Jerold E. Levine, Attorney At Law

"I am always pleased when my clients comment about
the work we do for them. It is my job to make sure that
anyone who contacts us learns everthing they need to
know about their case, and that during their case,
they get updates about the case progress, as well as
copies of all papers that we prepare for them."

Jerold Levine

READ WHAT CLIENTS SAY ABOUT
OUR LEGAL SERVICES:

I am writing this letter of recommendation for Jerold Levine, who has worked with me as a civil service attorney. I have had the opportunity to observe Mr. Levine's skills, work ethic and dedication to serving the public interest. One of the things that sets Mr. Levine apart as an attorney is that he gets proven results. In summary, I strongly recommend Mr. Levine for anyone who needs an experienced Civil Service attorney. --- Sincerely, Francis P. Discolo

Levine did everything he promised. He is tough, like a coach, and he will prepare you right. --- Tyrell

He cares about his clients and puts in the work to get the job done. --- J

Jerold Levine is a knowledgeable professional attorney who I would highly recommend. He has excellent communication skills and answered all of my questions without hesitation in a timely manner. He is very thorough, which made things easy through the process, and through his efforts he was able to overturn my disqualification. I greatly appreciate his and his staffâ€™s services. Thank you again Mr. Levine for everything you do! --- Bart Wojtas

Thank you sir for your service it was a pleasure working with you. ---
Son Ramoo

I would highly recommend Attorney Jerold E. Levine for your Court cases. Mr. Levine has years of experience in civil and criminal law. He is honest, straightforward with a creative legal mind. Many people complain about Lawyers until they need a good one, Jerold E. Levine is a great Attorney. --- Andrew G.

Jerold Levine is a no nonsense Lawyer that will let you know if you have a valid case or not. He has over 25 years experience and wonâ€™t waste your time or money if you donâ€™t have a chance of winning. I can personally say that Mr. Levine tenacious ways contributedðŸ’¯percent to me winning my case. He has patience and skills that you donâ€™t realize until your hearing. Mr. Levine will prep you so much you will think itâ€™s redundant...but in the end you will realize his genius & is worth every penny ðŸ‘ðŸ» I highly recommend Mr. Levine because he has personally changed my life for the better. You get what you pay for and you canâ€™t put a dollar sign on your future. --- Charlie Ryan

Mr. Levine is a wonderful and very helpful person who let you know everything to the point about your process and helps you through all your process. Very professional and Knowledgeable and a good person to have on your side. --- Hasibur Shojib

Amazing and professional attorney, very knowledgeable and helped overturn a Law enforcement DQ. He was honest throughout the whole process and I could not have done it without him. Highly recommend! --- Brian

Mr. Levine is extremely knowledgeable professional who knows every aspect of the law and I would highly recommend him. --- Keith Brooks

My dealings with Mr Jerold Levine was very productive, he was in my corner 110%. --- Miss G

He was very knowledgeable answered all my questions and addressed my concerns. Awesome lawyer. --- David C

Thank you for all the great advice. You helped us avoid a big problem. --- Patrick Lozito

Five Stars --- Md Badrul Islam

Mr. Jerold Levine took very great care of me throughout my process. I was DQ'd from a law enforcement background check. He was very knowledgeable, confident, explained why this may have happened, and what he will do to get it possibly overturned. He made no promises but said he will do his best. Mr. Levine was just phenomenal. Anytime I called he returned my calls and answered any questions that I had. He cares about his clients and puts in the work to get the job done. Mr. Levine was able to get my Disqualification OVERTURNED. I could not have been more thankful and blessed enough to have him represent me. I would not turn to any attorney before him and I say this with confidence. THANK YOU AGAIN MR. LEVINE AND STAFF FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO! IT DOES NOT GO UNNOTICED! --- Javel W.

I got a disqualification from NYPD and he turn it around fast. He knows the system and how NYPD works. He ask a lot of questions to find out my situation so he really knows the case. If you get in trouble call him. --- B.R.

Called Jerold Levine to discuss some issues at work. His advice was good. He is very knowledgeable. --- Lisa Marie

I had the pleasure of working with Mr. Levine during a very stressful and uncertain time in my professional life. From the very first consultation, he was attentive, knowledgeable, and clearly experienced in employment law. He took the time to understand the details of my case and provided straightforward, honest advice that helped me understand my rights and options.

What impressed me most was Mr. Levineâ€™s responsiveness and professionalism. Any time I had questions or concerns, he answered quickly and thoroughly, making sure I felt supported and informed throughout the process. His negotiation skills were top-notch, and I felt confident knowing he was advocating for my best interests every step of the way.

Thanks to Mr. Levine, my matter was resolved fairly and efficiently. I highly recommend him to anyone dealing with a workplace dispute, contract issue, wrongful termination, or any other employment-related legal matter.

Five stars without hesitation. --- Joe Minnerly

Mr. Levine get to the point of the case. Do not waste time or lead you on. Great attorney to have dealt with. Compare to the rest, just want to have you send them retainer. This individual is amazing employment lawyer. Thumbs up!!! --- John Chan

I'm always impressed by someone that chooses to help another before demanding money. I called Mr. Levine in regards to having many questions about NYC firearms permit, the process and requirements. I couldn't believe that he led me in the right direction with legal advice for me to make the best decision to my situation. Mr. Levine was kind and patient, and answered every question without asking for a single penny. Sir you are a true Professional. Thank you. --- Jose Rojas

Thank you for your prompt response... With 40 years of practice trying cases, you are exactly the kind of attorney I would want representing me in a matter of this seriousness â€” smart, steady, and always guided by your clientâ€™s best interests, both in heart and in strategy. --- F.R., Attorney At Law

The appeal is flawless, truly. Itâ€™s exactly how I wanted to be represented. Itâ€™s clear, honest, and thorough. I couldnâ€™t thank you enough for all of the time and dedication youâ€™ve put into this. It means a lot. --- M.B.

Mr. Levine was so great to work with. I had an excellent experience working with him and his firm. From start to finish, Mr. Levine was professional, patient, and truly committed to helping me understand every step of the process. Communication was clear and consistent, and I always felt like my case was being handled with care and attention. He was knowledgeable, honest, and genuinely made a stressful situation much easier to navigate. Iâ€™m extremely grateful for his support and highly recommend him to anyone in need of reliable legal guidance. His work led to a highly favorable result. --- Nick Pietrunti

Where do I even start?! Firstly, Mr. Levine is very matter-of-fact and assertive. Donâ€™t let that deter you from hiring him. Itâ€™s what makes him a great lawyer. Initially, it was a turn off for me, but once I got a feel of the way he works, I was confident he could help me.

After a disqualification on the DSNY medical, my first call was to The Law Offices of Kevin Sheerin. What a mistake that was! He immediately dismissed me, told me my case was too complicated, and recommended I go to job core and look for work elsewhere. It was humiliating.

Feeling so discouraged after that phone call, I decided to do my first appeal on my own. 9/10 times they will stick to their initial decision, and thatâ€™s exactly what happened. I was denied again, but I had one more appeal. I knew I needed some help.

After doing some research, I found Jerold Levine. From the first phone call, I knew he could help me. He wasnâ€™t intimidated by my situation. He asked me to gather all the evidence I had and present it to him at his office. And thatâ€™s exactly what I did. We met the same week, spoke for a while, looked over my paperwork, and came up with a game plan.

A few days later worked together to gather the facts and write the appeal. Well guess what? Almost 2 months to the day we submitted my appeal, I get an email from DSNY stating theyâ€™ve rescinded my disqualification and they will be in contact regarding completing my preemployment. They actually overturned my disqualification!

I couldnâ€™t be more grateful for the work Mr. Levine did on my case. Heâ€™s extremely knowledgeable in civil service appeals. Heâ€™s been doing this work longer than any other lawyer Iâ€™ve come across. If youâ€™re reading this, youâ€™re obviously on the fence about hiring him. My advice, just do it. You wonâ€™t regret it! --- Maggie Brady

Very attentive lawyer. Explains terms in full detail, keeps in contact and never tardy. Will yield you a positive result. --- Leland Alexander

FEDERAL FIREARMS RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES

For the first time in 34 years, the Federal government, through the Department of Justice, again is making it possible for people convicted of Federal crimes to get relief from the gun possession disability caused by their convictions.

The Federal Gun Control Act prohibits anyone convicted of a felony or domestic violence misdemeanor from possessing guns, but years ago there was a procedure for restoring gun rights through a process known as â€œrelief from disabilities.â€ Unfortunately, in 1992 Congress passed a law making it almost impossible for the government to process relief cases.

However, under new rules created by the Department of Justice, it again is possible for persons with Federal convictions to obtain relief.

If you are one of the many people who never was able to get relief, now is your opportunity. But, be warned: The new rules will change if an anti-gun President is elected in 2028. If such a person becomes President, they will reverse all the new rules, and will again make it impossible to get firearms relief.

Thus, if you want to seek relief, you should do it immediately. Also, be aware, the number of relief cases probably will overwhelm the Department of Justice because of the 34-year backlog of people who want relief. So, do not delay contacting an experienced lawyer to assist you in the relief process.

NYPD CASES OF INTEREST

A Police Officer Candidiate was hired and went through the Police Academy, but just before graduation, he was informed that he was being terminated because the NYPD Medical Division had made a mistake with his employment processing. The Officer was told that he should not have been hired, and NYPD terminated him even though the Officer had an excellent record in the Academy, and was well-liked by supervisors.

Fortunately, the Officer did not resign, but chose to fight. Had the Officer resigned his employment, he would have given away his right to challenge the Department's action.

The Officer retained attorney Jerold E. Levine, who immediately filed two separate lawsuits against NYPD in New York State Supreme Court, seeking various relief including employment reinstatement. The court cases involved serious negotiations with NYPD for a considerable period of time.

Ultimately, NYPD decided not to defend the court cases, and after a negotiated settlement, the Officer was reinstated, and continued on with his career.

NEW YORK CARRY PISTOL LICENSE

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the New York law that stopped most people from being able to get a carry pistol license. Under the new law, if you can pass the criminal background check, moral character review and mental health check, then you cannot be denied a carry license.

But, the license application process has become more complicated, with many more requirements and pitfalls. So, having someone who can assist you is even more valuable if you do not want to go through the process alone.

Our office provides license application preparation and other services, including compliance with the many new requirements for carry licenses.

If you want a carry license, and you do not want to make mistakes in the process that will cause your license to be denied, then our service is for you. Call our office to find out how we can help.

PISTOL LICENSE DISAPPROVAL

If you are disapproved for a pistol license, the reason almost certainly will be listed as "moral character," and will relate to (1) some incident(s) in your past, and/or (2) something you did during the application process (e.g., failed to disclose required information during the investigation).

Sometimes, these denials are very unreasonable, and can be challenged. But, you must challenge them within the time limits. The deadline for challenging the first disapproval notice is 90 days in New York City, but usually it is much less in other counties. The deadline for challenging a final disapproval is 4 months, and is made by filing an Article 78 court proceeding.

If you miss these deadlines, you destroy your opportunity to fight the disapproval, because you become "time barred." So, when you get a disapproval notice of any kind, you must take action immediately.

For more than 30 years, our office has provided appeal and court services in all kinds of licensing cases, and has established significant precedents in the law. Contact us without delay if you receive a disapproval notice.

OPMC ATTORNEY - OPD ATTORNEY
MEDICAL and PROFESSIONAL LICENSE
DEFENSE and RESTORATION

Professional misconduct proceedings have become a larger area of concern for doctors, psychologists and other professionals in recent years. There has been an increased regulation of the professions, resulting in the filing of misconduct charges. The results largely have been unwelcome in the professional community, for while a few dangerous or unethical actors have been removed from the scene, others who have engaged in relatively minuscule acts of misconduct---some unintentionally---have had the full weight of the government fall upon them.

If you are notified by OPMC (Office of Professional Medical Conduct) or OPD (Office of Professional Discipline) that an inquiry has begun, it is important that you seek assistance immediately from a license defense attorney. Allegations or suspicions of wrongdoing often balloon into full-blown investigations, and this activity can be tremendously hurtful to the operation of a professional practice. Investigators are not concerned with your business needs or your inconvenience, and they will pursue the investigation with relentless tenacity. Any who doubt this need only ask a professional who has been the target of such an investigation.

Our office will help you through the investigation process, and if needed through the trial process. But, we can be of use only if you call us, and we are of most use when contacted very early in the proceeding. It is extremely important that you have counsel before you start answering questions and handing over documents to investigators.

NYPD PSYCHOLOGICAL
DISQUALIFICATION APPEAL

Government job applicants can be disqualified from employment for various reasons, including character (honesty and trustworthiness), medical (physical) and psychological (mental). Of all these, psychological disqualifications are the most challenging, and unfortunately, they also can be the most damaging to your future employment if not handled correctly. A psychological disqualification has the real potential to ruin your job opportunities.

Also unfortunate is the rate of psychological disqualification. As example, one New York law enforcement agency has reported that over a 14 year period it psychologically disqualified 27% of all job candidates who were evaluated. So for every 1,000 candidates, 270 were psychologically rejected. But that only is the average rate over 14 years; for 7 of those years the disqualification rate was 30%-34%.

Appealing a psychological disqualification involves a psychological or psychiatric expert witness who provides an opinion about your mental suitability for employment. Commonly, the opinion also highlights any disagreement that the expert has with the agency disqualification.

It is very important that the psychological expert have sufficient experience in the field of related disqualifications. As example, if you are a police candidate then you should obtain the services of a psychologist who has experience with police psychological disqualification appeals.

You also should consult with an attorney who is knowledgeable about your kind of case. Many legal issues arise in the preparation of appeals, and it is very unlikely that you or your psychologist will be able to deal with these properly. The best representation for you will occur when an experienced lawyer and psychologist work together.

PSYCHOLOGICAL, MEDICAL and
CHARACTER REVIEW

PSYCHOLOGICAL, MEDICAL and
CHARACTER HOLD

Government employment candidates frequently are told that they are on "review" or "hold." Sometimes this occurs because the agency must gather more information about you before making a hiring decision. However, in many cases review and hold are just excuses to avoid giving any decision. This can happen when the agency does not wish to hire you, but also does not have a very strong reason to disqualify you.

Instead of issuing a disqualification which you can appeal---an appeal which you might win---the agency puts you on review. While on review, your Eligible List gets closer to expiring with each passing day, but you cannot appeal because there is no decision to appeal. In other words, you are left waiting until the Eligible List expires, after which time you cannot be hired.

This is a very abusive government practice, and it destroys your right to use the disqualification appeal process. Most unfortunate is that, by the time some candidates realize what has been done to them, it is too late to get legal help.

You should be in contact monthly with your investigator so that you are up-to-date about your employment application status. If you are told that you are on review or hold, then do not wait more than three months before seeking legal advice. With enough time remaining on the Eligible List, we may well be able to help you get off review or hold. Our office has done this many times for many job candidates.

MEDICAL DISQUALIFICATION and
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

If you are disqualified for a civil service job based upon a medical condition, you may want to consider filing a complaint with the New York City Human Rights Commission, instead of an appeal with the New York City Civil Service Commission. The main reason for this is that, while the Human Rights Commission process takes much longer than the Civil Service Commission process, your case before the Human Rights Commission could be much more likely to win. Also, a money award may be gotten from the Human Rights Commission, while such awards never are given by the Civil Service Commission.

Before taking any action on a medical appeal, you should contact an experienced attorney to discuss your options and determine which course is the best for your particular case.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED DISQUALIFICATION

(NOPD) and NOTICE OF DISQUALIFICATION

For many years, when a New York City agency wanted to disqualify you from employment, it would issue a "Notice of Disqualification" which could be appealed to the Civil Service Commission. However, this procedure was not correct under the Civil Service Law, which requires that candidates be told in advance why they are going to be disqualified, and be offered an opportunity to argue against a disqualification before it becomes final.

The Civil Service Commission advised agencies some years ago that they were not following the law, and the result is the "Notice of Proposed Disqualification" (NOPD). It notifies you that you have 30 days to ask the agency to "reconsider" the proposal to disqualify. Only after receiving your reconsideration appeal and supporting evidence will the agency then issue you a final decision; usually a Notice of Disqualification.

In practice, all that has changed is that most of what you previously had to do when appealing a Notice of Disqualification, now is done when you receive an NOPD. Instead of appealing a disqualification to the Civil Service Commission, now a reconsideration appeal is sent to the agency first, and after final disqualification you appeal to the Civil Service Commission.

Nevertheless, while only a minor change in procedure has occurred, there is an important consequence: If you wait until the NOPD process is over before getting good legal counsel, you may have hurt your appeal. This is because all supporting papers and other evidence must be presented to the agency during the NOPD process. After that, when the agency issues a final disqualification, the "administrative record" is closed, and any new evidence you try to submit to the Civil Service Commission can be "inadmissible." So if you do not put your best foot forward during the NOPD processâ€”using all evidence and legal resources availableâ€”then the case may be defective when it goes to the Commission. Many people learn this lesson late and hard.

In almost all instances, good attorneys can make a case better and stronger than the client could have done on their own. You may understand some of the good evidence in your case, and medical experts should be able to identify relevant medical issues. But almost always, you will overlook helpful legal points, or worse, you will use evidence that actually hurts your case. Also, you might assume that your case is "good enough" to win, and decide that you will call a lawyer only if you lose the NOPD appeal. But by then, the damage has been done. The best course is to contact counsel immediately upon receiving a Notice of Proposed Disqualification, or any other negative notice from an agency.

PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVIEW and EVALUATION PREPARATION

Almost all police and public safety agencies will screen you for psychological suitability, and usually this involves three steps. First, questionnaires about personal history. Second, psychometric tests, including the MMPI-2-RF and Cornell Index. And third, a psychological interview; sometimes more than one.

You can make serious mistakes at all levels. With psychometric testing, the usual mistake is answering questions in a way that you believe will make you look better. But since the tests are geared to measure such "faking good," the result is a test score which hurts you. So the best advice regarding these tests simply is to answer all questions honestly.

However, far more important than test scores is your performance during the psychological interview. The interview is the culmination of the entire psychological evaluation process, and if you do poorly, then your fate is sealed. No amount of good personal history or test scores will compensate for a bad interview. Unfortunately, few candidates know how to present themselves well, and very often make significant errors that lead to disqualification.

Since candidates usually have no experience with psychological interviews, the failure rate is not surprising. And in New York City, the failure rate is higher than the national average. This means that the chance of psychological disqualification is greater than most other places, and many candidates who never imagine that they will be disqualified receive a nasty surprise in the mailbox.

Keep in mind, you do not need to have a mental illness to be disqualified, and disqualified candidates usually have no mental condition at all. What they almost always have in common is that they did badly during the interview.

The good news is that you can be well prepared for a psychological interview, but only if you are counseled by someone who understands the process---such as an attorney with many years experience in psychological disqualification cases. Just like taking an S.A.T. prep course, or a class that teaches job interview skills, you can learn how to handle a psychological interview also. Some candidates who received counseling later remarked about how easy the psychological interview seemed, but how difficult it would have been without preparation.

Do not "cast your fate to the wind" and pray for a good outcome. Maximize your chances of success by being prepared for the psychological evaluation.

COURT OFFICER PSYCHOLOGICAL DISQUALIFICATION

In recent years, the New York State Office of Court Administration (OCA) has changed the procedures for Court Officer candidates who are psychologically disqualified. A grading system has been created in which disqualified candidates are categorized as A, B, C, D or F. Candidates who disqualify at the level of A, B or C are permitted to appeal their disqualifications, while those who rate a D or F cannot appeal.

This system is unfair, and more importantly, it is illegal for various reasons, including that it violates applicable OCA rules. If you are disqualified from being a Court Officer on psychological grounds, but are not permitted to appeal, you should contact an attorney immediately if you wish to protect your appeal rights.

ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING

The New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) gives you the right to sue a government agency for various reasons, and many cases involve Article 78 of the CPLR.

An Article 78 proceeding is used, among other reasons, when you want to challenge a government agency decision, or force an agency to do something. As example, when an agency issues a bad decision about you, usually it can be challenged in court under Article 78. Or, the agency might be refusing to issue a decision at all. To force the agency to act, you may be able to use an Article 78 proceeding.

However, you must use all available agency procedures before filing an Article 78. This means that any internal agency appeals, or other available appeals, must be used before going to court. If those procedures are not used, then you lose the right to file an Article 78.

Also, usually you must file the Article 78 proceeding within four months of the final agency determination. This means that once the agency has made its final decision about you, an Article 78 must be filed within four months of the date of that decision. (There are even shorter time periods with certain casesâ€”sometimes as little as 30 daysâ€”but most often the time limit is four months.)

The four month period is not 120 days, as many attorneys (and even some judges) mistakenly believe. The New York General Construction Law Â§ 30, provides: "Month, computation. A number of months after or before a certain day shall be computed by counting such number of calendar months from such day, exclusive of the calendar month in which such day occurs, and shall include the day of the month in the last month so counted having the same numerical order in days of the month as the day from which the computation is made, unless there be not so many days in the last month so counted, in which case the period computed shall expire with the last day of the month so counted."

What does all that mean? It means that four months is the same day in the month four months later. As example, if the government notice is dated June 5th, then the four month Article 78 filing deadline is October 5th, not 120 days later on October 3rd. If the deadline month does not have the same numbered last day as the date of the government notice, then the deadline is the last day of the deadline month. As example, if the government notice is dated the last day of December, December 31st, then the Article 78 deadline is April 30th, because April does not have 31 days.

Additionally, pursuant to General Construction Law Â§ 25-a, if the deadline falls on a weekend or public holiday, the deadline is extended to the next business day. As example, if the deadline falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the deadline becomes Monday, unless Monday is a public holiday, in which case the deadline becomes Tuesday.

Whatever the deadline date, as you can see, the Article 78 filing period only is a few months, and if your case is not filed by the deadline then usually you lose the right to go to court. This is called being "time barred." So it is very important that you contact an attorney as soon as you receive any unfavorable decision from an agency, or as soon as you realize that the agency is refusing to give you a decision. This is so you can find out if any agency appeals must be used, and also to make sure that your Article 78 time deadline is not missed.

ELIGIBLE LIST NUMBER CAN HELP AN APPEAL

Something that you may not understand is how achieving a high score on the civil service exam can help your appeal if you get disqualified from the eligible list. The following is an example.

John scores 85 on the police officer exam in 1999, and the eligible list is promulgated (officially created) during January 2000. John is called down to begin his investigation process at the police department during summer 2002, and after his investigation he is disqualified for character reasons during May 2003. He appeals the DQ in June 2003, and eventually wins the appeal in November 2003. Unfortunately however, the eligible list expires in January 2004, and the last academy class for candidates on his list starts in October 2003. John runs out of time on the eligible list, and cannot be appointed to an academy class after the list expires.

John did win his appeal, and that will be useful for him in the future if he applies again to the police department, because the department will not DQ him again for the same reason. But, his appeal did not get him the job this time.

The situation would be even worse if John was age-limited. If he became too old to take another police exam after his eligible list expired, then he never can get the job because he cannot take any more exams.

Why did this happen? It happened because John scored too low on the exam, and so his eligible list number was too high. If John had scored 98 on the exam, he would have had a much lower list number, and would have been called down to begin his investigation much sooner. His DQ then probably would have been issued much sooner also, and he would have had more time remaining on the list after winning his appeal. The result would have been that perhaps two or three academy classes may still have remained for his eligible list, and he might have gotten into one of those classes.

The lesson: Study hard for your civil service exam and score high.

MULTIPLE EXAMS CAN HELP AN APPEAL

If available, you should take one exam per year for every civil service job that you want to get. Doing this will put you on a fresh civil service list every year, and so you do not have to worry as much about becoming age-limited. Consider the following example.

Susan is 32 years old, and takes Exam 1000 for police officer. At age 33 she takes Exam 2000 for police officer. At age 34, she takes Exam 3000 for police officer. The eligible list for each exam, without any extension, probably will last four years. So, Exam 1000 will last until Susan is 36 years old, Exam 2000 until she is 37, and Exam 3000 until she is 38.

After her investigation process, Susan is disqualified from Exam 1000 when she is 34 years old, and is only a few months away from her 35th birthday. At age 35 she cannot take any more police exams, but fortunately, Susan was smart. By taking an exam each year until she was age 35, Susan put herself on multiple eligible lists, each of which is going to last four years. So, now she has time to appeal. If she wins her appeal, and even if the eligible list for Exam 1000 expires before she can get into the academy, Susan still is on other lists from Exams 2000 and 3000, and she can get hired from those lists.

Imagine if Susan only had taken Exam 1000, and never took Exams 2000 and 3000. She might have run out of time on the list from Exam 1000 before she could get into the academy, and she would not have been able to take any more exams because she had reached age 35.

The lesson: Again, if available, you should take one exam per year for every civil service job that you want to get. If the exam is offered every two years, then take one every two years, etc., until you reach maximum testing age.

TAYLOR LAW and PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD (PERB)

The New York Taylor Law protects civil service employees, and others, from various anti-union activities by employers. The law prohibits a public employer from interfering with, restraining or coercing a public employee for, essentially, engaging in union-related activities. An example would be where an employer retaliates against a union Shop Steward or Delegate for pursuing their union duties. Retaliation might include loss of overtime, job reassignment, harrassment, or other improper actions.

The Taylor Law also prohibits employers from dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of unions, or discriminating against an employee for the purpose of encouraging or discouraging membership in or participation in union activities.

If you are a public employee whose Taylor Law rights have been violated, you can file a Charge of Improper Employer Practice with the Public Employment Relations Board. An Administrative Law Judge will be assigned to the case, and various legal proceedings will follow.

Very important is that public employees who believe that their rights have been violated should consult with an attorney quickly, because the time limit for filing a PERB Charge only is four months from when the employee first knew, or reasonably should have known, of the improper practice.

GUN ARREST and AIRPORT ARREST

New York weapon laws are different from most other places, and the gun laws truly are terrifying. Your mere possession of a loaded handgun, with no criminal intent at all, results in a mandatory 5-15 year prison sentence upon conviction. Further, almost every case of unlicensed handgun possession now is a felony offense, including possession in the home which formerly only was a misdemeanor.

This is true also for rifle and shotgun possession, particularly if your gun meets the definition of an "assault weapon." Many rifles and shotguns which are legal most everywhere else are considered assault weapons in New York, and the same mandatory sentence applies as with handguns. Additionally, gun magazines are included in the felony category if they can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Knives too are criminalized in New York, and the knife statute is so vague that carrying almost any knife is chargeable as a crime. In New York City, your carrying even a simple pocket knife can result in arrest.

If you are unaware, you unknowingly can be ensnared by these laws, and many people traveling with guns at airports and by car are arrested regularly. You would be shocked by the severe penalties, and become even more shocked when facing a prosecutor determined to obtain a jail sentence, even though you were not aware of the law.

Your case will require representation by counsel experienced with New York gun and weapon laws, and who understands every argument that can be raised for you against the government. In many cases, not only can police and prosecution errors be used as a defense, but also technical issues regarding weapon specification. A defense attorney must be skilled in all these areas to give you the greatest advantage. If you are charged with violating the firearm, pistol, rifle, shotgun, assault weapon or knife laws, please contact our office immediately.

EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER (ERPO)

In New York, there are several ways that a person can lose their right to possess guns, and one of them is with an Extreme Risk Protection Order, or ERPO. If you are believed to be a danger to yourself, or to others, an ERPO can be sought by, among others, a member of your family, certain doctors, a district attorney or the police. A Temporary Order will be issued by a Justice of the Supreme Court, and then a hearing will be held to decide if a Final Order should be issued. The Final Order lasts for one year, but can be renewed.

You should have experienced counsel to represent you with an ERPO case, because evidence presented against you can be very damaging, and you can lose your rights forever. This is because the ERPO process often causes other legal events to occur, and those separate events can cause a permanent loss of your rights.

As an example, an ERPO often is issued at the same time that a Mental Hygiene Law (MHY) Â§ 9.46 "Substantial Risk" report is filed against you with New York State. That report, filed by a medical professional, makes you ineligible to own a firearm anywhere in the United States. The only way to undo the effect of the MHY report is to obtain a Certificate of Relief from Disabilities. However, if the ERPO is not vacated (removed) in Court, and becomes final for a year, after the year is over it becomes much more difficult to get your rights restored through the Certificate of Relief process.

So, it is important to fight the ERPO at the start, and having a very knowledgeable attorney also is very important.

NEW YORK SAFE ACT NICS APPEAL and
CERTIFICATE OF RELIEF

In 2013, the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (SAFE Act) was created, and one part of that law changed the New York Mental Hygiene Law (MHY) to require that certain people be reported to the State. If a mental health professional believes that you are â€œlikely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others,â€ then you must be reported to the State, and once reported you lose your right to own firearms.

Also, when New York puts you into the MHY reporting system, you will not be able to buy a gun legally, and if you go to a gun store and try to purchase a firearm, the FBI National Instant Check System (NICS) will deny the purchase.

The reporting system has been severely criticized, and rightfully, because mental health providers and hospitals routinely report people who are not a threat to anyone. Doctors and hospitals are frightened that if a person they treat later harms themself or another person, then the doctor or hospital will be blamed for not reporting. And so, people are being reported, and are losing their gun rights, even when they are not dangerous.

The only way to restore your rights is by getting a Certificate of Relief from Disabilities. When that Certificate is issued by New York, FBI NICS then no longer should deny gun purchases. However, the Certificate of Relief process has many steps, and must be completed carefully so that you can have the greatest chance of getting back your rights.

ASSAULT WEAPON LAW BOOK

Mr. Levine's latest book, New York Assault Weapon Laws, has been published by LawTech Publications Company and now is available for purchase. The book contains detailed analysis of the New York assault weapon law, various local assault weapon codes, gun-related terminology, and is heavily illustrated with many photographs. It is a must-have resource for persons interested in this very complex and confusing legal subject.

The book can be purchased by using the order form below, or by telephoning LawTech Publications at 212-482-8830. The cost is $49.95 which includes tax and shipping.

An online review of the book by TheGunMag.com can be viewed at:

http://www.thegunmag.com/real-skinny-new-yorks-vaunted-assault-weapons-laws/

A HISTORY OF NYPD

GUN LICENSE CORRUPTION

In 2018, a government corruption trial in New York Federal Court resulted in the conviction of political fundraiser Jeremy Reichberg. Reichberg had bribed the New York City Police Department to obtain gun licenses for his clients, and in 2019 he was sentenced to 48 months in prison. His co-defendant in the trial, NYPD Deputy Inspector James Grant, was acquitted, but the trial still proved that bribes had been paid, and so New York Post editorial writer Eric Sanders correctly wrote, â€œAcquittal or no, the NYPD has shown it can be bought.â€

That criminal case was only one of several that developed from a corruption scandal that became public in 2016 â€” the worst gun license bribery scheme in the entire history of the NYPD. Yet, it was only the latest in a long line of similar scandals, all emanating from the nature of New Yorkâ€™s gun control system.

HISTORY OF THE LAW

There were no handgun restrictions in New York until the 1911 Sullivan Act, when the carrying and ownership of handguns became licensed. In New York City, licenses are issued by the Police Commissioner through the NYPD License Division, and if the License Division does not believe that an applicant is worthy, it has virtually unlimited authority to deny a license application.

Such a system, in theory, can be enforced fairly, but in reality it is not. Not only is the system Byzantine â€” the current application form, without supporting documentation, can be more than 20 pages â€” decisions about carry licenses have been unfair for decades. Many news articles have reported the names of the rich, famous and well-connected who received carry licenses, while average citizens usually could not.

This discretionary scheme invites bias and corruption, and the Sullivan Act was criticized originally for preventing Italian immigrants from getting guns, and for giving special treatment to others. It is no surprise that the system led to favoritism and bribery, and what follows here is just a partial list of wrongdoing:

CORRUPTION SINCE 1970

1970: Police Officer Frank Serpico revealed widespread NYPD corruption, which led to the formation of the Knapp Commission. Among other things, the Commission heard reports that Police were bribed for pistol licenses. In response, NYPD moved licensing from the precincts to Police Headquarters, perhaps believing that the agency could keep a better eye on things under one roof. What was created instead was a convenient one-stop-shop for corruption.

1973: Captain Salvatore Salmieri was suspended without pay for issuing a pistol license to Joseph Sternfeld, the driver of gangster Thomas Eboli, and for lying about the matter. Eboli was the leader of the Genovese crime family for many years, until he was murdered in 1972.

1973: Police Officer Jack Werner was indicted for receiving bribes to â€œexpedite and facilitateâ€ the issuance of pistol permits.

1975: Acting on earlier reports to the Knapp Commission, Special Prosecutor Maurice Nadjari presented evidence to a grand jury that Police Officers and their superiors had received bribes for pistol licenses. Over 100 people were subpoenaed, and the proceeding was interesting, at one point featuring testimony from a stripper who used the stage name â€œLittle Egypt.â€ However, Nadjari had limited success, and some of the likely guilty parties walked away untouched.

1996: Deputy Inspector Charles Luisi allegedly got hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from a gun dealer believed to have ties to the highest levels of the NYPD. State and Federal prosecutors investigated, but whether Luisi exerted influence over gun licenses never was answered publicly. The Department Internal Affairs Bureau failed to file disciplinary charges against Luisi before he retired, but in a later court trial between the gun dealer and his wife, the wife alleged, among other things, that her husband had used his NYPD connections to have her held against her will in a hotel room for three days by Detectives. Luisi was called to testify, but he took the Fifth.

1997: Deputy Inspector Henry Krantz was accused of corruption and his License Division office was raided by IAB. Departmental charges were filed, including that Krantz had given â€œpreferential treatment to individuals or entitiesâ€ and had been â€œwrongfully directingâ€ other Officers to grant favors.

Krantz signed a plea agreement, under which he paid a $10,000 fine, was demoted to Captain and was allowed to retire. Even that disposition perhaps was favoritism, because some believed Krantz was not prosecuted to avoid his telling all that he knew. Others involved were transferred to different duties.

2002: Deputy Inspector Benjamin Petrofsky was accused of giving favored treatment to Aerosmith band members who applied for pistol licenses. Petrofsky allegedly did this for VIP treatment at an Aerosmith concert, and a limousine ride to the after-party. Among other things, Petrofsky was accused of personally going to Madison Square Garden to fingerprint the band members for their license applications.

The Manhattan District Attorney examined whether Petrofsky got illegal benefits. Ultimately, he was demoted to Captain and placed on Dismissal Probation.

2016 SCANDAL

The Mother-of-All gun license scandals began after Federal investigators â€” probing fundraising efforts by supporters of Mayor Bill DeBlasio â€” uncovered a bribery extravaganza.

In 2016, Federal prosecutors charged businessman Alex Lichtenstein with bribery after he, essentially, bought carry licenses for cash. Lichtenstein reportedly bragged that he got 150 licenses, charging his clients $18,000 apiece, which if accurate would total $2,700,000. One license recipient had a record including domestic violence complaints and a threat against someoneâ€™s life.

Lichtenstein pled guilty in 2016, admitting to bribing NYPD Sergeant David Villanueva of the License Division. Lichtenstein was sentenced to 32 months in prison.

Villanueva pled guilty in 2017 to charges that he accepted bribes, and in 2019 was sentenced to 4 months in prison. At his sentencing he reportedly explained that he fell in with a bad element when he joined the License Division.

Villanueva admitted to prosecutors that he helped over 100 people get licenses that never should have been approved, including a person who may have had ties to organized crime. Nonetheless, his vast knowledge of corruption in the License Division made him an invaluable asset, and he became the star witness for the government, with his testimony advancing numerous criminal cases.

One case was the 2018 trial and conviction of former Brooklyn Assistant District Attorney John Chambers. Chambers, who for years billed himself as the top gun license attorney in New York, was convicted in Federal Court of bribery and other charges. He was sentenced to 1 year in prison.

Villanueva also testified at the trial of Deputy Inspector Grant and fundraiser Jeremy Reichberg, where a bombshell inference was raised by Grantâ€™s attorney. The attorney asked Villanueva if he had knowledge about Police Commissioner James Oâ€™Neill, when he was the Chief of Patrol, intervening to help a former Playboy Playmate obtain a pistol license that previously she had been denied. However, the attorneyâ€™s question never was answered as the prosecutor objected, and after a sidebar conference with the judge the matter was dropped.

Yet another NYPD Officer who was charged by Federal prosecutors was Lieutenant Paul Dean, who pled guilty in 2018 to conspiracy to commit bribery. He was sentenced in 2019 to 18 months in prison, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of a $1,000 bribe.

In his pre-sentencing memo to the Court, Dean claimed to have knowledge of enormous corruption involving numerous persons, including a scheme that extended pistol license bribery into neighboring Nassau County. Dean alleged essentially that Sergeant Salvatore Mistretta, the former commanding officer of the NCPD Pistol License Section, would grant licensing favors in exchange for similar favors in New York City.

No charges were filed against anyone at the NCPD, however, Deanâ€™s allegations at least partially were corroborated during the earlier trial of attorney John Chambers. In that case, Sgt. Villanueva testified that he used his good relationship with the Nassau licensing office to obtain favors for clients of Chambers. Villanueva also testified that Chambers sent him an email stating, â€œIf we play our cards right, you could potentially be looking at an extra $10,000 in cash in a 12-month period just for being my consultant in Nassau County.â€

Other Officers charged at NYPD included Police Officer Robert Espinel, accused in 2017 of conspiracy to commit bribery and extortion. He pled guilty in 2019 to the conspiracy charge, and was sentenced to a year and a day in prison and a $5,000 fine. Retired Detective Gaetano Valastro was charged with conspiracy to commit bribery and is awaiting trial. Also, Police Officer Richard Ochetal pled guilty in 2016 to charges of bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery. In 2019 he was sentenced to time-served, two years probation, 320 hours of community service and a $15,000 fine.

Ochetal received the lightest sentence thus far due to his cooperation with prosecutors, and also because he was the person who initially exposed the bribery scandal. It was Ochetal who in 2016 turned himself in and confessed to various corruption. Among his revelations was that NYPD brass had exchanged official power for favors, including a $60,000 junket to Las Vegas in the company of a prostitute. He also testified at the trial of Deputy Inspector Grant and Jeremy Reichberg.

FUTILITY OF ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS

When Sergeant Villanueva indicated that he fell into a bad element at the NYPD License Division, his description was a historic understatement. Saying that the NYPD contained a bad element is like saying that a tsunami contains moisture. Such an element has existed, on and off, for more than 50 years, and each time it saw an opportunity for enrichment, pockets were stuffed.

In the past, no one ever paid the full price for their greed, but the 2016 scandal was different. For the first time since 1973 there was an indictment, and for the first time ever people went to jail. The NYPD could not just transfer, demote or retire those who committed crimes â€” they could not sweep it under the rug â€” because there was a Federal investigation with real teeth, the truth was exposed, and the price was paid for what one Federal prosecutor described as a â€œperiod of rampant corruption.â€

Would it change anything? Yes, for a while. As in other cases of bribery, the License Division was administratively reorganized, and the public was told that the same thing could not happen again. This has been the usual offering from NYPD when gun license bribery was uncovered, and the first time the agency made such promises probably was around the same time the White Star Line announced that the Titanic was â€œpractically unsinkable.â€ The NYPDâ€™s assurances have been just as reliable.

Also, in an effort to insulate itself from future corruption allegations, the License Division began the traditional slaughter of the carry licenses, cancelling most of them at renewal time. One report indicates that over 2,000 licenses have been eliminated. This is an old tactic which the agency has used after each bribery scandal, employing a version of Stalinist reasoning: Where there is no license, there is no problem. But almost all the victims of this policy were innocent licensees, many who had held their licenses for decades. They were the staggering collateral damage of the criminality, and a symbol of the agencyâ€™s indecency.

Regardless of such efforts, no matter what changes have been made they always proved useless. This is because after the dust settled, someone who knew someone, who knew someone else, used those connections to start greasing the system again. The discretionary licensing system provided such fertile soil for corruption that a strong incentive for bribery always existed, and thus, bribes continued to be paid. But, one of the only two ways to end that incentive finally has occurred.

The first way to discourage bribery would have been to end discretionary licensing and let people with clean records, and proper instruction, receive carry licenses. But that never was done willingly by the NYPD because New York government hates the Second Amendment, and the NYPD rather would have endless corruption than let citizens regain their rights.

Fortunately however, the other way to discourage bribery was for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide that the bearing of arms is a right as fully protected as the keeping of arms, and the Court now has done that. In 2008, the Court ruled that keeping arms was a fundamental, individual constitutional right, and in 2022 the Court followed that reasoning with bearing (carrying) arms, and struck down the requirement that license applicants had to show a special â€œneedâ€ for a license to carry a gun.

This means that a person no longer can be denied a carry license based on â€œinsufficient needâ€ or lack of â€œproper cause,â€ and if they pass the background check, moral character review and mental health check, they will receive a carry license.

So the discretionary system of need-based carry license denials, which began over a century ago under the 1911 Sullivan Act, no longer is legal, and the Second Amendment largely has been restored to its original meaning.

ARMED PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE

WHO CANNOT GET A GUN LICENSE

In most of America, no license is required to possess a gun; whether pistol, rifle or shotgun. A license to carry a gun is needed almost everywhere, but possession alone usually does not require any license or permit. New York is one of the few states that requires a pistol license merely to possess a pistol, and New York City is one of the few cities that requires a rifle/shotgun permit to possess a rifle or shotgun.

If the New York systems operated fairly, obtaining the permissions would be easy for most people. In other states that have licensing systems, usually the only things which disqualify a person are a felony criminal record, history of mental hospitalization, or other serious matters. But New York operates very differently, allowing licensing officials the discretion to judge a personâ€™s â€œmoral character.â€

Since New York is â€œanti-gunâ€ politically, and since the discretion is so broad, that power is used to deny licenses as much as possible. Common examples of the reasons for license denials include: any past allegation of violence, regardless of lack of proof; conviction for non-violent misdemeanors; any history of arrest, even without conviction, for any offense no matter how old or minor; non-criminal summonses such as drinking beer in public, failing to pay subway fare or being on the beach after dark; history of traffic tickets. And there are many other examples, but too many to list here.

The result of this extraordinary power over licensing, coupled with the anti-gun mentality, is that many people are denied gun licenses every day of the week, but they are people who are not dangerous, not violent, and not a risk to public safety. These are people who should not, but are, being denied their Constitutional rights.

So, while it is obvious that police cannot be relied upon for protection, how do these un-licensable people defend themselves from violence? Certainly, the government does not care, and we see proof of this across the entire country. Not only does the government refuse to defend the public, in many cases government officials sympathize with the criminals, directing police not to arrest them. And police chiefs who should be arresting the political officials for obstructing law enforcement, instead cower in fear of losing their jobs, and use the excuse that they were just following orders.

Thus again, how does an un-licensable citizen defend themself against rioters and other criminals, many of whom are armed? The answer is that often the un-licensable citizens get guns anyway, and who can blame them.

Take note, we cannot, and are not, advising people to break the law. Lawyers cannot do that. However, we do understand that many will break the law, and are breaking the law already, so what we can do is offer some observations about how un-licensable people can avoid the worst type of law-breaking and most severe penalties. This is very important because, if such a person possesses or uses a weapon for protection in New York, there is a very good chance they will face prosecution for illegal possession of the weapon. Using an illegal gun for a good purpose does not wash away the illegal status of the weapon.

Some of the longest prison sentences apply to possession of handguns and â€œassault weapons.â€ Handguns are easy to identify, but assault weapons are not always so obvious. As a general rule, if it looks military, it is illegal in New York. But to be certain, one must do some research. The best course is to consult with a lawyer who is experienced in this area of law. It does not cost very much just to meet and speak with a lawyer, and when one considers that the client can learn how to avoid facing a felony charge with a mandatory 5-15 year sentence upon conviction, and instead face a misdemeanor charge that might result only in probation, the meeting with the lawyer is very inexpensive.

Possession of large capacity magazines also imposes severe penalties. Everywhere in New York, a large capacity magazine is, with some very minor exceptions, any magazine or similar device which can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. In New York City, the limit is ten rounds for a handgun magazine, and five rounds for a rifle or shotgun magazine.

Another concern is that semiautomatic rifles now are licensed the same way that handguns have been licensed for over 100 years, and persons who cannot obtain a pistol license likely will not be able to obtain a license to own a semiautomatic rifle.

Thus, the least prohibited types of devices are rifles and shotguns that are not assault weapons and are not semiautomatic, and rifle and shotgun magazines that do not hold more rounds than allowed.

SYNAGOGUE SECURITY

Much is being discussed today about how to protect the Jewish community, and a vital part of that discussion relates to securing premises and congregants at synagogues. All Jews are familiar with the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue massacre outside of Pittsburgh, PA, where an antisemite murdered 11 people and wounded 6. It is regarded as the deadliest attack on Jews in American history.

Unfortunately, the Tree of Life murders will not be the last, nor necessarily will they be the most deadly. It is possible for not only one killer, but several acting in concert, to kill far more Jews than were killed that day. So, synagogues are quite rational to be concerned about security.

To antisemites, synagogues represent what the World Trade Center was to Al Qaeda. The WTC represented the power of America in the World, and its destruction was a symbolic extravaganza for Islamists. The images of that day forever are being played on Muslim television and computer screens. For extremist Islam, those images are as iconic as the flag raising at Iwo Jima is for America.

Similarly, attacks on synagogues are attacks not only on Jews â€” and what better place to find a whole room full of unarmed Jews â€” but on Judaism. A Nazi or Muslim terrorist not only concretely kills his Jewish enemies, but strikes a symbolic blow against the detested religion of the Jews. As a result, if there is any Jewish location that is at risk, it is a synagogue. Attacking a delicatessen surely will kill Jews, but the religious angle is missing.

Synagogue protection inevitably reaches a discussion of armed congregants, armed security, or both. However, that comes with legal issues, and there has been plenty of advice given on the subject.

What follows here are rational observations which, frankly, run counter to most of the legal advice being given. No legal advice is provided here. Rather, these are observations based upon 35 years of watching the system of negligence-based litigation develop.

1. If a synagogue creates a formalized system of security involving armed congregants, then every aspect of that system can become the basis for a lawsuit. Further, should an unjustified shooting occur, the existence of that formalized system will doom the synagogue to serious liability.

There are many churches in the United States that have armed congregants, but no formal system operated by the church. The armed congregants gather amongst themselves, and decide privately where each will sit in the congregation to provide the best protection. Importantly, the Church has nothing to do with the matter, and does not approve or disapprove of the practice, of which it has no discernable knowledge.

2. Armed congregants should remain anonymous, and must never discuss with anyone their being armed. This can be a very difficult thing, because people love to brag, but to the extent that it is known by synagogue members that there are armed congregants in their midst, that knowledge can be imputed to the synagogue.

3. If a synagogue has a â€œno weaponsâ€ policy, then the violation of that policy by a congregant â€” a violation which causes an unjustified injury â€” places the synagogue at risk legally. The lawsuit will claim that the synagogue had the policy, thus it knew of the potential risk, but did not properly enforce the policy because the armed congregant gained entrance to the premises.

Had there been no policy, there was nothing that needed enforcement.

4. If a professional security company is employed for all armed protection, then the concerns noted above, essentially, disappear, because it is the security company that will be responsible for weapons use.

5. If a professional company is used, the synagogue should give serious thought to having some of that companyâ€™s personnel visibly armed outside the synagogue. That is a powerful deterrent to attack, as the average attacker will avoid any location where he can be harmed during his attack. The mad dog killers want helpless victims who cannot fight back. So, if a professional armed force is used, flaunt it.

STATEMENT ON RACISM

Mr. Levineâ€™s statement on racism regarding client representation:

â€œOver more than thirty years of legal practice, I have seen many different client reactions to the way that cases are resolved. When clients win their cases, obviously they are very happy. But even when they do not prevail, usually they understand the situation. They can accept that nothing is guaranteed, they did their best, and they are able to move on. However, some clients do not deal with loss very well; either loss of a case, or, being turned down for representation.

My first experience with this happened more than 30 years ago. A man who had served a long prison term for attempted murder telephoned my office seeking representation. He had tried to adopt a child from the New York City Administration for Childrenâ€™s Services, but due to his criminal conviction ACS denied the application. He called my office because he wanted to sue ACS.

I advised the man that ACS had discretion to determine if a person was a suitable parent, and that there was no judge in the courthouse that would disagree with their decision. After much time trying, over and over, to explain why he would be wasting his money on a lawsuit, the man told me that I was 'part of the white power structure trying to keep the black man down.'

What I learned in that moment is that no matter how hard one tries to give good professional advice, what one says may not be what someone else hears, or wants to hear. It seemed ridiculous to me that anyone would assume that my legal advice had anything to do with race; why would I want to turn away a new client? But if a person has race on their mind, everything they see and hear goes through that filter, and I have learned that many people have race filters installed as standard equipment.

This can cause real trouble in a professional relationship. For instance, if a client hears my instruction that he be truthful and honest with me --- as if it were an accusation of dishonesty based on racism --- then we have a serious problem. Similarly, a client may resist hearing advice he does not like, such as when he absolutely is convinced that he was fired due to racism, even though there is a much more obvious explanation (e.g., the client has a substantial history of misconduct).

Regarding government racism in civil service cases, I can say that almost never have I had a case where a client was denied employment, was disciplined in employment or was terminated from employment based on race. While my own experience does not mean that there is no racism in government operations, it probably means that race-based employment decisions occur far less often than many people believe, or want to believe. And again, consider that my office has represented hundreds of clients, and counseled thousands more, for over 35 years.

Lastly, as with any kind of legal claim, if someone alleges racism then there must be real proof; suspicion or belief, alone, do not justify a claim. Claims without adequate proof are known as 'frivolous,' and if a court finds that a claim was frivolous, the court can impose fines on the lawyer and the client. So when a lawyer is unwilling to make a claim of racism because there is not enough proof, it does not mean that they are racist. The lawyer is just being a good lawyer.â€

HAPPY 4TH OF JULY

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natureâ€™s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â€” That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â€” That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. â€” Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. â€” And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

â€” John Hancock

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

1783 FAREWELL TO GEORGE WASHINGTON IN NEW YORK

(From the Memoir of Col. Benjamin Tallmadge)

â€œGovernor Clinton gave a public dinner, at which Gen. Washington and the principal officers of the army, citizens, etc., were present. On the Tuesday evening following, there was a most splendid display of fire-works, at the lower part of Broadway, near the Bowling Green. It far exceeded anything I had ever seen in my life.

The time now drew near when the Commander-in-Chief intended to leave this part of the country for his beloved retreat at Mount Vernon. On Tuesday, the 4th of December, it was made known to the officers then in New York, that Gen. Washington intended to commence his journey that day. At 12 oâ€™clock the officers repaired to Francisâ€™ Tavern, in Pearl Street, where Gen. Washington had appointed to meet them, and to take his final leave of them. We had been assembled but a few moments when His Excellency entered the room. His emotion, too strong to be concealed, seemed to be reciprocated by every officer present. After partaking of a slight refreshment, in almost breathless silence, the General filled his glass with wine, and turning to the officers, he said: â€œWith a heart full of love and gratitude, I now take leave of you. I most devoutly wish that your latter days may be as prosperous and happy as your former ones have been glorious and honorable.â€

After the officers had taken a glass of wine, Gen. Washington said: â€œI cannot come to each of you, but shall feel obliged if each of you will come and take me by the hand.â€

Gen. Knox, being nearest to him, turned to the Commander-in-Chief, who, suffused in tears, was incapable of utterance, but grasped his hand; when they embraced each other in silence. In the same affectionate manner, every officer in the room marched up to, kissed, and parted with his General-in-Chief. Such a scene of sorrow and weeping I had never before witnessed, and I hope may never be called upon to witness again. It was indeed too affecting to be of long continuance â€“ for tears of deep sensibility filled every eye â€“ and the heart seemed so full, that it was ready to burst from its wonted abode. Not a word was uttered to break the solemn silence that prevailed, or to interrupt the tenderness of the interesting scene. The simple thought that we were then about to part from the man who had conducted us through a long and bloody war, and under whose conduct the glory and independence of our country had been achieved, and that we should see his face no more in this world, seemed to me utterly insupportable. But the time of separation had come, and waiving his hand to his grieving children around him, he left the room, and passing through a corps of light infantry who were paraded to receive him, he walked silently on to Whitehall, where a barge was in waiting. We all followed in mournful silence to the wharf, where a prodigious crowd had assembled to witness the departure of the man who, under God, had been the great agent in establishing the glory and independence of these United States. As soon as he was seated, the barge put off into the river, and when out in the stream, our great and beloved General waived his hat, and bid us a silent adieu.

We paid him the same affectionate compliment, and then returned to the same hotel whence Gen. Washington had so recently departed. Thus closed one of the most interesting and affecting scenes that I ever witnessed â€“ a scene so fraught with feeling, that it seemed for a time as if it never could be erased from vivid and constant reflection. But, such is the wise constitution of human nature, that other objects and pursuits occupy the mind and engross the attention, or life would become a burden too heavy to bear.

In a few days, all the officers who had assembled at New York to participate in the foregoing heart-rending scene, departed to their several places of abode, to commence anew their avocations of life.â€

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

ARTICLE I

Section 1.

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Section 3.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

Section 4.

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 5.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

Section 7.

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; â€“ And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Section 10.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

ARTICLE II

Section 1.

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: â€“ â€œI do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.â€

Section 2.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE III

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; â€“ to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; â€“ to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; â€“ to controversies between two or more states; â€“ between a state and citizens of another state; â€“ between citizens of different states; â€“ between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

ARTICLE IV

Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

Section 3.

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

ARTICLE V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

ARTICLE VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

ARTICLE VII

The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

G. Washington - Presdt. and deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire: John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts: Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King

Connecticut: Wm. Saml. Johnson, Roger Sherman

New York: Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey: Wil. Livingston, David Brearly, Wm. Paterson, Jona. Dayton

Pennsylvania: B. Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt. Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos. FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris

Delaware: Geo. Read, Gunning Bedford jr., John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco. Broom

Maryland: James McHenry, Dan of St Thos. Jenifer, Danl Carroll

Virginia: John Blair, James Madison Jr.

North Carolina: Wm. Blount, Richd. Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson

South Carolina: J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler

Georgia: William Few, Abr Baldwin

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

(The first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights)

Amendment I (1791)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II (1791)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III (1791)

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV (1791)

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.

Amendment V (1791)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI (1791)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII (1791)

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII (1791)

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX (1791)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X (1791)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XI (1798)

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Amendment XII (1804)

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; â€“ The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; â€“ the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Amendment XIII (1865)

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIV (1868)

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment XV (1870)

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XVI (1913)

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

Amendment XVII (1913)

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Amendment XVIII (1919)

Section 1.

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.

The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Amendment XIX (1920)

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XX (1933)

Section 1.

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3.

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4.

The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5.

Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission.

Amendment XXI (1933)

Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Amendment XXII (1951)

Section 1.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.

Amendment XXIII (1961)

Section 1.

The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXIV (1964)

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXV (1967)

Section 1.

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Amendment XXVI (1971)

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXVII (1992)

No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.