?

~ t
MEMO ENDORSED
Mdrch 6, 2014
(1.3
BY HAND ~
The Honorable Richard M.Benlian
"
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 aI., 90 Civ. 5722 (RMB)
Dear Judge Bennan:
I write in regards to the Review Officer's March 3 2014 letter to the court. On
pg.3 ~ 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 10
th
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 13
th
, 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 intei:lt of creating a democratic self-governing District
Council. I fmd it difficult to reconcile any attempt to bypass the District Councils
governing body with being a purported step towards self-governance.
1
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1494 Filed 03/07/14 Page 1 of 3
I also fmd it difficult to reconcile the Review Officers claim that he is seeking to
reduce his oversight authority when he is infact 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 Court's 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 ifthe 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 tenn continually inexcess of
the six months or less allowed under the Stipulation 8 c i i
2
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1494 Filed 03/07/14 Page 2 of 3
Conclusion
I believe that it would be detrimental to allow the Delegate Body's 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 self-
governance is the goal, bypassing the District Council's governing body cannot be
considered acceptable.

6818 52
nd
Dr.
Maspeth NY 11378
Tel.(718) 593 6414
Email patjnee@yahoo.com
cc by email
Dennis Walsh
Benjamin Torrance

I
M. &,;"Wl.
__ . _ ,.,,, _ '_m"'" ______ ,_
..

. EI ic' fRONICALLY FILED
Dnc!:

r ,)
4.. :f
f
r
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1494 Filed 03/07/14 Page 3 of 3