Unstable US Economic Outlook: Publicizing Criminal Presidential Conduct and Programs

The unlawful Presidential programs and criminal conduct are well known. Some have suggested we cannot talk about the evidence or his crimes.

We disagree. The information is not only important for voters, but material in making informed capital allocation decisions.

This note outlines a framework to make adverse inferences about the President crimes. We also reasonably speculate on the range of Presidential crimes the White House counsel has assented to.

Further, we also discuss a line of inquiry for the DC Disciplinary Board to begin a review counsel and staff attorneys in the White House, DoJ, NSA, CIA, Congress, and RNC General Counsel.

The rules of attorney professional conduct are clear. Attorneys take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Given apparent legal advice to the contrary, it remains unclear how any attorney the Congress, White House or RNC can justify any public confidence in the rule of law or the legal profession.

It remains to be understood through a DC Bar Disciplinary Board review to what extent the White House and DoJ counsel and Congressional staff attorneys have, inter alia :

A. Violated their oaths of office and the rules of professional conduct in re protection of the Constitution; and/or

B. Failed to remove themselves from a conspiracy to organize, commit, and destroy evidence related to war crimes.

* * *

Unlawful Presidential Programs

A proposed Congressional bill would outlaw the publication of evidence related to unlawful Presidential conduct, or ban publication of Presidential crimes. The purpose of this note is to explore the range of unlawful Presidential programs.

Proposed legislation to outlaw discussion, publication, or communication of evidence related to Presidential abuse of power or unlawful Presidential activity is unconstitutional.

In light of this unconstitutional restriction on free speech -- and clear violation of the Constitution -- this note outlines the range of reasonable adverse inferences the public can make related to Presidential Conduct, and the unfitness of the RNC to effectively govern.

We also explore the nature of the other Presidential crimes which the press is being barred from disclosing. We make ample use of adverse inferences. This note outlines the adverse inferences the public should reasonably make as this law takes effect.

* * *

The rule of law is based on two simple things: Perception and conduct.

The People retain the undelegated powers, and may at any time lawfully revoke those powers. It is reasonable to lawfully revoke abused powers when the People's rights are not protected.

Staff Attorneys exist for one reason: To assert the rule of law.

Within the Executive and Legislative Branches are many staff attorneys who are lazy, stupid, and fail to assert their oaths.

This nation's citizens have been poorly served. Despite valuable consideration provided to the staff attorneys, the attorneys have assented to war crimes, violations of the statutes, and have failed to remove themselves from these criminal enterprises.

They know better. They failed in their oath.

The issue is not the rule of law, the Constitution, or whether the RNC does or does not control Congress.

The issue is whether the public should have any continued confidence in the way the attorney discipline and regulations system works. The self-evident war crimes and widespread lawless Presidential programs combined with serious discussions to ignore the laws and outlaw discussion of the law shows the public one thing: The Federal government is in rebellion against the Constitution.

We see no attorney resignations. Rather, those who swore an oath to protect this document no longer can be trusted to do what they promise.

The way forward is for the states to discuss the methods to more effectively oversee, sanction, disbar, and legally penalize attorneys who fail to assert the rule of law.

Unlike a civil or criminal case where attorneys assert the rights of the client, public attorneys who work in government have one sole client: The Constitution.

Nixon taught us that the private discussions between the White House counsel and the President were not privileged. The tapes were ordered disclosed.

All US Staff Attorneys should reasonably know that their work products cannot credibly enjoy absolute immunity. Rather, there is a point where their legal advice no longer is merely speculative or hypothetical; rather, at some point their conduct becomes instrumental in supporting, planning, organizing -- and destroying evidence of -- criminal conduct.

This is where the country finds itself.

* * *

The way forward is two fold. First, to assess the scope of the attorney violations; and second to provide a mechanism to assess the scope of the Presidential criminal conduct.

This is especially important given the widespread media intimidation and the failure of Congress to credibly check the President.

The voters know the United States legal community has chosen to assent to rebellion rather than assert their oaths. You chose poorly.

* * *

The states are in a position to remedy this self-evident defect. Clearly, the way forward is to impose meaningful sanctions on those attorneys who continue to assert the lawlessness, and explain away the unconstitutional conduct.

We need not consider your motive or intent. Rather, the results speak for themselves: The nation continues to engage in war crimes, and there is no restraint on unlawful conduct.

The public is in a reasonable position to make adverse judgments, and discuss a lawful way forward to assert the rule of law, protect rights, and prevent abuse of this power.

* * *

Attorney misconduct is not a novel problem. Malpractice insurance is well understood.

The issue for the public is when their trust is taken advantage of. Today, the trust is self-evidently waning.

However, the real problem has yet to be understood. Bluntly, the United States legal profession has failed to take sides: Are they for or against the Constitution.

Rather, the legal profession looks at the choice is between for or against the plaintiff. This is not relevant when it comes the Constitution.

Yes, the legal profession is about cases; but your supreme loyalty is to the Constitution not to the client. You have failed.

Had your real loyalty been to the Constitution, there would have been effective mechanisms in place to prevent what we have: Congressional and Presidential rebellion against the Constitution, war crimes, and assent to lawlessness.

The American legal profession is a cess pool. Your leadership in the American Bar Association has no plan or way forward.

What's needed is a new competing association that gives the public a choice: Do we want to work with the lazy toads in the ABA, or do we want to work with legal counsel that takes the Constitution seriously.

In 2006, Americans have no choice. They have to work with the lazy toads in the ABA who assent to this Presidential and Congressional rebellion.

This problem is one for the ABA to remedy, not simple one for the States to adjudicate. New organizations can be chartered to compete directly with the ABA.

* * *

I. A framework to make adverse inferences about the President crimes.

It is reasonable to conclude that anything in the statute is what the President is violating. The laws are what the government is using as a guide for misconduct.

The public can reasonably make adverse inferences about the Presidential programs; any statutory requirement that constrains power is being ignored.

Any statute or Constitutional requirement is effectively being ignored and explained away. The leadership blames others to "justify" lawlessness. No statement this Government makes can be credibly believed; and all media reports related to the media conduct can be presumed to be meaningless.

* * *

II. Range of Presidential crimes the White House counsel has assented to.

Anything which imposes a ministerial duty is being ignored; anything that checks power is explained away.

The Constitution and Statutes despite their existence are not being followed, enforced, or credibly respected.

* * *

III. A line of inquiry for the DC Disciplinary Board to begin a review counsel and staff attorneys in the White House, DoJ, NSA, CIA, Congress, and RNC General Counsel.

Legal counsel and government officials know the outcomes are at odds with the rule of law. We need not consider their excuses, but merely look at the outcomes.

The laws of war have been ignored; the 5100.77 program has been trashed; and legal counsel has failed to effectively publicize the legal threats to the American public.

The line of inquiry should move on the basis of "guilt until proven innocent." The burden of proof should rest with the attorney to justify why the public should have confidence in their fitness to recognize their supreme loyalty: The Constitution.

At this juncture, we have no confidence any attorney puts the Constitution before their personal loyalties to party or "something else."

The American legal system has no credible foundation. It is devoid of any basis for confidence, trust, or reliance. Rely on the American lawyers at your own risk.

* * *

A system devoid of legal foundation and unreliable participants cannot credibly forecast future income streams.

Sustained cash flows depend on modernizing technology. However, the American government dissuades free inquiry and public discussion.

All efforts to criminalize public discussion of Presidential violations of the law materially impacts confidence future income streams will be linked with advances in sciences.

The American leadership is not simply destroying its legal foundation, it undermines confidence the needed income streams will be sufficient to service outstanding government obligations.

A broken legal system can have immediate and significant financial impacts. We judge the basis for all valuations in America to be at odds with what can reasonably be expected in terms of cash flows, profits, and future income streams.

Summation

It is our view that the American economy, with such a fractured legal foundation, remains less promising and more unstable going forward. The needed reforms to remedy the problems at the foundation of the American legal system are well known, but not seriously considered.

The abuse of power and violations of rights is widespread. With an effectively non-existent legal foundation, no country can credibly argue it has a viable mechanism to generate future income streams.

The attorney model rules, however well devised are at odds with what is required. The American Bar Association should reasonably know that the conduct and outcomes of government are at odds with the Constitution.

The legal profession has failed. The leadership has ineffectively ensured conduct was consistent with the rule of law. The way forward is to put a lid on the model rules the American legal community have trashed.

Something needs to be done to ensure there are meaningful consequences on attorneys when they continue to associate themselves with the self-evident rebellion against the Constitution.

There need to be meaningful sanctions on attorneys who assent to the lawlessness, unconstitutional conduct, and failure of the government to assert the rule of law, protect rights, or constrain abusive power.

Despite well understood problems, there is no effective American leadership to either solve the problems, or seriously discuss the issues. Despite well entrenched legal options for the states to effectively assert power and remedy these problems, there is little interest in the American Federal Government to assert the rule of law or make choices based on facts or reason.

America should take notes from it's similar mess in Iraq.