New York State Division of Human Rights Purposes of Article 290

The Standards: Article 290 of the New York State Division of Human Rights Laws and Regulations is known as the "Human Rights Law". It states in part:

"The legislature hereby finds and declares that the state has the responsibility to act to assure that every individual within this state is afforded an equal opportunity to enjoy a full and productive life and that the failure to provide such equal opportunity whether because of discrimination, prejudice, intolerance or inadequate education...threatens the rights and proper privileges of its inhabitants...". (290. Purposes of Article 3., NYS Division of Human Rights).

The Truths: Not every individual within this state is afforded an equal opportunity to enjoy a full and productive life, including equal opportunity in education and equal protection of the laws. Defective or corrupt administrations rather than defective policy is usually to blame. Laws and regulations are clearly in place to protect individuals from the forms of discrimination, harassment, intimidation and bullying that both Michael and I have been subject too by numerous state agencies and individuals who egregiously and illegally abuse the "Human Rights Law".

In the case of Michael, New York State Division of Human Rights holds sufficient knowledge and credible evidence that numerous state agencies and individuals, including the City of North Tonawanda School District, repeatedly denied Michael an equal opportunity to enjoy a full and productive life, which includes his civil right to equal access to education and equal protection of the laws. Yet, further by letter dated June 14, 2007, from New York State Division of Human Rights, Acting General Counsel, Caroline J. Downey states:

"Pursuant to Rule 20 (c), where an appeal is not taken and the time to appeal has expired, a reopening of a no probable cause determination may be predicated only upon actions occurring subsequent to the investigation, or an allegation of newly discovered evidence of wrongdoing, fraud or irregularity which could not, with due diligence, have been discovered before the dismissal of the complaint (9 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 465.20 (c)). A careful review of your case does not support a reopening under this section."