Range of illegal govenrment activity Congress wants to unlawfully suppress discussion
Title should read: "government" not "govenrment"
The Senate does not want the public to discuss the illegal Presidential programs. They have one goal: To prevent the public from discovering that the Senate has failed and is in rebellion.
This is a list of the powers which the Senate has abused and permitted to be abused.
The Senate has a problem.
It wants to silence discussion on illegal activity. We are not free if force to put up with abuse in silence.
At the same time it hopes to protect the government from oversight. we are not free if we cannot discuss what violates the law, or what is to be done.
The senate has no credibility. The Senate deserves to be whittled down to nothing.
We have the right to speak about illegal things; and craft solutions to protect this Constitution. The Senate has the power to debate, but they refuse to assert power -- rather they throw the issue of the Constitution up for debate. They do not have the power to debate the constitution -- the question of what the Constitution is or is not is the exclusive power of the Judicial branch; rather they may soon have that power revoked.
This note outlines the range of illegal activity that the Senate doesn't want you to know about.
The goal is simple: To show you how the Senate has crafted language that allowed violations of the law; but that they propose to pass rules barring discussion on that illegal conduct.
This is absurd.
The way forward is to recognize this list for what it is: Hypocrisy.
Rather, we the People may make rules -- not Congress -- which prohibits the freedom of speech. We have already made rules prohibiting the Senators to speak on issues during the Conviction phase.
We can broaden that rule to include other things: Issues of rebellion; efforts to silence; attempts to dissuade oversight; illegal efforts to stile fact finding; delays in providing evidence to the House to provide the basis for an impeachment.
The Senate can be held in contempt of the people. Especially when the senate has information that should be make public and brought to the attention of the House.
We can make new rules which compel the senate to provide evidence, and quickly resolve investigations within 90 days. The senate can be lawfully compelled under threat of jail time -- as is done during an impeachment -- that they do or not do something.
This Senate knows something. It knows the laws have been corrupted, and have been stretched to "permit" unlawful activity. It also knows that the Senate has unlawfully given a "green light" to the DoJ Attorney General to make exceptions and agreements which are contrary to our laws.
They have called this a "classified program" not to protect us, but to avoid the public knowing about the violations. Indeed, there should be no surprise why there are no complaints: The entire activity is classified.
That is not evidence. Rather, a crime does not require a victim. It is only the most stupid of people who believes that a victim is required. Rather, a crime is against one thing: The State.
Whether there is or is not a victim, or an identified voice is meaningless. All that is required is for there to have been [a] action that [b] violates a statute.
That is it. Whether there is or is not a victim doesn’t matter; and that the public may not be aware of something doesn't mean that there are no victims. Rather, the issues is simply whether the laws are or are not going to be enforced.
This Senate refuses to do its job. Rather, it wants to meddle in things, then do nothing with the facts.
A New Constitution shall make it a crime for evidence not to be forward for review; and it shall be a felony for Members of Congress in the Senate to do what they are doing: Making up non-sense to avoid having the rule of law enforced.
You have one choice: Between the rule law or rebellion. That the Senate may or may not choose to follow the law is irrelevant.
You can be compelled to be silent; do your job; or be found to have committed a felony.
We do not have to wait until an election. Rather, we can lawfully thrust this New Constitution down your throat, and bar you from speaking on any matter of Constitutionality. You have to assent to the Constitution; you do not have the power -- nor were you delegated any power -- to volatile the law, pass illegal bills, or create the impression in anyone’s mind that it was "OK with us" if you violate the statutes.
This Senate proposes to make rules barring the public from speaking about illegal activity.
The way forward is to impose that standard first on the senate with a New Constitution that makes it a felony for the Senate to discuss non-sense related to why the rule of law should or should not apply. That is a clear sing of rebellion against the Constitution.
Whether the Senate does or does not enforce this rule is irrelevant. The Senate may lawfully have that power revoked. The power to regulate the Senate may be transferred to a new Body that the Senate has no voice in influencing.
It doesn't matter whether the Senate does or does not have an interest; rather, We the People may lawfully make new rules and excite the population to lawfully assert the rule of law based on a simple desire: To do what you fail to do -- to protect, preserve, and defend this Constitution.
Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech. Any law Congress passes abridging a discussion of illegal activity which violates the Constitution is not enforceable.
The way forward is to make it a felony to do what Congress proposes to do: Restrict the public from speaking on a matter of public interest.
In truth, the way forward is to bar the Senate from discussing issues related to impeachment or censure, and compel them to simply look at the evidence.
We can make the issue of censure one of procedure -- that only the Congress can vote on, not debate. If you want to deny the public the right to speak on corruption, then you shall have no right to speak on similar things.
Go ahead, pass a law that bans something that cannot be banned; We the People may pass a New Constitution that prohibits something we can well prohibit -- your right to speak, your right to comment, your right to do something.
You have no rights as Senators. You have Powers. We may lawfully revoke that power. If you deny rights to others -- we may lawfully deny you the power to enforce that non-0sense; and lawfully reciprocate by denying you the power to comment on something that you have been given the power to comment on.
Please, pass a law that denies the people the right to comment -- it is not enforceable. Rather, it will simply be the catalyst for We the People to pass a New Constitution that makes it a recognized right of the people to make new rules -- outside the Control of the Senate -- to enforce restrictions on what you can or cannot say.
We have already made rules that ban you from speaking during a conviction. We can do the same on other matters. we the People are the ones who make the rules. You have no power to make rules which violate our rights. Period.
Speclating on the Illegel Presidential Programs
Let’s consider the how the senate is cooperating with the illegal Presidential conduct.
First, let’s consider the language of the bill and forecast what the President could do and how the senate language shows they are cooperating with this illegal conduct.
In general we can look at the senate Intelligence bill as a New Constitution. This will show you how the current Executive goes beyond what is in the Senate Bill; and forecast what abuses are permissible within the current language.
Abused power: Appropriations for war crimes
Abused power: Illegal use of combat support against Americans
Abused power: Illegally delegating authority to commit war crimes
Abused power: Appropriating funds for illegal things
Abused power: Appropriating funds for illegal things
Abused power: Appropriations for unlawful things
Abused power: Appropriations for unlawful things
Abused power: Failure to comply with Constitution
Abused power: Illegally delegating broad powers not permitted.
Abused power: Failure of Senate to narrow language
Abused power: Too much deference on whether Senate does or does not act.
Abused power: Failure of senate to make rules making this a felony.
Abused power: Senate refuses to ensure programs are lawful.
Abused power: Senators fail to ensure laws followed
Abused power: Unlawful appropriations
Abused power: Checks and balances
Abused power: Consolidated power
Abused power: Failure of oversight.
Abused power: Failure of oversight
Abused power: Failure of oversight
Abused power: Failure of Senate to check abused powers.
Abused power: Failure to prevent abuse of power.
Abused power: Language broadly interpreted illegally
Abused power: Statutes are narrowly then expansively interpreted; executive does not have this power.
Abused power: Failure to engage in fact finding
Abused power: Failure of Senate to compel responses.
Abused power: Executive asserts legislative power; Senate fails to assert power.
Abused power: Senate fails to assert power
Abused power: Failure of rule enforcement
Abused power: Failure to investigate and follow-up.
Abused power: Failure of Senate to create a credible system that will compel discovery.
Abused power: Failure to protect and safeguard the process.
Abused power: Failure to demand a list of programs President interpedently review.
Abused power: Failure to sample the program designations.
Abused power: Senators appropriating funds for things not disclosed
Abused power: Appropriations without credible basis to believe lawful.
Abused power: Senate has failed to ensure that appropriations are for what stated.
Abused power: Unlawful appropriations for activities not adequately bounded
Abused power: Failure of Senate to assert power.
Abused power: Senate has no power to delegate to AG.
Abused power: Illegal delegation of discretion
Abused power: Illegal grant of discretion
Abused power: Illegally granting Executive discretion.
Abused power: Illegal permission to create exceptions.
Abused power: DoJ asserting non-delegated power of discretion to violate the law.
Abused power: Failure of checks and balances
Abused power: Insufficient constraints in language to prevent abuse of authority
Abused power: Failure of Senators to ensure appropriations are for lawful things.
Abused power: Appropriations for activities Executive does not explain
The White House views America as a large Guantanamo. We judge Americans are regularly without warrant or reasonable basis kidnapped, detained, interrogated under duress without adequate access to legal counsel. We judge within recent days JTTF has briefed field units to take on a less confrontational approach, however they are still inclined to be abusive.
The abuse of power is not only illegal, it violates a specific procedural requirement before the court. When they ignore the court, this illegally takes the court out of the process that might otherwise detect and sanction the misconduct.
They first violate the law, then justify additional violations to avoid consequences. They are effectively engaging in illegal litigation outside the courtroom against those not suitably prepared to challenge the abuse of power. We judge the Federal Rules of evidence and procedure have been effectively thrown out the window.
We can generalize based on the FY06 Senate Intelligence Bill: To identify the likely abuses. The “permissible” misconduct matches what is publicly known. One can them combine what is possible from multiple categories to imagine what is going on.
Return to Top
DoJ and NSA will have to explain to Congress why, despite the conversations with the contractors, Congress was not timely notified of the violations. We judge some of the most damaging information will be gleaned from the phone company message traffic to NSA and DoJ General Counsel in re concerns over FISA. This would show the time that the contractors were aware of the violations, and whether NSA and DoJ timely provided the information to the White House and Congress as required. We judge [a] the conversations over FISA violations and illegal activity are well documented prior to Sept 2001; and [b] the White House knows it not only has violated the law, but has made subsequent violations in failing to report to Congress the known illegal White House activity, orders, and guidance.
All information indicates the current FISA requirements remain at odds with the ongoing NSA activities, procedures, and technical capabilities. We judge the court has a reasonable basis to compel discovery. Had the programs been legal in the wake of 9-11, there would have been insufficient time to change the requirements, upgraded the software, and then expand the surveillance. Rather, these known requirements and capabilities – already in the software baseline -- were known to be at odds with statute.
We can create a composite picture together by working closely with those on the NSA modernization programs, and those who review the minimization procedures. The line of questions and responses will be well-rehearsed; however by separating NSA program team members, you’re more likely to find inconsistencies in their testimony.
We recommend Congress rather than use large witness rounds, separately subpoena [a] the field-level NSA program managers that work directly with the NSA contractors; [b] the government and contractor program team leaders; [c] deputy program managers; and [d] NSA program team members who are assigned to the NSA’s SETA contractors.
Once all testimony is received, you’ll want to review the responses relative to the data from the plant representative office; review the technical interchange meeting minutes; and the compare the results to the electronic message files stored in backup locations. These are data files which the contractors and government personnel regularly exchange in classified format, and are not the same as e-mail.
Notwithstanding the practice of investigators to “seize everything,” we judge there are files like these which are outside the scope of normal discovery. Bluntly, they’re not going to give them to you unless you know that they exist and are referenced elsewhere.
For reference information on these data files you’ll want to review the NSA program manager’s meeting minutes that discuss issues with funding and other communications issues related to changes in data deliveries, and last minute changes in program meeting agendas. [ Example: NSA Meeting Attendee list and [ More Generally ] ] Notice closely the source of the data files, and other references these non-traditional communication methods. Continue to probe for the source of the attached files and other information: Which systems were used to transmit/receive the data and whether other systems have copies. The issue isn’t simply the content of the report or data, but the means by which they have transmitted the data. That will lead you to the non-disclosed data.
We judge it is well known in the NSA contractor community that Lockheed Martin has program management meeting agendas. The key will be to explore the non-email-methods by which these meeting agendas are disseminated.
Indicators: Most likely scenarios
Law and order at odds in America.
We judge the following Risk Nexus is most common, linked to problems with training, management, discipline, and ineffective command authority:
Abuse of power: Laws ignored
Abuse of power: Excuse of training
Abuse of power: Ignoring requirements
Abuse of power: Implied blackmail on Congress
Abuse of power: Known problems in files suppressed
Abuse of power: Rephrasing abuses in favorable terms
Abuse of power: Congress actively supporting illegal activity
Abuse of power: Repeating the abuses of the British Monarchy
Abuse of power: Information used as blackmail to get cooperation
Abuse of power: Multi-agency cooperation, repeating similar abuses
Abuse of power: Personnel cannot be trusted to comply with clear rules
Overall: They do what they want, and then twist the laws to make it look like its OK.
Overall: Do what they want, and then find an excuse to “legalize” it.
Overall: Bypassing not only the statute, but the invented alternative procedures
Overall: Violate the law
Abuse of power: Objectives at odds with laws
Circular: Violate law, then assign an exemption to activity and evidence
Tenuous: No reasonable connection to the asserted excuse
Abuse of power: Violating protected rights
Abuse of power: War crimes
Abuse of power: Pre-emptive use of force to target illusory threats
Abuse of power: Supporting illegal rebellion against Constitution
Abuse of power: Use military in domestic law enforcement
Abuse of power: Failure to assert oath
Abuse of power: Executive decides to violate law
Abuse of power: Illegal Executive Orders
Abuse of power: Similar to non-sense at Guantanamo
Abuse of power: Illegal activity
Abuse of power: Finding news ways to do what is prohibited
Abuse of power: Ignore the requirements
Abuse of power: Ignoring the law, regulation, procedure
Abuse of power: Ignore the statute
Abuse of power: Any conduct which violates the law
Abuse of power: Violate rights of people
Abuse of power: Clear violations
Abuse of power: Misconduct
Abuse of power: Intimidation
Abuse of power: Harassment
Abuse of power: Open sharing with non-intended parties
Abuse of power: Excuses to violate Constitution, go around protections
Abuse of power: Goal isn’t to fight terrorism, but to gather information and intimidate people and manipulate them
Abuse of power: Witness tampering
Abuse of power: Jury tampering
Abuse of power: Violate rules of evidence and procedure
Abuse of power: Self-issuing warrants and still violating the new procedures
Abuse of power: False charges
Abuse of power: FISA court led to believe non-sense
Abuse of power; shifting the burden of proof
Abuse of power: Prosecutors using illegal evidence
Abuse of power: Failure to provide information as required under prosecutor’s standards of conduct
Abuse of power: Data not provided per Brady
Abuse of power: Defendants not provided all information for a fair trail
Abuse of power: Deny rights of defendants
Abuse of power: Mislead participations
Abuse of power: Delay fact finding
Abuse of power: Self-issues warrants
Abuse of power: Illegally gathering intelligence and sharing
Abuse of power: Illegally obtained evidence
Abuse of power: Fabricated information justification
Abuse of power: Reaming illegal evidence is “investigative lead”
Abuse of power: Based for personal knowledge is an NSA intercept
Abuse of power: Large files
Abuse of power: Speculative differences
Abuse of power: Misrepresentations
Abuse of power: Trumped up charges
Abuse of power: Misrepresentations to avoid investigations, reviews, and taking evidence
Abuse of power: Fictional phrases to sound legal, but evidence fails to meet standard
Abuse of power: Illegal evidence
Abuse of power: Failure to suppress illegal evidence
Abuse of power: Time cards of detectives at odds with information gleaned
Abuse of power: Warrantless detentions, violation of Constitution, habeas corpus
Abuse of power: Warrantless arrest
Abuse of power: Warrantless arrest – without a crime, merely an assertion of potential
Abuse of power: Targets not linked with a bonafide reason
Abuse of power: Baseless targeting
Abuse of power: Targeting on the basis of non-criminal elements
Abuse of power: Person not reasonably connected related to the asserted crime
Abuse of power: Person targeted regardless reasonableness
Abuse of power: No basis for questions
Abuse of power: Reassigning targets into new classes to justify a violation
Abuse of power: Probable cause standard ignored
Unresponsive to oversight
Abuse of power: Ignore the other powers
Abuse of power: Self-decide letter is not required
Abuse of power: Self-declines the requirement to avoid reporting requirement
Creating New Power
Abuse of power: President writes new legislation
Abuse of power: AG is a monarch
Abuse of power: Illegal changes to Constitution
Abuse of power: Self-delegate authority and oversight
Abuse of power: Self-delegate power to ratify illegal acts and orders
Abuse of power: Self-defining illegal activity as permissible
Abuse of power: Delegate oversight to ratify an illegal activity
Abuse of power: Self-assert broad discretion outside court, at odds with constitution
Abuse of power: Executive makes judicial decisions on appropriateness
Back to top
Abuse of power: Self-delegate exceptions
Abuse of power: Waiver of rules of procedures and evidence
Abuse of power: Assert this is an exception to requirements
Abuse of power: Self-grant waivers on standards, requirements, and reporting
Abuse of power: Not a bonafide exception
Abuse of power: Fabricated events to fit into an exception
Abuse of power: Waivers to waivers
Abuse of power: Novel exceptions
Abuse of power: Abuse of “intelligence-related”
Abuse of power: Inappropriate discretion to apply exemptions
Abuse of power: Expansive exception-creating power
Abuse of power: Exemptions not bonafide
Abuse of power: Exemptions outside intent of Congress
Abuse of power: Illegal exceptions
Abuse of power: Self-assign exemptions
Abuse of power: Self-asserting exemption; false legality of illegal things; no report
Abuse of power: Exemptions outside the law
Abuse of power: Exemptions outside what Congress knows
Exemptions, waivers, and immunities
Cover-up: Assign bogus exceptions
Cover-up: Self-designation immunity
Cover-up: Waive procedures
Cover-up: Write new exemptions
Cover-up: Things do not add up
Cover-up: Bogus labels to fit into categories
Cover-up: Non-sense to fit into a specific category
Cover-up: Deny pre-textual stops
Cover-up: Non-sense reasons to ignore lessons of 1970s
Cover- up: Hiding files
Cover-up: Shell game
Cover-up: Hide problems
Cover-up: Dissuade knowledge of conduct to avoid triggering legal challenges or questions
Cover-up: Hide illegal things
Cover-up: Moving things further from Congress
Cover-up: Mutation theory: Derivative activity is beyond prohibitions, therefore legalized, despite it violating the law
Cover-up: Suppress information about illegal activity
Cover-up: Suppress the knowledge of the data mining activity and the information
Cover-up: New buckets to hide problems
Cover-up: Prevent detection though deception and ruses
Cover-up: Delay knowledge and understanding
Cover-up: Fictional other programs
Cover-up: Formerly assigned personnel targeted
Cover-up: Shooting the messenger
Cover-up: Targeting legal experts
Cover-up: Threatened if speak about illegal activity
Cover-up: Removing personnel who ask too many questions, or catch on with what is going on
Cover-up: Labeling as troublemakers people who realize the scope of the illegal activity
Cover-up: Appeal to confusion
Cover-up: Circular reasoning
Cover-up: Assert misconduct isolated
Cover-up: Excuses, fabricated pre-text to fit into a category
Cover-up: Renaming illegal evidence an exception.
Cover-up: Suppress knowledge of widespread abuses
Cover-up: Suppressing evidence of wrongdoing
Cover-up: Baloney excuses to segregate the claims and patterns of conduct
Audits, reviews, reports investigations
Oversight: Inadequate auditing
Oversight: Self-discretion on whether IG finds out
Oversight: Lack of independent review
Oversight: Congress refuses to investigate
Oversight: No notice audits compromised
Oversight: Remove the other reviews and oversight
Oversight: Reports on violations ignored
Oversight: Failure to provide reports
Oversight: Incomplete information to dissuade discussion
Oversight: Assertions at odds with real facts
Oversight: Congress suppresses reports
Oversight: Congressional complicity
Oversight: Congress fails to recluse itself
Oversight: Congressional culpability
Oversight: Actions without Congressional notification
Oversight: Keeping Congress out of the loop
Oversight: Circular reasoning to avoid providing information to Congress
Oversight: Liaison with inappropriate personnel
Programs: Assent to illegal orders
Programs: Classifying a program or activity as outside what is permissible
Programs: People given incomplete information about what they’re really doing
Programs: Hiring people to violate the law, assign them to an “exempted” class and “legal”
Programs: Budget flows to non-intended purposes
Programs: Wide discretion on funds
Program: Broad language to permit anything
Program: Calling things “terror and intelligence” related to get money
Program: Meaningless words to justify anything
Program: Language without any connection to a real threat
Programs: Wizard of Oz news releases to convince employees of legality
Program: Bogus terror-related labels to get money, exemptions, and cursory reviews
Programs: Use “national security” to avoid questions
Programs: Fabricated threats
Programs: Fabricated threats
Programs: Illusory problems and thresholds
Programs: No credible basis for program
Programs: Fabricated program justifications
Programs: Absurd relevancy
Program: Claims at odds with credible program results
Programs: Misleading statements about facts, well known things – good benchmark
Program: Stifle audits: Define a program as being exclusive control of one agency, despite multi-agency review and involvement
Personnel: Failing to comply with rules of professional conduct
Programs: Unrealistic targets
Programs: Poorly managed
Program: False assertions to comply with requirement
Program: Create a program, assign people to it without telling them
Program: Complete bogus classifications.
Program: Ignore remedies
Reporting: NID abuses reporting exceptions
Reporting: Self-waive reporting requirement
Reporting: Inaccurate, incomplete reports
Reporting: Excuses to avoid discovery, audits, and oversight
Reporting: Failure to inform
Reporting: Insufficient information on legality
Reporting: Failure to disclose actual violations
Reporting: Inadequate verification letters meet requirements
Retroactive Law: Excuses to violate the law: Emergency
Retroactive law: Claim it’s not reasonable to comply with the law
Retroactive law: Stretch the law to permit what it was designed to prohibit
Retroactive law: Invent legal fiction to retroactively cover-up illegal acts
Retroactive law: Expansive interpretation of language
Retroactive law: Making legal arguments to justify ignoring the law
Retroactive law: “Other” can be linked or not linked to anything real or legal.
Retroactive law: Wave the statute, argue absurdity
Retroactive law: Asserting illegal things are appropriate
Retroactive law: Retroactive justifications keep changing
Retroactive law: Baloney designations to justify illegal activity: Activity, person, relationship,
Retroactive law: Expansive interpretation
Retroactive Law: Create new exemptions to the law
Retroactive law: Rationalizing violations of the law
Retroactive law: “Except” in the statute interpreted to mean “may”
Retroactive law: “Shall not” changed to “shall”
Retroactive law: Exemptions to illegal activity
Retroactive law: Exemptions applies to all things, products, and programs
Retroactive law: Move anything to that category
Retroactive law: Unreasonable exemptions
Retroactive law: Activity not linked with bonafide exemptions
Retroactive law: Right label, right exception
Retroactive law: Write procedures outside law, then violate those procedures
Retroactive Law: Loophole
Retroactive law: Self-review at odds with law
Retroactive law: Ignore standards on other reports
ALERT: FISA changes are ex post facto – can’t changer the law after the fact