Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

States Confront the Executive

This plan will show you how the States can lawfully assert power against the Executive and protect the Constitution.

This is a plan to assist you. It is designed to provide you details and guidance. You are free to ignore this information.

This is not specific guidance to any individual. It is provided for discussion purposes for a general audience. You are encouraged to discuss this information with an attorney before taking action.

We do not advocate violence.

* * *

Welcome: Where we are going with this plan

DoJ’s responses to the House Judiciary Committee on the NSA unlawful activity provide an opportunity. DoJ has fatally asserted the White House and DoD illegally use military power against innocent American civilians in support of combat operations. This is a war crime. [ Ref ]

Under the laws of war, when innocent civilians are targeted, and the laws are ignored, the civilians may lawfully ignore those laws.

DoJ has not distanced itself from the assertions. We proceed on the assumption that the White House continues to illegally use military force against American civilians in violation of the laws of war.

This plan discusses a framework for the States to lawfully engage with the Executive, and assert State Power to subdue this President’s unlawfully rebellion against the Constitution.

We do not advocate violence.

[ For a summary of the plan below, see ( this link ); To read about the Joint Staff's UCMJ risks and liabilty for war crimes against civilians, click ( this link ) ]

* * *

Under the laws of war there is a principle of reciprocity. All laws which the Executive has not violated remain in full force; all powers the Executive has illegally asserted may lawfully be asserted against him. Namely, if the Executive chooses to unlawfully assert legislative and judicial power -- which he has not been delegated -- then the States may lawfully reciprocate in kind.

The purpose of this plan is to show how the Executive is devoid of legal foundation; and set the stage for what will be the full erosion of Executive command authority, not only when the military and the executive branches, but also across the Federal Government and around the globe.

The plan outlined below will show how the States may lawfully proceed on the Just War Theory, Geneva Conventions, and principle of reciprocity. The plan does not advocate any violence. Rather, the plan merely builds off what DoJ has fatally asserted. If the Executive chooses to undermine this plan, or say that the principles behind it are unsound, then he will have fallen into the trap: Of rejecting the very things he asserted in his oath he would do – preserve the Constitution.

* * *

The discussion is very simple. There are four major sections to this discussion. You will be introduced to some overall principles of warfare, then presented with some principles of statecraft; then you will be given an overall plan; and finally there will be a discussion on detailed planning and things that can be done.

As we move forward keep in mind the entire problem revolves around the Executive and his abuse of power and violation of rights. This confrontation is one that he has chosen. If he does not wish the lawful consequences to occur, then he should immediately resign.

The law enforcement and military commanders have taken an oath to protect the Constitution. They must consider their oath in light of the current DoJ statements. It will be some challenging time for the members of the CIA, NSA contractors, and members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force. They will have to decide which side of the confrontation they choose: The rule of law, or the President’s rebellion against the rule of law. The rule of law shall prevail.

At the same time Attorney Fitzgerald continues to make inroads. He has received cooperation from many people. His sources are well placed. Rove has agreed to direct the investigation to the Vice President’s e-mails.

In concert with these developments is the state level effort to impeach, and the ongoing planning for a New Constitution. All of these are related to one thing: The executive’s defiance of the rule of law.

Keep in mind one thing: It is March 2006, seven long months before the 2006 November election. We only learned about the NSA illegal activities just over 90 days ago. A lot has occurred. None of them are helping the President.

* * *

Let’s go over the current situation, and emphasize what this planning is about. It is about one thing: Asserting the rule of law, protecting our rights and preventing the abuse of power. If you take nothing away form this discussion, know one thing: We are on the side of the law, justice, and the Constitution. The President has chosen the wrong side.

The issue before is what is to be done. It is simple. We must protect our rights and prevent the abuse of power. IT does not matter whether Congress does or does not fell like doing this. Nor does it matter that something might change in November. The issue before us today in March 2006, is what is to be done to protect our rights and prevent the abuse of power. This Congress has failed. The way forward is for the States to step in under their authority from Article X of the US Constitution, and assert their power.

Also keep in mind the other problem. The Country is at the cross roads. It must decide whether it is serious about the existing Constitution – and assert it to end this President’s rebellion – or whether there will be a New Constitution. Either way, the rule of law shall prevail. Either the Executive assents to the rule of law and Congress provides that leadership; or the New Constitution will lawfully revoke the abused and non-asserted powers. The States may do or not do what they choose. The current state of affairs is unacceptable, and at odds with the principles within the Magna Charter and US Constitution of 1787.

All military commanders and government officials have one oath to one document: Your job is to protect your Constitution. At the same time, you must also decide what is to be done when you are ordered to violate the law and illegally destroy the Constitution. The answer should be clear. The actions demonstrate confusion.

* * *

Before we get into the details, this discussion is about one thing: It is a wake up call to the Federal Government: You have effectively declared war on American civilians; and the way forward is for that war to end, and this rebellion to end. You can either cooperate with the rule of law, or you can have the rule of law imposed on you by force. You have to choose whether you cooperate or whether you have to have the courts lawfully impose on you’re the lawful threat of force to compel you to do what you have sworn: Protect the Constitution. You have no real choice. But for the sake of this discussion, we’ll assume that you’re either not clear, or that you’re defying your oath and choosing to engage in the rebellion.

Keep in mind the big picture. During the civil war the issue was what was to be done with rebellious states. Today, the issue is what is to be done with a Rebellious President. He has chosen the wrong side of the law.

Nothing the White House has said or done justifies confidence or belief. Each statement we hear is absurd. Each excuse not consistent with what we know.

Some have suggested that we have to wait and find facts. This is not wise. We can do something called, “made adverse judgments.” When we are dealing with someone who refuses to cooperate with the law, and they do not provide information as they are required, we may make conclusions based on adverse inferences. This means that we can presume that the reason they’re not cooperating is that they are engaged in other crimes; and that there is evidence they have that they have destroyed that would support that conclusion.

The way forward is not to wait for evidence that is hidden or destroyed. The way forward is to recognize who we are dealing with: War criminals who use military force illegally against innocent civilians; and people who took an oath to preserve the Constitution, but they openly defy. They are not to be trusted. They are in rebellion against the rule of law.

The way forward is to give them a lawful wakeup call: You will either end your rebellion, or we will lawfully revoke your power. At present, the Congress and States are in a stand off; neither side is moving. The election is seven months away.

The way forward is to force the situation, and compel a response from the White House and find out more about the scope of their illegal activities. This will support the trials. It will also let the American people know who they are dealing with: War criminals who have no defense.

* * *

As you read the following information, keep one thing in mind: The rule of law guides us to what is lawful and permissible; and that we may lawfully assert power to protect our rights and prevent the abuse of power. The confrontation between the States and the White House has already started. The issue is how long the White House needs to realize that they have no power.

This discussion will show you how the White House will further squander its power; and find itself in more no-win dilemmas. The longer they deviate from the law, the more ridiculous their statements will be come.

Within the halls of Congress and in the Executive Branch offices along Pennsylvania Avenue, there is jockeying for power. Right now, the personnel inside the Executive Branch can see the writing on the wall: It’s every man and woman for themselves. The President’s authority is evaporating. His power is not being legally used. The DC crew is doing one thing: Looking out for themselves, not America.

* * *

Let’s consider some broad themes to describe what is going on; out of this, you’ll see the basis for the plan, and what the States can do to put additional Pressure on the President to resign.

Let’s start with some basic observations? This Executive ignores the laws and courts; and abuse power and interferes with the Constitutional system that the states have been guarantees. Congress refuses to respond.

The legal issues for the states are clear, but the Executive does not cooperate on fact finding. Once the States exhaust all legal options, and see the Congress is not willing to protect the Constitution, then we proceed to seek foreign assistance.

The issue is that the Executive has already stated that he will use pre-emptive force; this is not a threat, but an implicit threat against the States that should be taken for what it is: A promise to impose power unlawfully and use violence. This is not lawful, and it is not acceptable. Under Article II, the States may seek assistance when Congress is not responsive, or the imminent threat is something that cannot afford the luxury of time.

At the same time, there is something important to recall about the laws of war. Once a leader violates the laws of war against his own people, the people are no longer bound to honor the Constitution. This means that the requirements on the States to abide by certain restrictions are not enforceable so long as the Federal Government fails to guarantee its Article IV commitment: To retain and preserve a Positional government.

The way forward is clear: In order to compel the States to abide by their agreement, the Congress must agree to their agreement. As long as the Congress does not protect the Constitution, then the States do not need to honor any terms which prevent them from protecting themselves.

The solution is simple: If the Congress and Executive want this problem and situation to end, they simply need to assert the rule of law against the original offending party: The executive.

Once the Executive – by the DoJ assertion – admits that his illegal use of the NSA is in support of combat operations, then the citizens and states know one thing: That there is a state of war, and that all laws the Executive ignores or violates are not standards to which the States and citizens are bound.

This does not mean you are free to violate the law. Rather, we’re simply talking about power. Once the Executive assents to the rule of law, and constraints himself, then the States no longer need to do what they are entitled to do under the laws of war: Ignore the constraints which the Executive ignores.

* * *

Here’s the central problem: The Executive has clear Constitutional requirements. He has no choice. The problem is he is ignoring these constraints.

Let’s be specific. The Executive has the duty to notify Congress when the NSA is doing something illegal. He did not do that. Under the laws of war, the States and citizens may lawfully reciprocate on this narrow violation and similarly not notify Congress of something.

If the Executive wishes to have the States do something that he himself refuses to do, then the Executive needs to notify Congress as he promised. We see no notification from the President; thus the States are not bound nor can they be compelled to meet a standard the Executive refuses to honor.

That’s how this is going to work. At each violation, the States should make it clear that under the just war theory, we will lawfully reciprocate. This is how rebels are effectively subdued. When they ignore the law; then you must ignore their power, and lawfully reciprocate with a balanced violation and transgression.

The laws of war permit this. This is legal. And this simply springs off what the DoJ has fatally asserted about the NSA. There is one solution: The President needs to lawfully resign. Until that happens, the Executive is going to keep doing what he’s always been doing: Ignoring the law. That is an abuse of power, and violation of our rights.

* * *

There is a simple message. The White House and specifically this Executive are going to lose. Whether the Executive Branch accepts that or not does not matter. The States are far more powerful that the Federal Government. The Federal Government has no manpower. It has to rely on the states for that. That is where the States will get their power.

The States will have to decide at what point they will classify their fellow citizens as being in an unlawful support of a rebellion against the Constitution.

We saw the results in Katrina: The Federal government cannot do anything. It needs locals.

If the States decide that they no longer can trust the Federal Government to honor its oath, then the sates may choose to classify all government contracts as being illegal, and contrary to what is in the 14th Amendment. Again, the issue is not what is or is not permissible; the issue is whether the States do or do not have to permit their resources and manpower to unlawfully violate their Constitution, and what the States may lawfully do to protect their Constitution.

Again, the issue is not what we saw in the Civil war where a group of states went one way, and another went another. This time, the only dispute is between the Executive and the Constitution.

This time, the States are going to force the Congress and the Executive to choose: Whether you are for or against the Constitution. This time, the states are going to have to decide when their continued interaction with the Federal government is a threat or a risk to their Constitutional system.

* * *

The other problem before us is that this Executive unlawfully asserts judicial power. This is not legal.. Under the laws of war – until this Executive refrains from illegally using the NSA against civilians – the States should not feel bound to comply with restrictions this Executive ignores.

Namely, if the Executive is going to assert Judicial power – under the principle of reciprocity, so too may the States assert that power. When the Executive agrees to act in a civil manner, then the states may choose to abide by their agreement; or support a new Constitution.

The problem rests with the Executive. And his defiance of the law, promises, and commitments does not leave us defenseless. Rather, it empowers us – under the laws of war – to similarly ignore and violate those same principles this Executive refuses to respect. To do otherwise, would ask that we assent to abuse; anything else would simply invite more of what we already have: An executive who defies the Constitution.

Make no mistake. Some will rightfully argue that this is not prudent. But when they raise those reasonable concerns, ask them: What other lawful solution is there.

By doing this, we will force the Executive into a no-win situation. Namely, in order to assert his power – and “Fix” what he does not like – he will have to rely on the very document he ignores as the basis for his action. But that is absurd: How can the Constitution be the source of his authority when he openly defies the Constitution.

The way forward is to know that the Executive abuses embolden Americans to lawfully reciprocate. The DoJ fatal assertions has opened the door. If DoJ and the White House want to have civility, then they need to assent to the rule of law. Until then, each State should know that the DoJ has asserted the NSA is in support of combat operations. This is illegal. Under the laws of war, those who are subject to violations of the law need not follow that law; rather, we may lawfully reciprocate in kind with equal violations and transgressions.

The solution and end to these issues is on the back of one man: The Executive. He has unlawfully abused power; and imposed this illegal war against Americans. If he wants to have his power respected, then he needs to respect his obligations to the Constitution. He defies that obligation. We may lawfully defy him. The end of this will be up to the Executive. We do not advocate violence. Rather, we simply encourage the Executive Branch to realize: You are supporting the wrong side of the law; and the States know they have options.

* * *

As a demonstration of the States power and their commitment to the rule of law, there remains on going discussions and planning to lawfully remove the President form power. This is being led by the States. The Federal Government has failed and chooses to do nothing.

Also, as further evidence of the commitment to the rule of law, this Executive has been given two deadlines to reassign; and the Congress two deadlines to end this unlawful rebellion. Both deadlines have passed. We need not consider their statements. Rather, they are simply unresponsive.

The way forward, is to know that the States and public can see exactly what the problem is: The existing system is not working. The way forward is to know there is a simple choice: Choose this Constitution, or choose something that will force you to choose this Constitution.

A new Constitution has already been drafted. It remains as an option. The States do not have to go through A Constitutional Convention; rather, we the people may independently create a New Constitution and vote on it. The problems are clear. The solutions are simple. The issue is whether the Executive Branch and Congress want to simply solve this problem; or require the people to do what the leaders refuse to do: Lead.

Either way, is acceptable. But know there will be one result: A constitution. You can either work with the one you have, or the New One is going to make you do it. Choose.

* * *

The only way this Executive can enforce the Constitution is if he follows the Constitution. Until then, under the principle of reciprocity, the contracts which this Executive ignores does not have any meaning to the states.

If there is a requirement the Executive is not meeting, then there is a similar requirement the States need not meet.

If there is a law or obligation the Executive does not follow, there is a similar law or obligation the States may ignore.

The solution is up to the Executive. He is the one that is in rebellion. The way forward is for him to end his rebellion; until then, anything he does that violates the law may be lawfully reciprocated in kind with balanced responses by the states.

This is a problem the Executive has created. The way forward if for the Executive to meet his obligations. Until that happens, the State have other lawful options. We can create a new Constitution.

We can also trigger successive state percolations calling for impeachment. This does not have to wait until November. Rather, with each call for Congress to act – and each likely non-response – will be more evidence and justification to do what the states are lawfully entitled to do under the laws of war: Ignore the same laws and Constitution this President ignores.

The New Constitution is simple. It simple makes Congress do what it promise; and imposes lawful consequences on them for failing to do what should be done.

The way forward over the coming days and weeks is simple. Simple observe what is or isn’t happening. Each observation you make will be something of value. We will collectively learn which rules and laws Congress and the Executive do or do not follow. The way forward is to organize what we observe, then collectively agree what must be included in the New Constitution to address what we will soon learn.

This is fairly easy to do. The Magna Charta and US Constitution are the same things: They are simply lists of solutions to problems of their day. Our job is to know that there can be a solution; and that there is a New Constitution already drafted, so you need not worry that you’re starting from square one.

We the People have the power to draft a New Constitution. We do not have to rely on the Constitution to make changes to it; rather, we can start over. This Executive has effectively trashed the Constitution; all we’re doing is putting a lid of the trash can.

* * *

Let’s consider the details of what we’re actually taking about. Right now, the Executive wants the Congress to assent to his rebellion. Congress do nothing.

The Executive also ignores the Constitution. This means that the way forward is to find those clauses that impose requirements on the States and make it clear that the States no longer need to honor them as long as the Executive ignores the Constitution.

We cannot speak in general terms. Rather, we have to be specific. They way forward is to bring this absurdity into the open. Bluntly, the Executive must be forced to political grovel before We the People.

This note explain how this will be done.

* * *

There is a way to force the Excusive to show his cards, his true self, and what he’s willing to violate is to do what has already started: Challenge the Executive. If he defies the law, then under the law of war theory – relying on what DOJ said about illegal use of NSA forces against civilians – then we may lawfully reciprocate in kind with an equal violation of that power.

The way forward is to proceed off this absurdity, and lawfully assert power: To do what is permissible to protect our constitution; and at the same time remind the Congress and Executive that this will end only when they choose to assent to the rule of law.

The way forward is to recognize that this Federal Government refuses to honor its commitment under Article IV; does not guarantee a Constitutional system; and is in active rebellion against the Constitution.

The way forward is to lawfully compel the Executive to openly show that he relies on something that he ignores. If the States assert their right – under Article II to get assistance when there is not quick response – then the Executive will have a problem. Either

  • A. He will do nothing, confirming that he has no power; or

  • B. He will say the action is illegal, confirming he relies on the Constitution which he has ignored.

    The States will have to decide whether they will assert their power – under the Just war theory and reciprocity – and force the DoJ and White House to retract their statements on the NSA; or whether they will continue to ignore the same Executive who ignores the Constitution.,

    The point isn’t that someone is or isn’t violating the law. The issue is that the Executive’s already weakened position will be openly challenged; and the Executive will have to take action which either confirms his hypocrisy – or that he has no power. In short, the States have the power to force the Executive to admit he is in a no win situation, and powerless.

    * * *

    There is a lot of support. The Federal Government is ineffective, unresponsive, and fails to assert power, or fails to use power. The Federal Government is worthless.

    There is no respect for the rule of law. The way forward is to demonstrate that the Congress is not helping in asserting Article IV guarantees.

    Also, what’s needed is something that will show the Congress is no help in responding to this President’s domestic threat against the Constitutional system.

    Nor is the Congress or Federal Government able to effectively mange the unlawful use of military power against American civilians.

    It remains to be understood which pre-emptive plans the White House and DoD plan to implement to force the States to assent to laws this Executive ignores.

    The issue is that this Executive and Congress do nothing about war crimes against Americans. We can make adverse inferences about what is or isn’t going on; the point is simply that the Federal Government has failed. Congress needs to act; or We the People can make a New Constitution to make them.

    * * *

    Within a few short weeks, it will be clear the executive has no legal options. He defies the laws, but wants to rely on them to abuse power.

    He violates the laws of war, then wants to rely on the law to abuse others.

    He ignores the court, then wants to use them to restrict the States.

    He defies his oath and constitution, then wants to assert the Constitution to abuse others.

    The above issues are about to come to a head. There will be a clear contrast. The purpose of this lawful confrontation is to show to the public that the President is at odds with the standards he wants to impose on others.

    This Executive has no authority. He has defies his oath. He can either resign, or we can draft a new Constitution. It is he who is in rebellion against the law. We never agreed to assent to an abuse of power, nor violation of our rights. Whether he agrees or does not agree with fact finding and discovery is irrelevant. He refuses to cooperate. We no longer need to cooperate with him, nor be constrained by the Constitution which he ignores.

    * * *

    The lawful confrontation will clearly show the Executive one thing: The states are setting the agenda.

    The way forward will quickly remind the world that the States and We the People are forcing the Executive to respond, and that his weaknesses are showing.

    This lawful confrontation will clearly show we are asserting the rule of law; and are making the White House rebels assent to the law.

    The message is simple. The states have options. The States may raise issues, ask questions, and interact with other players to protect their Constitution. Whether those players are in Congress or overseas is up to the Executive to decide.

    * * *

    This executive is at odds with the judicial system. The White House has one goal: To keep this issue out of court. All the more reason to have a lawful confrontation, and force the Court to be the forum to resolve the issue.

    Each action this Executive takes is at odds with the law. All the actions during this lawful confrontation will be more evidence: Either he does or does not follow the law. If he follows the law in some cases, why not others? He has no answers.

    Rather, we may make adverse judgments. What is going on with the NSA, and what is this Executive doing to Americans?

    * * *

    Each goal this Executive has is at odds with the laws. If he was in harmony with the laws, we would not have this problem.

    Know there is not linkage between what the White House is doing and the rule of law. They will only assent to the law when they realize they have no option. The States are fully prepared to compel this Executive to see: He has not only run out of options, he has run out of time: He no longer has any lawful authority, or any command authority over his combat forces.

    * * *

    As we move forward, keep in mind a simple idea. Every time the Executive relies on the law, he cannot explain why he does not follow the law.

    He wants others to follow rules, but he self-asserts immunity to that law.

    He wants others to act in a civil way, but openly defies the laws of war.

    He wants people to respect him, but he brags that he is using the NSA as a tool of military power against Americans. This is illegal.

    When he violates the laws, he cannot rely on others to follow them. He does not have the reasonable expectation that others will assent to his unlawful orders; nor that they will be swayed by his pleas.

    The laws this Executive writes are not lawful. He has no power to make exceptions to FISA, nor can he make up exceptions to eh warrant requirements. Only Congress can do that.

    Every day the States and We the People will simply remind this Executive: His eroded power is almost whittled away. He remains in rebellion. He is at odds with the Constitution. The law is on our side, even when we reciprocate by ignoring the laws he does not follow.

    * * *

    The President’s rebellion has spread into the Joint Staff. They have violated Articles 92 and 98 of the UCMJ.

    The Joint Staff has assented to the unlawful violation of the Constitution. They took an oath to protect, preserve, and most importantly defend it. Now, it is too late. They cannot say that they are defending something they are ignoring.

    Rather, it is time to call the Joint Staff what they are: war criminals. They openly use military force against American civilians; and they violate Article 92 and 98 by unlawfully suing NSA power in violation of the law. They knew better. Now they are criminals.

    The Joint Staff is not all powerful. They have to rely on contractors. They also have to rely on people listening to them. This means the people on the Joint Staff will have to choose between the rebellion and the Constitution.

    Either way, the planning for the New Constitution continues. Nobody can say, “We can’t change it” – rather, the issue is: What are you going to do to stop us from doing something we are lawfully permitted to do?

    The answer is evidence of their powerlessness: There is nothing the Joint Staff can do to stop this process. They made a poor choice.

    * * *

    OK, now that you’ve had the chance to see what this is all about, let’s talk specifics. Let’s talk about the actual plan to show the Executive what he’s all about.

    Keep in mind, the real objective of this is simply to lawfully finalize what was started many months ago. The pieces are already in place. There is nothing new that needs to happen. All that’s required is a simple acknowledgement that within a few short weeks things can lawfully change, and we do not need to wait until the November 2006 election.

    The rest of this discussion is simply about sharing with you the overall plan of what has already started, and has been well coordinated using methods the NSA cannot detect.

    There are three overall phases of this plan. We are well into Phase I. Under each phase you will learn more about the things that are going on and what is being worked behind the scenes.

    Within ach section there are some interesting things to notice. Each phase has a theme, and you will see what this theme is. There are also some things called decision points or milestones: These are points in time that people will have to look at things, and look at their options. These are simply things to think about. Also, you will learn more about things called indicators. This tells us whether things are on track. To date, things are going very well.

    Each Phase has an overall timelines, a list of decision points, and some indicators of progress. The purpose of this plan is to show you how the overall events to date fit into what is happening. Your job is to decide where you want to focus your efforts.

    After I go over the phases, we’ll get into some specific detailed areas. This will be the things that you can do. Your job is to know how these detailed events and tasks fit into the overall plan. Your job will be to keep in mind where things are going, and know that your individual effort, although small will be adding up to something that will lawfully remove the Executive from power and protect our Constitution.

    Never forget that.

    * * *

    Before we go into the details, let’s go over something called a schedule or a planning chart. This is like a calendar, and is sort of like a diary. Think of it is as a way of listing many holidays and birthdays, but organizing those holidays into groups.

    The neat thing about a planning chart is that we can quickly see something very important: Order, patterns, and a sense of how things fit together.

    Remember, the way these events are organized is not important. The important thing is to realize that they are organized with one goal in mind: To prevent the abuse of power, and protect our rights.

    A planning chart has two axes. On the horizontal axis is time. The vertical axis is something completely different: A name of something we want to do.

    Here’s what a simple planning chart looks like:


    = = = = = = = = = = = = == =
    March April May


    ------- time -----------------
    = == = = = = = = = = = = = =

    There are a couple of things to notice:

    First, the horizontal axis. See where I placed the word “time” – that means time is like an x-axis, or horizontal.

    Also, along that x-axis is something called events. We put these along the time axis. In this case, we put them in either March April or May.

    Let’s notice something else. The vertical axis – the one that goes up and down – is called the y-axis. This means that in our chart, we have something called a vertical axis for our events.

    Rather than lump everything together, we can break things out. Keeping mind in this example: We have something called “Events” – and we have two section or categories called “holidays” and “birthdays.” The other things that are “not holidays or not birthdays” are in the “other” category. We may or may not list those.

    The point of this is simply to show you some things:

  • 1. A planning chart is something that uses two dimensions

  • 2. Time is the horizontal dimension

  • 3. We can space things out

  • 4. We can split events into categories
    Let’s look at a detailed planning chart:


    = = = = = = = = = = = = == =
    March April May


    ------- time -----------------
    = == = = = = = = = = = = = =

    Let’s add some things: Names of people in the months.

    Notice what we’re doing: Putting the name of the people horizontally along the horizontal axis: Beside Birthdays. Now we can quickly see a few things:

  • 1. Whose birthday is first

  • 2. Which month the birthday is in

  • 3. Which birthdays come after which month

    = == = = = = = = = = = = =
    March April May

    Birthdays Mary Cotee Ping-Li
    Ali Mustafa Sam

    . . . . . . . .

    * * *

    The reason I showed you the above planning chart is to get you familiar of thinking in terms of a schedule. That’s what this entire plan is going to do.

    Instead of using Months, we’re simply going to make up something called phases.

    Let’s consider our original chart:

    = == = = = = = = = = = = =
    March April May


    Let’s consider our new chart that we’re going to
    use for this State confrontation with the executive:

    = == = = = = = = = = = = =
    Phase I II III
  • States
  • Executive
  • Congress
  • Courts
  • Foreign

  • The above chart is simply a way of organizing the
    information you’re going to read below. Keep this in mind. Each of the Phases Will have subsection; and each of the Phases has specific detail.

    We are going to move from left to right; and we can start on anything in any order.

    Your job is to assign many people to different tasks, and complete each of the phases.

    Your job will be to outline for others what their tasks are; how their jobs fit in with the overall effort, and where things are going.

    * * *

    Let’s focus on the Phases for now.

    = == = = = = = = = = = = =
    Phase I II III

    Let’s tart with Phase I, where we are right now.

    What’s happening is the Executive has openly stated that he is using illegal military force against civilians. This means that he is violating the laws of war.

    Our job will be to organize many elements in the vertical groups, to move of through Phase I, II, and III for a final lawful confrontation with the Executive in a few short weeks. Keep in mind, the players are already behind the scenes, and the pieces are already there for you to pick up. You don’t have to create anything new. All you have to do is show others who this fits together.

    Phase I Is where we are. This has several organizing elements. Keep in mind, we’re not going to complete everything in Phase I, rather, we’re simply starting. JTTF and the NSA will by the time you read this have organized themselves; but the issue isn’t what they are or are not doing, rather the point is simple – they are reacting.

    Phase I needs to be looked at in terms of the Sections: Each Section will have some working going on; and some preparatory activity.

    = == = = = = = = = = = = =
    Phase I II III
  • States
  • Executive
  • Congress
  • Courts
  • Foreign

  • Here are the timeline events in Phase I

  • 1. Calling the public’s attention to the Executive conduct – it is at odds with the laws and Constitution.

  • 2. Identify the DoJ statements affirms the use of force, how these support illegal White House activities, and show that these constitute war crimes against Americans.

  • 3. It is reasonable to make adverse inferences about what the President is doing.

  • 4. We appeal to Congress, ask them for assistance.

  • 5. Continue with work, review legal options, and assert the same powers the Executive does
  • 6. Begin planning to appeal to foreign nations for assistance.

    The point of this list isn’t to give you an impossible list of things to do. Rather, it’s to show you what is going on. IN a moment, you’re going to get some detailed information on what you can actually do.

    For the meantime, keep track of your questions, and then work with your friends to figure out what you can do to help.

    Decision Points

    Let’s consider the Phase I Decisions. Decision points are simply points of time where we look at what is going on, and find out what we can do. Our job is simply to look at our progress, and decide what we need to do differently. Sometimes, we simply say, “Yes, things are going great, continue.”

    Other times, decision points are different. In fact, most of the time, things are not going as planned. But that’s OK. We know this in advance. The way forward is to plan options in advance that will likely mitigate or offset the risks. This is simply another way of saying, “If things don’t go as planned, don’t worry == we can always move the birthday party inside out of the rain.”

    The trick is to focus on what can go wrong; and then have solutions prepared for all that could go wrong. That’s where you come in.

    Your job is to figure out why this cannot work; and then share that with others. In turn, you’ll see that the plan actually addresses what can go wrong; the way forward is to think in terms of what will solve the problem.

    * * *

    This is a template. We will use this many times. Remember what you learned above about this template.

    = == = = = = = = = = = = =
    Phase I II III
  • States
  • Executive
  • Congress
  • Courts
  • Foreign

  • Phase I Decision Pointsd

    At the end of phase I, you’ll notice that we really haven’t done much. That’s the point: We don’t actually do much at any time: We simply get organized, plan, and see how things are unfolding.

    The decision in Phase I are simply reviews:

  • A. Give us time to get clear on the adverse inferences about the Executive

  • B. Plan how we will go to Congress to ask for assistance

  • C. Craft legal agreements to present to court, and contrast the executive’s conduct with the Constitution

  • D. Explore which countries the State will appeal to for assistance; understand which Foreign nations are at odds with the Executive; and conduct a risk analysis

  • E. Identify which messages to prepare to get the Executive to commit to his lawful demise in Phase III.

    * * *

    Let’s talk about the indicators we’ll use in Phase I. These are simply things we’ll watch to see how things are going.

  • A. How well known and discussed is the executive conduct; and does the public understand the conduct is at odds with the Constitution and Statute

  • B. Is there an understanding of the principle of reciprocity and adverse inferences

  • C. Does the public understand Article II and Article IV standards; and how Congress is different than foreign powers

  • D. Has the public seen the Congressional inaction; and that they’ve missed reasonable deadlines to resolve this issue

  • E. Have the state’s efforts to resolve the legal issues been met with no response from Congress or the Court

  • F. Do we have a list of countries we’re going to work with to seek assistance to protect this constitution.

    * * *

    = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
    Phase I II III
  • States
  • Executive
  • Congress
  • Courts
  • Foreign

  • Phase II

    Phase II is about seeing the President is in rebellion. Again, this is well known, and has already happened. The point of this Phase isn’t to actually do anything new. Rather, its merely to show the Executive that there is a lawful confrontation, and that he’s going to lawfully be defeated. HE can either end his rebellion, or have his power lawfully revoked. It is his choice.

    The goal of this phase is simple: The States are going to lawfully confront the Executive; and get a response; and show their true colors – where they stand on the rule of law; and where they stand on protecting the Constitution.

    The objective of these events is to do one thing: To accelerate the timeline, and get the Executive and the RNC to show their colors.

    Phase II Timeline

  • Objective: Lawful confrontation with Executive

    Either the Executive will respond in one of four forums:

  • A. Challenge the state on basis of law in the court – this has no merit, in that the laws he wants to apply are not enforceable; the principle of reciprocity permits a violation

  • B. Do nothing – and admit he’s powerless

  • C. Interfere – this is most likely given the Joint Staff planning cells and domestic security service will already be well aware of what is going on.

  • D. Assert unlawful power – he’s already doing this, so this is nothing new. The point is that he can’t use force because no force is being used; rather, he’s stuck with either doing more of what he’s already doing – nothing, interfere, or violate the law – or take the matter to court.

    He doesn’t want to bring this to court. That’s his vulnerability. He knows that if he takes the state to court they can compel discover on the basis of what is secret in the NSA: What he’s doing; the laws he’s violating; and how the NSA activity is a war crime.

    This is the dilemma the states need to force.

    Because the next step is then to ignore the same Constitutional provisions this Executive ignores: And go beyond what is happening: Namely, because Congress refuses to do its job; and the Executive has failed to protect the Constitution-- a foreign appeal is appropriate.

    Then the Executive will have to do something. This is the deliberate traps he’s fallen into. IF he asserts any power, then he’s relying on what he is ignoring: The Constitutional But under the laws of war, he can’t expect others to follow laws that he’s ignoring.

    Phase II Decisions

    Phase II Decisions will simply be

  • A> whether or not we do or do not get access to the NSA for purposes of Discovery; and

  • B. Which constitutional standard to reciprocate and ignore

    Phase II Indicators

    There are two primary areas to watch. First, the Executive, then the States.

  • 1. Executive: Does the executive challenge the states on the law

    If the Executive does challenge the states on the law, this will cause four problems or outcomes:

    [1] The President is not credible
    [2] The challenge is in a court of law the Executive himself does no assent to
    [3] Relies on Constitution which is not being protected, nor is enforceable
    [4] Reciprocity means the Executive cannot legitimately claim others violate the laws he is not following

  • 2. States: They have a clear cut case – and the Executive in public is acting at odds with the law.

    The only indicator at this point will be whether the States complete their readiness review for court, or the Executive has resigned. Most likely, the readiness review will confirm that court action is imminent.

    * * *

    = == = = = = = = = = = = =
    Phase I II III
  • States
  • Executive
  • Congress
  • Courts
  • Foreign

  • Phase III

    Phase III is the lawful confrontation with the executive. At this point, the Executive is powerless, has had to respond, and is in no way all that happy.

    Phase III is merely an affirmation that the Executive is powerless; and the tables have turned form the days of Guantanamo and Iraq.

    The Goal of this phase will be to look what the State is going to do to protect the Constitutional system.

    Phase III is merely the pubic knowledge that the Executive is weak, inconsistent, and not a statesman.

    The following issues will be clear to the public:

  • A. Incompetence: Unable to do his job, must less follow the law
  • B. Presidential rebellion: He moves at odds with laws of war
  • C. Reciprocity is well understood: His standards are at odds with conduct
  • D. He holds others to laws that are not enforced: He wants to protect something he has ignored and is trashing --
  • E. Introduction of New Constitution.

    Phase III will set the stage for the final solution: Whether the Executive resigns, or whether he has a New Constitution lawfully shoved down his throat.

    Phase III Decisions

  • A. Decide which of the above messages is catching hold
  • B. Present Keep track of fatal admissions
  • C. Highlight lawlessness
  • D. Show his conduct is at odds with laws and leadership
  • E. Show standards imposed on others are odds with personal conduct

    As you can see, all of the above already exist. The issue is simply to connect the abuses with the lawful remedies: He can either leave the political stage, or we can lawfully revoke the powers with a New Constitution.

    Phase III indicators

    [1] Executive conduct at odds with laws
    [2] Executive enforcement at odds with oath
    [3] Executive engaged in rebellion
    [4] Executive leaning on courts, laws, constitution long ignored
    [5] Executive shown to have no authority, powerless

    * * *

    Now we’re going to get into the details.

    Let’s keep in mind what we’re doing. We’re going to build off what the DoJ stated and assert lawful power to challenge the Executive.

    This will force the Executive to react: He will either show us something; or he will attempt to rely on laws and the Constitution he is not following.

    Keep in mind what is going on with the Joint Staff: They have Article 15 issues over Article 92 and Article e99. The NSA activity is at odds with the listed standards.

    Also, the domestic rendition and domestic warrantless interrogations are well known. Operation Falcon has been linked with active duty military personnel. The abuses by the domestic security are still surfacing and part of the other unlawful Presidential programs.

    = == = = = = = = = = = = =
    Phase I II III
  • States
  • Executive
  • Congress
  • Courts
  • Foreign

  • * * *

    Let’s keep in mind how the above phases and Sections are going to work over the coming weeks.

    Your job will be simply to

  • A. Clarify how the tasks listed below fit into the overall plan;

  • B. Lawfully force the White House on issues and demonstrate that their conduct is at odds with the law;

  • C. Show that the White House relies on statutes and the Constitution that he long ignored;

  • D. Demonstrate a contrast between what the Executive say s and what standards he holds others to.

    Imminent threat>

    Given the Executive’s statements on pre-emptive war, the States will have to decide how long they want to wait before they seek assistance: Will we have to see actual problems; or is it not too early to resolve these issues with a request now.

    Either way, the remedy to this problem is for the Executive to stop violating the law.

    More fundamentally, your job will be to link your results with the following themes:

    [1] The President is in rebellion, wages illegal war against Americans, and his conduct is at odds with Article IV
    [2] The States can ask Congress for help
    [3] The States can go to court over the NSA issues
    [4] The States can ask for help overseas

    * * *

    As you go forward, you will need to make it very clear: The NSA asserts the NSA activity is related to combat. This is illegal. It is a war crime. Under the principle of reciprocity, we may lawfully ignore those laws this Executive violates.

    The way forward is for DoJ to reject what it said, and deny that the NSA is in support of any combat operations; and that there is no link between the NSA and any illegal activity; however, DoJ has failed to make the case to conclude this.

    Those statutes and powers the Executive ignores and violations we are not longer bound by. We may choose – under the laws of war – to do what is civil; however, we are not obligated to meet standards of civility which are not shown to us. We may lawfully impose the same consequences on those who violate our rights in a like manner.

    We do not advocate violence. Rather, we simply affirm our right to have our rights protected, and be free from the abuse of power.

    We are not bound to agreements in the Constitution this Congress and Executive refuse to follow, enforce, or assent to. Rather, The mechanism to defy this abuse is to let them know they must stop, or they will have to assent to a New Constitution.

    The Executive will attempt to compel compliance with laws he does no t follow. This will be an issue of imminence for the states: Is the Congress willing to assist; or is the only option to seek external assistance? Again, this is up to the Executive; Whether he continues to abuse power; or whether he voluntary agrees to assent to the oath of office. This is entire up to him.

    What’s also needed is a list of laws and statues the Executive is ignoring and cannot reasonably expect others to follow in this war his DoJ says the NSA is supporting against American civilians. These will be linked with the lawful reciprocity issues.

    The Executive

    Up until now, we’ve dealt in very general terms, and not provided mush order.

    = == = = = = = = = = = = =
    Phase I II III
  • States
  • Executive
  • Congress
  • Courts
  • Foreign

  • These planning details will cross across all three phases.

    When dealing with the Executive, the states will hope to bring the case to the court. The DoJ staff attorneys will move to have it dismissed.

    The issue under the FOIA will be whether sates have a case to compel Brady Requests. These will be related to the likely court cases the JTTF and NSA attempt to bring to dissuade action, and will likely trigger National Security Letters and other illegal conduct under the Patriot Act.

    Keep in mind, the NSA’s problem is that they cannot figure out who inside the NSA has provide the equipment to facilitate this planning, nor which members of the NSA and NSC they do or do not trust. DoJ has informants inside all the departments.

    There will be parallel efforts by the civil case to compel the NSA to provide data. And there are also other friendly forces inside GCHQ which can gain access to the NSA fails without detection.

    The ultimate objective of the State action will be to gain lawful access to the NSA data, and find the full range of Presidential crimes. The list includes the domestic rendition programs, the unlawful interrogations of Americans, and the transportation of Americans across state lines or kidnapping.

    Civilian contractors can also have their records subpoenaed. This is something GCHQ is monitoring and has stored. It is well known the General Counsels inside the phone companies in the wake of Sept 2001 raised concerns about the illegal NSA activity. This message traffic is well preserved.

    In the absence of Executive and Joint Staff cooperating on the NSA illegal activity, the public is well positioned to make adverse inferences bout the NSA, DHS, JTTF, DoD, and the illegal activities to satisfy the elements of a war crimes.

    The domestic rendition satisfy the “violence” standard. The well known Operation Falcon and violations of Posse Comitatus satisfy the “illegal use of military force” requirements. This is what is known. On top of this is the information related to the NSA combat support activities which actively target American civilians.

    * * *

    = == = = = = = = = = = = =
    Phase I II III
  • States
  • Executive
  • Congress
  • Courts
  • Foreign

  • For purposes of review , here are the White House problems.

  • A. They are attempting to – and have – asserted powers not delegated

  • B. They are trying to rely on enforcement powers on articles invalidated by the laws of war

  • C. They invalidated the Constitution but a failure to assent to the laws of the land

  • D. They are unable to stop the state and public efforts to impeach and draft a new Constitution.

    The Executive’s problem is that he can no longer guarantee that the issues will stay out of court. Rather, he can only distract attention from what has already happened: Civil cases, more leaks, and a mess.

    The Executive’s dilemma is simple. He will ignore that court; but then claim he should rely on the court to adjudicate the claim. While at eh same time, he is stuck:

  • A. How can he rely on laws and the Constitution he’s ignored

  • B. How can he go to court he ignored with FISA

    This means, that the Executive is forced to commit more illegal acts, thus triggering the imminent violence standard, triggering the States to ask for Congressional assistance – which they will reject – and then for foreign assistance.

    If the Executive says the claims are non-sense the states will be free to continue to press for foreign assistance. If the Executive does anything other than assent to the law, he will be shown for what he is: A dictator, and willing to not only defy the Constitution and Congress, but also the States and people.

    Then things will come unglued.


    This is the third section on our vertical chart.

    = == = = = = = = = = = = =
    Phase I II III
  • States
  • Executive
  • Congress
  • Courts
  • Foreign

  • The problem with Congress is if they refuse to respond,
    they will know that they are facing a real New Constitution. Again, it is only March 2006, seven long months away from the November 2006 election.

    The states can go t court over the non-addressed NSA issues.

    * * *


    This is the fourth section on our vertical chart.

    = == = = = = = = = = = = =
    Phase I II III
  • States
  • Executive
  • Congress
  • Courts
  • Foreign

  • The effort for the detailed planning continues.
    These are issue of criminal law, discovery, and matters related to civil litigation. These are already in the public domain.

    Of interest will be the discovery issues over the NSA. They key will be to use the Executive’s responses as a measure of what else the NSA is illegally doing.

    We can make adverse inferences about the full scope of the government’s illegal activity.

    The trick will be to gather more evidence related to those who have been detained, questioned by DHS and JTTF, and compare the conduct to what is known inside the DHS and DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility [OPR] offices.

    OPR has a problem in both departments. They are well aware of the illegal activity; but their agents have refused to cooperate with lawful inquiry.

    It remains to be explained why DHS personnel have kidnapped Americans without charges, and forced them to respond to unlawful, warrantless interrogations.

    The next issue will be the detailed plan the States will have to develop to proceeds:

  • When do the states act

  • What are they prepared to do

  • How quickly do they wan to work

    The issue to watch for will be whether or not the States do or do not notice and act on the continuing abuses; and whether they work with the civil litigation to press for more accountability. One useful sign will be to see how quickly your Congressional delegations respond to White House retaliation, job firings, and smearing. This is to be expected.

    * * *

    Foreign Assistance

    Now, let’s look at the core issue the States will be working.

    The States will have to develop and impellent their own tailored plan to get assistance form overseas. You’re gong to have to consider your legal risks and contract liabilities in the context of the 14th Amendment.

    Also, there are three general areas to consider:

  • 1. Legal liabilities on individual members if they fail to assert their oath, and continue to support an unlawful rebellion

  • 2. Media and public corporation loyalty to the Federal Government, not the Constitution

  • 3. NSA intercept of your communications with diplomatic channels. Inside each country the CIA has a network of people who public will appear to be hostile to the US; in fact, their loyalty is to the CIA and the American government. Know that there are some out there who will attempt to appear to offer assistance, but they will be providing information directly through CIA/NSA to the White House. This is to be expected.

    The way forward is to keep a braod view of what is about to take center stage: The States are going to force the Executive to assent to the rule of law. If the Executive fails, then the States will have the power to discuss with the UN General Assembly options to protect the US Constitution form this domestic threat.

    * * *

    The detailed plan for the State will have to include a number of treaty issues. As long at the sates are relying on the imminent threat, your State Attorney General will have to advise you on what is or is not permissible under the laws of war; and what types of lawful action your State may act as the Executive attempts more pressure on the States.

    There will be a matter of Treaty Obligations which on the US can or cannot enforce, break, or crate. The States will have to carefully weave their way thought this.

    Also will be the UN diplomatic channels that may or may not be able to assist you.

    It remains to be understood whether nations are or are not truly sympathetic to the US Constitution are going to be there to assist the states. It may be possible the Vatican could act as an Intermediary.

    The issue is going to be which of the laws – if ignored – will be recognized in the post-confrontation phase as being reasonable actions that the States ignored. This will have toe be something you and your state officials discuss. There are no right or wrong answers; rather, there will be matters of rebellion, criminal law, and issues of the Constitution.

    The prudence test would ask us whether we have exhausted all reasonable options. If the aim is to lawfully protect the Constitution, you’ll have to assess whether this may or may not carry favor.

    The other factor to consider if whether or not the legal foundation for the premise is correct. Namely, if DoJ asserts NSA is supporting combat, does nit legally follow that this is an illegal use of force; a war crime; and permits reciprocal violations. It is our view that the legal foundation for this is something your state will and should openly debate.

    As you move through this planning process, know that you have 49 other states. There are secret treaties the US has the permit other nations to take action inside the US. This is to be expected.

    Your job is to know that there are more of us, than there are of them. The issue will be, once the US directs these forces at Americans, does this or does this not qualify as a standard of imminent threat to the Constitutional system, especially in cases where the emotive is to protect the Constitution.

    American JTTF and NSA will have to decide: How far are you willing to go in the rebellion. It is clear that much has changed in the last few weeks sine the NYT first revealed the information. The balance of power has shifted, and the Executive no longer is trusted. It remains unclear why you continue to support him, especially as the full scope of his crimes becomes clear.

    The interactions between the US states and foreign governments is not new. Rather, this dates back to the failure of the Articles of Confederation; There was no harmony or consistency. It is curious that the solution – having Congress be the central player to make rules – is the very nexus this Executive hopes to exploit. Before, it was the states that are were not consistent; now it is the Executive that it in defiance with the law. Both times, we should be able to look to Congress and the Constitution. Both times, we find that the Congress, Courts, and Constitution are not there when most needed.

    The way forward is to remember that the States effort to force this Executive to assent to the rule of law may or may not work. Rather, it could backfire. That is possible. And that will tell the voters something about what it means to be an American in 2006; What happens when you try to solve a problem; and does the Constitution really exist, or is it something people refuse to respect. The rule of law will prevail, the issue is whether this Executive will choose to assent to the law, or lawfully be compelled to do so.

    * * *


    The American JTTF, White House Staff, DoD, Joint Staff, members of the FBI, and Central Security Service all have copies of this plan. They are well aware of what is happening: Their Executive is in defiance of the laws of the land; and the People are moving forward to enforce the law.

    Members of the Federal Government know their oaths. It is to the Constitution It remains a matter of time before the nation finds out whether the country is or is not serious about he rule of law. Regardless what the Federal Government does or doesn’t do, the way forward is clear: The rule of law.

    We do not advocate violence. Rather, we encourage you to openly discuss these issues:

  • What is to be done when the States are under the threat of imminent violence

  • What is to be done when Congress refuses to prevent the military from being used as a force against innocent civilians

  • What is to be done when the Executive continues to defy the laws of the land and the leadership refuses to check that abuse

    The way forward is simply do what we’ve always had the power to do: Check and prevent that abuse of power; and protect our rights. Whether you are with us or against us is of little concern. The only issue you have is whether this country will or will not enjoy the Constitution as it currently exists, or whether it will be strengthened to force you to do what you already promised to do.

    * * *

    The American phone companies and general counsels have a problem. Your discussions with DoJ are well known. The same system which intercepted the American civilian communications also has copies of the information and concerns you had with the NSA illegal activity. This is not something you can change. Rather, it remains admissible evidence outside your control. You may or may not have access to this information.

    The Joint Staff has a problem. It’s NSA facilities and interception capabilities are well penetrated, and they do not have a means to prevent this planning. Whether the Joint Staff does or does not see the information is of little consequence. It is well known inside the White House and National Security Counsel that there are limits to what the NSA can do.

    * * *

    The above information has outlined for you what the States and People of the United States have already started. It is not an issue of could this happen. The issue will be whether you recognize which side of the law you are on, and swiftly move to remedy any problems you may have.

    We cannot provide you any assurances that you will be assisted or contacted. You use this information at your own risk. Rather, know that in the end, the rule of law will prevail. We will either lawfully force this Executive to assent to the rule of law, or he will resign wishing he had.

    You have before you a simple guide. It is something that may assist you. In the coming weeks, the NSA and Joint Staff will be considering their options. They know that their time is running out, and they face a formidable foe: Americans.

    You have been given information about three phases already well planned:

    Phase I is the domestic planning. There are four sections and areas of interest including the Executive, States, Courts, and Congress. Combined with this there is ongoing planning and coordination activity with foreign nations.

    Phase II is the legal confrontation. In this phase, The Executive and States will confront one another in court. This will be a testing phase. We will learn new things.

    Phase III is where the Executive and States will face each other and decide: Who is going to protect the Constitution? We know the answer: Not the Executive.

    The States have two things on their side: Fitzgerald and the law. The leverage is the State impeachment effort and the New Constitution.

    The factors against the RNC are clear: Loss of morale, no legal foundation, defections, uncertainty, and too much time between now and the November 2006 elections. And one large unknown: Fitzgerald.

    The problem we have is with an Executive. He does not honor his oath or the law. The opening is at hand. DoJ has fatally asserted that the NSA is used to support combat operations against Americans. This is a war crime.

    The way forward is to build on this fatal admission, and create a plan that will ensure the Executive knows we take his threats seriously; can well meet the abuse of power, and will disregard for his power.

    This is not a confrontation we chose. This has been thrust upon us.

    Americans are known for being able to solve problems. Even seemingly impossible ones imposed by dictators in the White House.

    Either the DOJ and White House will back off, and admit they are wrong; or the sate of war they assert exists will be thrown back at the Federal Government: And the US population will simply ignore the laws which this Federal Government fails to preserve, protect, and defend.

    The way forward is to simply do what Americans have always done, dating back to the earliest days: Do what we must do to protect our rights and prevent the abuse of power. Whether this is done easily or requires long hours is irrelevant. We will prevail. The Constitution will survive. In the end, this Executive will be lawfully forced to assent to the rule of law.

    This leader has lost control of the agenda. He is about to lose control of his political destiny. Only he can decide when he freely chooses to end his rebellion.

    But we shall decide when and where to lawfully impose the New Constitution.

    They wished for this.