Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

March 6, 2014 BY HAND The Honorable Richard M.

Berman United States District Judge Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007

Re: United States v. District Council, et al., 90 Civ. 5722 (RMB)

Dear Judge Berman: I write in regards to the Review Officers March 3 2014 letter to the court. On pg.3 1 of his submission the Review Officer states that in the absence of an agreement from the District Council to extend his term prior to the March 10th Court Conference he will move the Court to extend his tenure at that Conference. Since nothing has ever been presented to the Delegate Body in regards to granting the Review Officer another extension to his tenure, and with no scheduled Delegate Body meeting until March 13th , there is no possibility of any agreement being in place prior to the March 10 th Court Conference, which means that what the Review Officer is attempting to do is to bypass the District Councils governing body in his petition to the Court. I believe that this attempt to invoke the Courts authority without ever making any attempt to bring the matter in front of the Delegate Body is improper and contrary to the Stipulations stated intent of creating a democratic self-governing District Council. I find it difficult to reconcile any attempt to bypass the District Councils governing body with being a purported step towards self-governance.

I also find it difficult to reconcile the Review Officers claim that he is seeking to reduce his oversight authority when he is in fact seeking the ability to invoke one of the most potent weapons held by the District Court. I do not believe that the Review Officer could even be granted such authority based on the vague and generalized petition which has been submitted to the Court. In International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n, 389 U.S. 64, 76, 88 S.Ct. 201, 208, 19 L.Ed.2d 236 (1967). The Supreme court held The judicial contempt power is a potent weapon. When it is founded upon a decree too vague to be understood, it can be a deadly one. Nor does the authority sought by the Review Officer seem to comport with the Supreme Courts decision in Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 US 386,410 (1945) where the court held that one may not enjoin all possible breaches of the law as the Review Officer is seeking (see Stipulation 5.b.iii. (c) is contrary to or violates any law). Even if the Court were to consider allowing the Review Officer to petition the Court without ever conferring with the District Councils Delegate Body regarding any of this, I believe that at the very least a great deal more construction is required than exists in the current submission to the Court, and an explanation as to why the Review Officer feels it is now necessary for him to have this unfettered access to this potent weapon of the Court. While the Review Officer holds this as a first step towards self-governance by the District Council, he gives no indication of how many other steps he envisions, or how this should not be viewed as an attempt to extend his term continually in excess of the six months or less allowed under the Stipulation 8.c.ii.

Conclusion I believe that it would be detrimental to allow the Delegate Bodys authority to be so easily disregarded and I ask the Court to require that this matter be presented to the Delegate Body before the Court considers taking any action on this matter. If selfgovernance is the goal, bypassing the District Councils governing body cannot be considered acceptable.

Patrick Nee

3/6/14

6818 52nd Dr. Maspeth NY 11378 Tel.(718) 593 6414 Email patjnee@yahoo.com

cc by email Dennis Walsh Benjamin Torrance