Google January 2001

Subsequent events kinda put *that* in a different light, don't they?

Miller was a resident of Forest Hills, NY, where Runway 69 was located, when he filed his suit against Silverstein, Nixon, Perot, NYC, & Teevee 4  pro se, by himself, without hiring a card-carrying member of the bar.  His filing this suit pro se probably meant that, unless he is Harold Miller, PA of Forest Hills, NY, he probably didn't have a fucking clue what he was doing in that pool full of sharks.

=-=-=

Miller v. Silverstein, 122 F.3d 1056 (table), 1997 WL 557620
(2d Cir. Sept. 9, 1997.)

NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. (The
Court's decision is referenced in a "Table of Decisions Without Reported
Opinions" appearing in the Federal Reporter. See FI CTA2 § 0.23 for rules regarding
the publication and citation of unpublished opinions.)

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Sept. 9, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Amon, J.), and was submitted.

Harry P. Miller, pro se, Forest Hills, New York.

APPEARING FOR APPELLEES Richard M. Nixon, John W.
Vessey, Colin L. Powell and William J. Clinton: Zachary W. Carter, United States
Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New York.

APPEARING FOR APPELLEE New York City: Elizabeth
I. Freedman, Assistant Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, New York.

APPEARING FOR APPELLEE H. Ross Perot: Loretta
M. Gastwirth, Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C., Mineola, New York.

APPEARING FOR APPELLEE WNBC TV Channel 4: Lynn
B. Oberlander, NBC Legal Department, New York, New York.

APPEARING FOR APPELLEE Larry Silverstein: Larry
Mandel, Dinkes and Morelli, New York, New York.

Before: MESKILL, JACOBS, C.J., KORMAN, [FN*] D.J.

SUMMARY ORDER

At a stated term of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the
City of New York, on the 9th day of September, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is
affirmed.

In July 1993, Miller, a Vietnam veteran, filed an
amended complaint [FN1] in district court against Larry Silverstein, the alleged owner of
"Runway 69," a Queens dance club, WNBC-TV Channel 4 television station
("WNBC"), the City of New York ("NYC"), President Clinton, former
President Richard Nixon, H. Ross Perot, John W. Vessey and Colin Powell. Although
difficult to decipher, the gravamen of Miller's complaint is that the named defendants
committed or aided others in committing illegal acts, including assassinations, over a
twenty-five year period, beginning amidst the Vietnam War, in furtherance of a conspiracy
to distribute Laotian heroin. He asserted that the defendants are still engaged in heroin
trafficking today and that "Goldfingers International," a business that supplies
nude dancers to nude dance clubs, is laundering the proceeds of the conspiracy through
"Runway 69." Miller alleged that the proceeds are used for such purposes as
covering up the "Watergate scandal" and buying the "cooperation" of
the NYC Police Department.

FN1. In April 1993, Miller commenced his action in state court. The
action was subsequently removed to the district court and in July 1993, Miller filed an
amended complaint, which incorporates his first complaint.

Based on his allegations, Miller asked for $49
million in damages as well as a myriad of court orders, such as one providing that
"no President or officer of the United States of America has ever been authorized to
order the death of any person without due process of war or law" and that "no
executive order of the President can provide due process for assassinations."

In January 1994, all of the defendants moved to
dismiss Miller's complaint. In a 28-page order, the court granted each of the defendants'
motions and dismissed all of Miller's claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Miller
appeals.

This Court has the "inherent authority, wholly
aside from any statutory warrant, to dismiss an appeal ... as frivolous when the appeal
... presents no arguably meritorious issue for [its] consideration." Pillay v. INS,
45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir.1995). A case is deemed frivolous if it is "based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory," or presents "clearly baseless"
factual contentions. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). A finding of factual
frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged "rise to the level of the
irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts
available to contradict them." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 26 (1992); see
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328 (factual frivolous allegations include "claims describing
fantastic or delusional scenarios"). [FN2]

FN2. This Court is free to affirm the district court on grounds not
relied upon by district court. Alfaro Motors, Inc. v. Ward, 814 F.2d 883, 887 (2d
Cir.1987). A district court's dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de
novo. See Leeds v. Meltz, 85 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir.1996).

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is
hereby AFFIRMED.

FN* Hon. Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New
York, sitting by designation.

 

http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/wcc/miller.htm

=-=-= 

Select portions of interest:

Miller had appealed the original dismissal of his claims which were pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) -

(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; ....

The court found that Miller had failed to show whereby he himself had been harmed by the alledged actions of the defendants. 

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held the lower court ruling by finding Miller's claims to be frivolous.

Frivolous:

A frivolous claim in legal terms refers to a lawsuit or motion in a lawsuit motivated by an intent merely to harass, delay or embarrass the opposition. In order to be found frivolous, the claim must have no arguable basis in law or fact. Frivolous acts can include filing the lawsuit itself, a motion for a court action in a lawsuit, an answer of a defendant to a complaint which does not deny, contest, prove or controvert anything, or an appeal which is without any valid supporting arguments. 

From the unpublished opinion above:

This Court has the "inherent authority, wholly aside from any statutory warrant, to dismiss an appeal ... as frivolous when the appeal ...

(1)

presents no arguably meritorious issue for [its] consideration." Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir.1995). A case is deemed frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory," or presents "clearly baseless" factual contentions. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).

(2) 

A finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged "rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 26 (1992); see Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328 (factual frivolous allegations include "claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios"). [FN2] 

The above are simply statements of fact regarding the latitude of the court's authority to find a filing to be frivolous.  It's interesting that they did not state which one of the two or both combined justified their opinion.  In other words, they didn't dispute Miller (it wasn't really the court's job to do so anyway).  They just said that Miller's claims were just too outfuckingrageous to believe about these fine Americans - Nixon, Perot, and Silverstein.

It won't be long now before courts finding that a litigant's claims against the government to be "frivolous" will be rewarded with a unlimited cocktails of mind altering substances during a lengthy free stay in state a mental institution.  That was the Soviet way of handling unfortunately deranged persons like Miller. 

Sidetrips while traversing the Harry Miller rabbit hole:

Who is Mark Cuban?

Who is Todd Wagner? 

http://www.iamthewitness.com/2929Entertainment.html

#428 Mark Cuban 

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/IXMB.html

"The record IPO made instant financial successes out of the company's employees through stock options, making 100 employees millionaires on paper (although most of them were unable to exercise their options and sell their shares before the stock price dropped) and founders Cuban and Wagner billionaires.

In April 1999, Yahoo! acquired the company for $5.7 billion in stock and renamed it Yahoo! Broadcast Solutions. Over the next few years Yahoo! split the services previously offered by Broadcast.com into separate services, Yahoo! Launchcast for music and Yahoo! Platinum for video entertainment. Yahoo! Platinum has since been discontinued, its functionality being offered as part of two pay services, AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet and Yahoo! Plus.

As of 2007, neither broadcast.com nor broadcast.yahoo.com are distinct web addresses; both simply redirect to yahoo.com."

Quite a chunk 'o change Yahoo pissed away on Mark Cuban! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast.com

More 9/11 (Zionist) propaganda conferences 

http://www.iamthewitness.com/Dan-Wallace-and-deception.html