlain using the DAM "A" AKA Dam #230 at the North End of Lake
George, New York State immensely engaged in the DESTRUCTION of the Lake
Champlain Fisheries which is an INTERSTATE COMMERCE as defined in 18
U.S.C.A. § 1964.
• 6. The Defendants derived immense Economic and Pecuniary Gains ( Profits and Tax
Revenues) directly from the POISONING of Lake Champlain with Billions of
Gallons of Contaminated Water of the Solids Sewage, Chemicals and Industrial
Wastes which were FLUSHED using the Waters of Lake George New York in an
identical fashion to FLUSHING A TOILET. The MEGA Flushing of These Toxins and
Wastes directly DESTROYED the Boat Houses and Docks, Shoreline and Islands
that New York State's OWN AUTHORITIES have Prosecuted and Litigated in New
York's and United State's Courts for DECADES.
7. The Direct and Proximate Cause of the Property Destruction, Poisoning and
Contamination is the Direct Result of the State of New York INTENTIONALLY
and KNOWINGLY Promoting and Advancing the Processing of Vast Billions of
Cords of Timber from New York State Owned Forests. New York State
immensely profited from the Property Destruction and TOXIC WASTES
DUMPINGS into the Navigable Waters of the United States as well as the
Interstate Commerce, the Intestate Fisheries in Lake Champlain.
16
I
A
The Proximate and Direct Cause of the Witham Marina Destruction and the
ONGOING Flushing of Sewage Laden and Chemical Laden Water from Lake
George NY is ONGOING and a Daily and Continuing Nuisance which Is Ongoing
and A Continuing Series of Property and Fisheries Destruction.
SEE The Historical And Legal History of the POISONING OF LAKE
CHAMPLAIN at
https://www.google.com/search?ei=ngioWgOhG4Lu QbxnL6lCg&g=The+Poisonio
ng+of+Lake+Champlain+Poi son ing+of+Lake+George&og=The+ Poison iong+of+Lake
+Champlain+Poisoning+of+Lake+George&gs l=psyab.12 ... 0.0.0.6907.0.O.0.0.0.0.O.O..O.O .... 0 ... 1..64.psy-ab..0.0.0 .... O.JcIWvH9IoLU
The Catastrophic and repeated Destruction and Damages to the Witham Marina
are directly caused by the State's MILL POND Operations and Wastes Flushings
using Lake George as a Giant Toilet Flusher. If not for the GARGANTUAN and
Continuing Flushing of Vast Amounts of New York State Sewage and Mill Wastes
and Chemicals from the LaChute River, and the WHOLLY INADEQUATE DESIGN and
OPERATIONS of Dam # 230 AKA Dam "A" on Lake George
....
The Witham
Family Marina and vast amounts of OTHER STATE AND PRIVATE PROPERTY
would have been spared the Widespread and Immense Damages NEW YORK's
OWN AUTHORITIES have many times complained of OFFICIALLY.
THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE CASE IS AVAILABLE TO THE US SUPREME COURT
All Proceedings and Records are herein included by REFERENCE "In Haec Verba"
The Pacer Records for Witham's Pleadings to the District Court and the Appellate
Court reveal the ENTIRE CASE HISTORY. Said Pleadings are HEREIN by Reference are
17
11
included in this Appellate Petition by Inclusion by Reference to the Official Pacer History of
the Case Below "In Haec Verba" By reference to said PACER and COURT RECORDS
UM
CONCLUSION
16 US Const Amendment 5 reveals that New York State and it's Agencies and
Employees, Representatives are NOT Immune from Damage Suits stemming from
DAMAGING or Taking of Property without just compensation. The Intentional and
Reckless Damaging and Taking of Property being the Primary Modis Operandi, Brothers
V. US, C.A. Oregon 594 I'd 2nd 740, 741, It is not essential that Seizure or Appropriation
occur only that material or actual interference with Property Rights constitutes the
taking. Board of Com'rs Lake County v. Mentor Lagoons Inc., Corn. P1., 6 Oh. 216 N.E.
2d 643, 646, Aris Gloves Inc. v. U.S., Ct. Cl. 420 Fd 2nd 1386, Penn Central
Transportation Company v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), Lucas v. South Carolina
Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)
Intentional Property Damage under NY Penal Law section 145.05, NY Penal Law
section 145.10 are Felonies.
Said Destruction of Property is a Taking by Inverse condemnation is a term which
describes a claim brought against the government in which a property owner seeks
compensation for a 'taking' of his property under the Fifth Amendment. In states that
prohibit uncompensated taking or damaging, physical damage to property is included in
this definition. The term "inverse" is used, because usually condemnations are brought
by the government. In the inverse condemnation context, it is the property owner who
sues the government, alleging a taking (or damaging) of property without just
compensation. See San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. City of San Diego, 450 U.S. 621,638
18
n.2 (1981) (Justice Brennan dissenting); United States v. Clarke, 445 U.S. 253, 257 (1980);
Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 258 n.2 (1980). SEE ......Those seeking recovery
for a taking must prove the government "intentionally took or damaged their property
for public use, or was substantially certain that would be the result." City of Keller v.
Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 808 (Tex. 2005).
4. Sovereign immunity does not shield the government from liability for
compensation under the takings clause. Gen. Servs. Comm'n v. Little-Tex
Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d 591, 598 (Tex. 2001)
S. New York State conducts large amounts of OFFICIAL BUSINESS in the State of North
Carolina. The "Minimum contacts Rule" with the forum state requirement includes
OFFICIAL BUSINESS carried out through INTERSTATE COMPACTS and AGREEMENTS and
is generally fulfilled if there are "minimum contacts" with the forum state International
Shoe v. Washingtgj., 326 US 310, Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186). Traditional forms
of establishing minimum contacts include: purposefully selling goods in the state
World-Wide Volkswagon Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, maintaining a physical office
or store in the state, entering into a contract with someone in the state Burger King v.
Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, or committing a tortious act within the state.
New York's and North Carolina's DAILY LEGAL DEALINGS and Official Business in NC
1. New York State Conducts OFFICIAL BUSINESS in North Carolina and Virginia on a
Very Large Scale Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition page 995 clearly states that the
Minimum Contacts Rule is applicable to CIVILLIAN DEFENDANTS or CIVILLIAN
CORPORATIONS
....
The State of New York transacts business in North Carolina with
19
lip
the State's Municipalities, Courts and Federal Government on a continual ongoing
basis.
When a Defendant Purposes establishes" Minimum State Contacts" in the forum
State, the Jurisdictional minimum per the 14th Amendment is proper. Ellicott Mach
995 F. 2d at 477 and see also International Shoe. Co vs. Washington 366 U.S. 310,
316. New York State engages in Tourism Promotions, Property Seizures and Child
Support Enforcement, Prisoner Adjudications and Interstate Registration, Drivers
License and many other Legal and State Business per the Interstate Compacts it shares
with North Carolina.
The continual New York State Business being Conducted in North Carolina and with
the Federal Agencies and Courts etc of North Carolina involve a wide range of Official
Acts and Legal Matters and Business of all kinds. These Minimum State Contacts are
well documented and far exceed said MINIMUM ACTIVITIES by New York State as a
result.
L14 1111
NEW YORK AND NORTH CAROLINA CONDUCT BUSINESS DAILY ACROSS STATE LINES.
NY COMPACTS
New York belongs to 42 interstate compacts WITH North Carolina
Name: Issue
Formation Date
Agreement on Detainers Corrections 1970
Agreement on Qualifications of Education Personnel Education 1968
Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Compact Fisheries; Natural resource management 1942
Pic
Buffalo and Fort Erie Bridge Compact Infrastructure 1994
Compact on Mental Health Public health 1956
Delaware River Basin Compact Natural resource management 1961
Driver License Agreement Licensure 2002
Driver License Compact Licensure 1958
Emergency Management Assistance Compact Emergency management 1996
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact Natural resources
management 2008
Great Lakes Basin Compact Natural resource management 1955
Interpleader Compact Property 1955
Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision Corrections 1998
Interstate Compact for Education Education 1965
Interstate Compact for Juveniles Corrections 1955
Compact for Adoption and Medical Assistance Children 1986
Interstate Compact on Licenses of Participants in Horse Racing with Pan-Mutual Wagering
Licensure 2000
Interstate Compact on Placement of Children Children 1963
Interstate Compact to Conserve Oil and Gas Natural resource management 1935
Interstate Corrections Compact Corrections 1959
Interstate High Speed Intercity Rail Passenger Network Compact
Transportation; Infrastructure 1981
21
Interstate Library Compact Education 1956
Interstate Mining Compact Natural resource management 1970
Interstate Pest Control Compact Industry regulation 1965
Interstate Rail Passenger Network Compact Transportation 1980
Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact Law enforcement 1989
Interstate compact to Conserve Oil and Gas Natural resource management 1935
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Compact Water pollution control 1947
New England State Police Compact Law enforcement 1969
New York-New Jersey Port Authority Compact of 1921
Transportation 1921
Nonresident Violator Compact Licensure 1977
Northeastern Forest Fire Protection Compact
Fire protection 1949
Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority Compact Transportation 1952
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Compact Water resources 1948
Palisades Interstate Park Compact Natural resources management 1937
Railroad Passenger Transportation Compact Transportation 1969
Susquehanna River Basin Compact Natural resource management; Flood control 1970
The NASDTEC Interstate Contract Licensure; Education 1928
Tri -State Sanitation Compact Waste management; Water pollution 1935
22
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act Children 1997
Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact Industry regulation 1958
Waterfront Commission Compact Law enforcement 1953
NORTH CAROLINA's INTERSTATE COMPACT DAILY BUSINESS WITH NEW YORK STATE
North Carolina belongs to 35 interstate compacts.
Name: Issue
Formation Date
Agreement on Detainers Corrections 1970
Agreement on Qualifications of Education Personnel Education 1968
Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Compact Fisheries; Natural resource management 1942
Compact on Mental Health Public health 1956
Driver License Agreement Licensure 2002
Driver License Compact Licensure 1958
Emergency Management Assistance Compact
Emergency management 1996
Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision Corrections 1998
Interstate Compact for Education Education 1965
Interstate Compact for Juveniles Corrections 1955
Compact for Adoption and Medical Assistance Children 1986
23
Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children
Education 2008
Interstate Compact on Placement of Children Children 1963
Interstate Corrections Compact Corrections 1959
Interstate Insurance Product Regulation Compact Industry regulation 2006
Interstate Library Compact Education 1956
Interstate Mining Compact Natural resource management 1970
Interstate Pest Control Compact Industry regulation 1965
Multi-State Reciprocity Agreement Licensure 1962
Multistate Lottery Agreement Lottery 1987
National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Law enforcement 1999
Nonresident Violator Compact Licensure 1977
Nurse Licensure Compact Licensure 2000
Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Waste 1982
Southeastern Forest Fire Protection Compact Forest fire protection 1954
Southern Dairy Compact Agriculture; Industry regulation 1997
Southern Growth Policies Agreement Economic development 1973
Southern Regional Education Compact Education 1948
Southern States Energy Compact Natural resource management 1962
The NASDTEC Interstate Contract Licensure; Education 1928
24
I
I
IV
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act Children 1997
Uniform Unclaimed Property Act Property 1995
Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact Industry regulation 1958
Virginia-North Carolina Boundary Agreement of 1791
Boundaries 1791
Virginia-North Carolina Boundary Agreement of 1970
Boundaries 1970
XIII.
Proper Review of Pro Se Pleadings
Notice Pleading Standards Rule 8
Rule 8. General Rules of Pleading
....
Notice Pleading and the Rule 9b which only
requires slightly more notice than would be forthcoming under Rule 8
See the Supreme Court's endorsement of notice pleading in Conley v. Gibson 355 U.S. 41,
47-48(1957)
FRCP Rule 9 Slightly More Stringent Pleading Requirements than FRCP 8 Notice
Pleading See WRIGHT, supra note 1, at 474-75 (stating and rejecting the strict pleading
argument); JACK H. FRIEDENTHAL, MARY KAY KANE, & ARTHUR R. MILLER, CIVIL
PROCEDURE § 5.8, at 261 (3d ed. 1999) (describing criticism of Dioguardi and its role as
a focal point for opposition to the new rules).
"a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle
him to relief."
25
[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the
facts upon which he bases his claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is "a short
and plain statement of the claim" that will give the defendant fair notice of what the
plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.
Thus, "simplified 'notice pleading," made possible by the liberal discovery and pretrial
procedures of the Rules, controls.
Rule 8(a)(2) mandate that a federal pleading be "a short and plain statement of a claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" requires that a claim be stated with
brevity, conciseness,and clarity. The Rule was designed to avoid technicalities.
Pro Se Complaints are NOT Subject to the Strict and Heightened Pleading Requirements of
Law Firms and Lawyers I Attorneys
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 520 (1971)
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959)
Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240
Pucketv. Cox,4562nd 233
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372
U.S. 335;
26
Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957)
"Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do
substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill
in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle
that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also
cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial
justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama,
375 U.S. 449
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905
"...
the right to file a lawsuit prose is one of the most important rights under the
constitution and laws."
Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants'
pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925)
Platsky v. CIA, 953 F.2d 25, 26 28 (2nd Cir. 1991), "Court errs if court dismisses pro se
litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings."
27
xlv.
Relief Demanded
The Case Should Be Remanded for Full Discovery and Trial Proceedings as Judge
Boyle and the 4th Circuit Appellate Court simply RUBBER STAMPED Judge Boyle's
Indiscretions and allowed the FRAUDULENT DISMISSAL of this Case.
All Costs and Expenses associated with this Case and the Protracted Appellate
Processes.
Respectufully Submitted,
w6ylt
OA-U~
y
Judson Witham
15215 Aiken Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Ph 801-602-9131
28
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.