Reply to Inquiry Letter

Reply to Inquiry and Inability to Offer Substitute

Disclaimer: Be aware that some of these sample letters have legal, financial, or other implications. If you are not sure about the use of any letter, consult with an appropriate professional first.

Reply to Inquiry and Inability to Offer Substitute


Dear

Your letter inquiring about (subject of inquiry) was
brought to my attention.

While we manufacture a vast assortment of (products) ,
none of our models fit the description which you provided.
We have never manufactured (subject of inquiry).

You may wish to direct an inquiry to the following
distributor, whose firm has been in existence for many
years and who may have the answer you are seeking:

____(name of firm)____
____(address)_________
____(city,state,zip)__

I am sorry that I am unable to be of more assistance to
you. Best of luck!

independence, was secured upon independence within the constitutional structure and process of governance of the state of New York, and their protection remains fundamental to the sovereignty of the people of the state of New York and of the United States of America today.

We challenge the constitutionality of the 1961-2 repeals of Sections §§ 10, 13 and 15 of Article I (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of the state of New York as, among other reasons, an ex post facto act by the assembly in support of their apparent creature "town board government" in the Town of Easthampton. We hold said creature to have been unconstitutionally imposed upon the Town of Easthampton and Montauk around 1925 under the guise of the Town Law of 1909. (Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, U.S. Supreme Court, 1819, 4 Wheaton 518 ). The "town board government" of Easthampton is not a legal entity, has no constitutional basis for its claim of civil jurisdiction, and cannot be made to be legal by the state assembly. It is, in effect, a "stealth Woodward".

We do also believe that the MFOP/Montauk Trustee corporation was denied equal protection of the laws of the state of New York with the intent of denying due process of law by the court of original jurisdiction and do seek a direct appeal from its actions with the purpose of a remand for further process of law and a trial.

This matter clearly affects the construction of the constitution of the State of New York and we have presented to the court a substantial constitutional and statutory basis for an appeal as a matter of right. If there are questions about our assertion of the court's jurisdiction, they may be more appropriately raised by the defendants in the forthcoming briefs or by the court during oral argument. We do, therefore, pray the for termination of this inquiry and the quick establishing of a new schedule for the perfecting of the appeals.

In closing, it is important to understand our assertion that this matter was dismissed by the lower court by the extraordinary intervention of a biased judge who denied equal protection of the law for the purpose of obstructing due process of law and that the good justices of the appellate court were clearly prejudiced by two decisions of this higher court that utilized the same unconstitutional misapplication of statute.

The constitutional effect of such a denial of fundamental constitutional rights is best summed up in the written message which the great republican parliamentarian Algernon Sydney passed to his executioner. It read:

"That God had left Nations unto the Liberty of setting up such Governments as best pleased themselves.

That Magistrates were set up for the good of Nations, not Nations set up for the honor or glory of Magistrates.

That the Right and Power of Magistrates in every Country, was that which the laws of that Country made it to be.

That those Laws were to be observed, and the Oaths taken by them, having the force of a Contract between Magistrate and People, could not be violated without danger of dissolving the whole Fabrick."

Algernon Sidney was executed on 7 December 1683 by a predecessor to the courts of the state of New York upon the testimony of one witness when the law required two. The court determined to ignore his right to equal protection of law and executed him for his avowedly republican beliefs. Algernon Sydney had significant involvement in the framing of the constitutions of North Carolina and Pennsylvania and was executed only thirty eight days after the enactment of the original constitution of New York on 30 October 1683 by framers who articulated therein the same principles of republican constitutional government.

The very "fabric" of the still young experiment in constitutional republican government in the state of New York is threatened by the improper handling of this case. Any further protection of the usurpation of the contractually established sovereign jurisdictions of the Towns of East Hampton and Montauk is constitutionally unwise and unjust. Neither this state nor our nation has been conquered by a foreign power and we neither know nor accept any authority above the constitutions, laws and statutes of this state or our nation.

We do pray that we be accorded argument upon the appeal of the Montauk Friends of Olmsted Parks Corporation as a matter of right and seek a judgment of this court which will remand this matter to the court of the Honorable Robert Webster Oliver, J.S.C., for further process of law and a full and fair trial.

Robert A. Ficalora, pro se acting supervisor and assignee MFOP/Montauk Trustee Corp

Cc: Cahn, Wishod & Knauer, Esqs.(Town)

Esseks, Hefter and Angel, Esqs.(Sunbeach)

Attorney General c/o Solicitor General, Dept. of Law, The Capitol, Albany

Enclosures (court only):

· Jurisdiction Statement (1) upon CPLR § 5601(b)(2) w/notice of appeal and attachments

· Jurisdiction Statement (2) upon CPLR § 5601(b)(1) w/notice of appeal and attachments

· Record on Appeal, Robert A. Ficalora as asjgnee of Montauk Friends of Olmsted Parks., inc. &c. v. the town board government of East Hampton and Sunbeach Montauk II, inc. Suffolk index number 98-14806.

· Appellant's brief, 8/30/1999

· Defendant Town's reply, 11/2/1999

· Appellant's answer

· Your inquiry of 21 Feb 2001

These and other documents are also available at www.montauk.com.