Constant's pations

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

Sunday, May 28, 2006

NSA: Dubious claims, illegal crimes, unlawful war

The White House cannot credibly argue the FISA violations cannot be litigated. There is no need for the court to review the technical details related to the ongoing US Navy worldwide underwater fiber-optic splicing program. The illegal, domestic FISA violations can be litigated using redacted information.

The issue is whether the President will or will not follow the law, as the 3rd Amendment clearly says he must do during wartime. This President promised to enforce the laws and faithfully ensure he did his job. It is our job to review whether he remains fit for continued service as President.

* * *

What if the Germans had known the Nazis were using ULTRA to support the Holocaust?

* * *

The private litigation against telephone companies and NSA continues. The issue is whether a trial should go forward despite the assertion of privilege.

Over the weekend, the White House filed two motions arguing that the only way they can defend themselves was if they reveal state secrets. The government’s arguments fail.

If the secret information were suppressed, it would be still possible to conduct a trial and find that the President has violated FISA. There is no need to discuss the specific operational details in order to review whether the FISA has or has not bee violated. The White House similarly makes a dubious claim that discussing the illegal, domestic activity will reveal state secrets.

How we know the Government claims of secrecy are dubious

In order to prevail on a claim of privilege and have a case dismissed, the Government has the burden to prove to the court that the issue can only be discussed if classified information will be revealed.

The government’s position is false. The issue related to the FISA violations can be discussed without revealing classified information. There are well known DoD processes, and these have been ignored. Fraud requires only that agencies be ignored, or circumvented. The President has done this.

It is possible to litigate this case in open without revealing state secrets. First, the JROC information can be redacted. Second, the skipped procedures required to prove fraud can be discussed without discussion classified information. Third, the issue isn’t what does the technical system do; but how that technical system was used despite the laws contrary to its use.

It makes no difference how many times General Hayden may or may not have discussed the information with the Senate. Nor does it matter that the so-called victims of these violations may or may not realize what has happened. These are matters of criminal law; and the job of the US leadership and prosecutors is to enforce the law where there are violations.

There is no merit to the White House claim that they are concerned with state secrets. Valarie Plame’s outing is all we need to know. The real objective of the White House isn’t to protect any secret, but to immunize those who well know they’ve violated FISA.

* * *

The government position is not an absolute bar to trial, merely a small, but surmountable hurdle. There is no credible claim that discussing behavior, and FISA violations will require revealing state secrets.

To review the FISA violations, one does not need to review the specific program or technical details. The process of confirming – that DoD well knew the FISA statute and violations -- is well documented in open DoD processes.

There is no requirement that the specifics of the broader fiber optic-interception effort be discussed in order to show that the President, Gonzalez, and Hayden have violated the law in domestically using technology outside the FISA court, and contrary to statute. Rather, DoD documents and open admissions clearly show the current activities violate the law. Whether that technical tool is a large or small box is of no consequences.

The issue here is whether the military technology, however it is designed or used overseas, is used consistent with the statue. We do not need to review anything that is secret to introduce into evidence open, fatal admissions contrary to the government’s interests. Gonzalez and the President have openly admitted they have not, as required, fully cooperated with the FISA court.

* * *

Let’s consider the specific technical details of the current illegal program, in the United States, and discuss in broad terms why the secret information need not be discussed, but there is still a basis to hold a trial.

Putting aside the dubious assertions of concerns over state secrets, the government fails to show that a discussion of FISA violations will reveal state secrets. At no time has the government claimed how discussing an illegal technical intercept activity stateside will reveal the technical details of how the US NAVY physically splices the undersea fiber optic cables; nor does the discussion of the FISA violations reveal the operational details of how the information gleaned from tapped fiber optic cables is checked against HUMINT sources inside Moscow, Tehran, Havana or Beijing.

Further, when we discuss FISA violations committed domestically while using the fiber optic system, nobody is making any case that the US government reveal the specific methods it uses to then verify to the Senate that the information is or isn’t reliable. The results are telling. Despite worldwide intercept capability, the US government lies to the Senate, uses misleading information, and even if the enemy were to stand down or do nothing, the White House will fabricate information to create enemies out of allies. In the end, the White House remains lost, defeated, and horribly bruised within its own Party and Iraq.

Also, discussing FISA violations does not require the US government reveal the various development efforts to detect whether fiber optic data has been corrupted; or how potential enemy efforts to override fiber optic cables can be thwarted on the battlefield. The results are clear. Despite the complex weapons systems, the American military is unable to prevail over a fairly benign force armed with rudimentary explosive devices. We need to know why, despite the supposed information, this leadership makes reckless decisions.

At no time has the Government adequately demonstrated that discussing the FISA violations would require DoD and the Joint Staff to reveal the specific methods they use to ensure that information from the war fighters is protected, and is credibly linked to ensure successful combat operations. The facts are obvious: The Joint Staff, despite the secrecy, has been unable to prevail. Secrecy is being used not to protect the Constitution, but to hide reckless incompetence in the White House, Joint Staff, NSA, and DoJ. We need fact finding, not more secrecy.

* * *

The government makes several faulty assertions. First it suggests that if the operational details were disclosed, then the enemy would modify its behavior. Yet, this assertion presumes that the US interception capabilities would not only be impaired, but that policy makers would be deprived of factual information to make informed decision.

The evidence before us clearly demonstrates the opposite. The world reaction or adjustments is irrelevant to this White House. Even if deprived of facts, or an enemy does something surprising like cooperate, this Administration will fabricate any evidence and present any dubious information to rally others for illegal activity at home and abroad.

Further, Cheney in his seventeen (17) visits to the CIA has shown he will impose the political agenda on the facts. That the enemy – whoever that is, this week-- may or may not do something abroad is meaningless when we already know that this administration will lie, violate the law, and ignore the constitution at home.

This compels the court to review the violations, not cast them to the winds or party faithless.

Assessments About the White House, DoJ, and NSA Conduct

White House assertions that the FISA violations cannot be discussed are dubious. The real objective is to hide the illegal use of military technology which violates the domestic statutes.

There is no valid claim that the FISA statute is unusual or that it affects absolute Presidential power. The 3rd Amendment makes it clear that the President can be constrained by statute during wartime. Rather, FISA simply affirms the President’s right to circumvent the Constitution, so long as he follows specific procedures.

Despite alleged enemy changes in operations, the White House was still directing the NSA to engage in illegal surveillance, and monitoring and transcribing American’s domestic-to-domestic telephone. DoJ asserts they were understaffed, yet refused to utilize the dedicated staff in the third branch of government. DoJ was duplicating the job of the FISA court to screen out dubious claims, and hide the scope of the illegal activity from the court.

The full scope of the wiretapping includes more than interception, recording, and voice transcription. This is irrelevant. Whether we focus narrowly on the efforts to keep these cases out of court, or the larger pattern of conduct, the objectives remains the same: To avoid accountability for abuse of power; to protect the President from a war crimes trial; and to ensure the RNC remains in power despite the well know violations of statute.

Unless the law is enforced we will have more abuse of power. This President cannot lead with facts or the benefits of secrecy. The real objective isn’t to protect any bonafide domestic activity – the activity is illegal; rather the true objective is to hide the scope of the illegal conduct and evidence of incompetence.

Now is not the time to jettison the case on the basis of dubious claims, but to challenge the President, NSA, and telephone companies for their dubious respect for the law. What remains outside the immediate discussion is the political use of that illegally gathered information.

* * *

This is an urgent issue. It is important information for the public. There are several benefits to discussing the scope of the FISA violations.

The American public can decide whether they trust the leadership to prevent the abuse of power and protect rights. If Americans are not willing to discuss the methods by which their laws are violated, there’s little incentive they’ll realistically challenge the broader scope of deceptions used to justify military funding for dubious programs; and the other information sources needed to corroborate White House claims over Iran.

The issue affects the Congress. The US Senate refuses to act, and absent civilian oversight, claims a superior right to commit and ignore violations of the law.

* * *

It is well known that Fiber optical cables can be intercepted. The Russians well know that their communications are intercepted. The issue is to what extent the Americans are fooling themselves into blindly embracing whatever they hear from these fiber optic cables.

The issue isn’t to protect sources and methods. Rather, given US intelligence blindly relies on these fiber optic taps as a bonafide source of information; the Senate has no catalyst to seek alternative sources, as they should.

If the Senate had known the scope and extent that the US blindly taps information -- whether it is from prisoners, open sources, or electronic intercepts -- the Senate might have asked some probing questions before the Iraq invasion. Indeed, they may have embraced another line of evidence, and done the same.

* * *

In light of the known vulnerabilities with the fiber optics, we need to consider to what extent the US has used the “invulnerability” of the fiber optic system to encourage other nations to embrace a system which the US plans to exploit.

Meanwhile, despite the potential vulnerabilities, the work at the labs continue, creating methods and technologies that:

  • Are in-flight interception capability to defeat missile guidance system which rely on fiber optics;

  • Create an energy field that can affect fiber optic cables remotely; and

  • Remotely access, affect, and change the information flows in combat equipment and command and control.

    * * *

    Broadly, the issue before us isn’t whether the President should or should do this. He should be able to protect us. The issue is whether he will do so in a manner that is consistent with the laws that he promised to enforce; or outside those laws which otherwise require his to follow certain steps and procedures.

    The problem before us is that the NSA has a certain type of fiber optical intercept capability which they rely on; and that capability has been used against Americans. The issue isn’t whether or not Americas should be free from violence; the issue is whether they will or will not have their rights protected.

    At the core of the issue is the Constitution. This White House has shown distain for the laws. Even if the court, media, and other investigators are dissuaded, the public can well comprehend what is going on: The White House cannot defend itself in open court; nor can it explain why it is using an intercept capability in a manner contrary to statute or the FISA court.

    The United Sates already has a constitution. The RNC would have the public believe that the role of Presidential power is in question. Yet, the statutes are clear. We are no longer in the post 1776 era where the political debates are framing the Constitution, or whether the country does or does not embrace a particular legal argument for or against the rule of law. This nation has one Constitution, and all public officials swear an oath to that document.

    Our system of laws mandates that the court be present. The Third Amendment confirms that no President is absolutely free to do what he wants during war time. There are times when the President may do something that is contrary to the Constitution, but that conduct is carefully regulated by law, not something he can do in secrecy our on his own volition.

    At the core of the DoJ argument against following the law is their contention that they do not have enough people to do the jobs. Yet, despite this claim DJ personnel are well known to surf the internet making changes to various non-DoJ related websites.

    The RNC membership have been betrayed. They’ve been asked to believe, and trust their leader in the White House. He is widely known to be incompetent, reckless, and unfit for continued service as the President. Again, either the courts, Congress, the media, or some other body at The Hague may ultimately decide. In the short run, the American public may make adverse judgments.

    More broadly, the Senate needs to understand to what extent its information its being provided is false. It’s fine to expend vast sums for SIGINT; quite another to ignore the facts, and continue despite what the intelligence is telling the leadership. The nation is not well served when the White House argues that SIGINT should be kept secret; while at the same time putting pressure (over 17 times) on analysts over Iraq WMD or the inconvenient results need a second look.

    If Congress is not interested in finding out how the government is violating the law, that is fine. The public is well capable of finding out which Members of Congress knew of the illegal activity, and failed to assert their oaths.

    * * *

    The issue before us is simple To what extent we will permit the cover-up over FISA violations to hide the larger incompetence in the White House, DoD, and the Republic an Party. The only way this nation will credibly face the issue is whether we are honest about what is going on, the results, and what the alternatives are.

    This Administration continues to lie, not to protect secrets, but to avoid accountability. Yet, it is well known that the White House has no legal defense, and that despite asserting any secrecy doctrine, the Americans can see the results: Incompetence.

    It is our view that the dubious White House claims are not linked with a real desire to hide to what extent the US Navy continues to tap fiber optic lines; nor is it to hide any credible threat mitigation plan. Rather, the real object of the White House is to abuse power, avoid consequences, and then blame others.

    It is time the American public realize there is a difference between lawful domestic surveillance, which requires a court; and foreign SIGINT which requires secrecy. Yet, despite asserting a claim of secrecy, this White House cannot plan a war, rally resources, or win over those who once welcomed them with open arms. Now they brandish arms well oiled in the heat of battle.

    America has no reason to trust this White House or the leadership in Congress. Without the facts about the FISA violations, we will have little to make an informed decision of what adjustments are needed to better protect our forces, ensure they have reliable systems, and that we remain free to enjoy the fruits of this Constitution.

    * * *

    This President knows fully well that he’s been caught violating the law. It is one thing to wage illegal, covert operations overseas to foment civil war in Iran; it is quite another to do the same at home.

    The White House and Congress must fully embrace where they find themselves: Almost June 2006, fully 6 months after the NYT revelations, a few short weeks before the election. We’ve heard nothing but non-sense form the White House, Gonzalez, and this President. The results in Iraq, Katrina, and the botched Senate Phase II are clear: This crew cannot lead, even when it has the luxury of a war of choice, and cannot execute a simple war, even when hiding behind the walls of Congress.

    Because this White House enjoys the luxury of secrecy, it spews forth non-sense, creates fiction, and wages illegal war. Now is not the time to defer to secrecy, but to openly find the truth. Without accountability for this President, we can expect more illegal conduct, abuse of power, and attacks on our well fought for, cherished rights.

    We can expect more. America has a choice. If America is unwilling to investigate of this President’s failures, violations of the laws and statutes, and frauds committed upon the courts, this President will likely wage more illegal wars.

    Dubious claims do not create fact. Secrecy does not ensure informed leadership. This nation has to decide how much money it wants to spend on body armor; or in collecting information that is cast aside when developing war plans.

    This President has been caught not only violating the law, but in using his position to abuse those who speak out about his violations. He fails to make any credible cause that there is a linkage between undersea fiber optic tapping off the coast of Iran, with whether he does or does not have to follow the laws at home.

    Thomas Jefferson thought that he could ignore the courts when expanding into the Mississippi. The nation learned that Jefferson, despite writing the Declaration, had great contempt for the courts. This President is no different. He speaks of nice principles, but like Jefferson he is willing to defy the law and our core values. This President is the very tyrant this nation was designed to defeat, not just on the battlefields of Europe but in the court rooms of The Hague. Fortunately, America has had Supreme Court Justices willing to put the rule of law first, and then lecture Presidents over the issue of the law.

    * * *

    America is not at a major crisis point. The dark years of the post-Revolutionary period are long gone. This nation has faced far larger problems. The Articles of Confederation were cast aside, and then a new Constitution was created only to be challenged again during the Civil War.

    Not too many months ago, in the wake of the Cold War, many years after the US failed to learn of the Japanese attack until too late, this nation did not respond during Sept 2001.

    This nation owes it to itself to find out what really failed, who placed the explosives in the World Trade Center, and what is required to compel this Congress and President to put their oath to the Constitution before their loyalty to secrecy and their co-conspirators. Despite promising one thing, we learn he is no different than Ken Lay.

    * * *

    There is an easy way and a hard way to the Protect the Constitution. We the People shall prevail. Some lawyers think they know the law; others well know the Constitution, and how to prevent the abuse of power, protect rights, and assert one’s oath.

    As we learn the truth, we can make informed decisions what changes are needed to better protect this Constitution from the domestic threat and tyranny in both House of Congress and the White House.

    If this government wants to make a claim that these FISA violations are needed to protect the Constitution, it has a seemingly impossible task. Rather, this Congress and President permit the FISA violations because they dare not ask the real questions: Are they willing to stand up for what they took an oath for, or are they primarily loyal to contractors who actively support illegal war.

    Ken Lay, Scooter Libby, and Tom Delay have asserted their innocence. Yet, Grand Juries have a way of finding out the truth, even when the President wants to bury the truth at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. What the NAVY may do off the coast of Finland, Dubai, Taiwan, or Cuba is irrelevant when adjudicating war crimes and violations of the American Constitution in Federal District Court.

    Even if the White House suppresses the evidence, we can still move to indict Members of Congress who refuse to assert their oath, then lawfully remove the President from office when the weather is more favorable on the surface of the sea, regardless the goblins and ghosts of Atlantis.

    There is no credible basis for the White House to assert any state secret privilege. The court should DENY the motions to dismiss the case, and proceed to trial.

    Read more . . .

  • Saturday, May 27, 2006

    NSA: Lawfully Targeting Members of Congress, Their Staffs, US Attorneys

    This outlines a justification for We the People to lawfully target individual Members of Congress, their staffs, and US Attorneys.

    The objective of this attention is to lawfully force Members of Congress to assent to a broad public discussion and examination of their alleged malfeasance; and their failures to assert their oaths.

    The goal of this is to lawfully subject the Congress, their staff, the executive department, and US Attorneys to lawful consequences by We the People. They have one simple way to end this pressure: Assert their oaths, and uniformly apply and enforce all laws against all.

    We the People shall lawfully expand, broaden, and deepen the ongoing, public investigation into Congressman Hastert into his alleged crimes.

    * * *

    I’m going to jump around quite a bit on this one; try not to get stuck on any single point – rather, get the gist: We need to discuss some creative, lawful alternatives to what is happening.

    Overall, the main point of this is to highlight the problem with Congress, and focus on some alternatives.

    First, the overall issue is the NSA and the FISA. The law is clear. Some have suggested that the President can’t be constrained by the law, and that the Constitution lets him do anything. One response I have not heard deal with 3rd or 14th Amendments.

    The 3rd Amendment specifically relates to quartering of troops. Let’s put aside the rather broad approach that the NSA, as a military force, cannot unilaterally show up, and demand intellectual property. The 3rd Amendment specifically states that there is a difference between peace and war; and that during wartime, there can be laws related to the quartering of troops. With respect to FISA and the President’s (arguably) illegal assertion that he can do what he wants, he’s already constrained by the 3rd Amendment which says that we can make laws related to wartime use of those forces regulating how troops are treated, used, or otherwise relate to a civilian population.

    What I’d like to see is some broader discussion of the full scope of the Constitution, not merely what the President is or isn’t asserting. Rather, it’s time to lawfully throw the full weight of the Constitution, and all the protections it affords We the People directly at the President, Members of Congress, and US Attorneys.

    * * *

    Despite the long string of abuses, this Congress still approves appointments of (arguably) alleged war criminals like General Hayden; then refuses to shut off funding for things that are illegal, or something they haven’t been fully informed on.

    Granted, some would like to assert that – because Congress was told of something – that that communication meant that the law had changed. Yet, Article V specifically states how the Constitution is to be changed, and this Congress and Executive have unlawfully asserted that a mere notification and briefing amounts to a defacto change in the Constitution, not just the law. That amounts to an illegal change to the Constitution, which has not been ratified by the states.

    What is more absurd is that this Congress has (arguably) absurdly asserted that because the civilian population – that remains in the dark – has not said anything, that this means that the illegal conduct is ratified. Baloney.

    The purpose of having elected representatives is so they do that: Represent, not use their removed status as a basis to assert absurdity.

    As most American legislators know, there are two types of litigation classes: One is criminal, another is civil. What this Congress is doing is asking us to believe that – because the civilian population has not brought evidence of civil damages, that the criminal violations of the laws are not to be reckoned with.

    Again, this is absurd. Members of Congress take an Article V oath to this Constitution, not the Constitution that they dream might be desirable in a universe where they can do what they want. Rather, their job is to assert the rule of law, and ensure that the laws are faithfully executed when the President refuses to perform that function.

    Let’s consider the 14th Amendment. The 14th says that the laws shall be uniformly enforced. Clearly, by refusing to investigate the FISA violations, the US Attorneys and Members of Congress have failed in their oath to ensure that the laws are equally enforced; and have done nothing when the President asserts powers outside the Constitution.

    Also, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees a Republican form of government. This is a promise between the US government and the States. This means that because these individual members of Congress have failed to carry out their oath, then The States may lawfully bring suit against the individual Members of Congress for violating their oath.

    In other words, the party to this dispute isn’t an individual citizen, but The States who have had their guarantee violated by the reckless conduct of the individual Members of Congress. It remains another matter whether the states choose to do something. We know of at least three states that have awoken from the delusion and are discussing state proclamations calling for Congress to investigate the President and Vice President and issue articles of impeachment. It stands to reason that as it becomes broadly understood that the individual members of Congress have failed in their duties, that the States may take action in Federal Court and bring suit against the specific individual who have failed to ensure that they do their job to fulfill their duty to ensure that the States enjoy a Republican form of government.

    * * *

    Let’s consider the 14th Amendment Again. The issue is equal protection of the laws. FISA is either going to be enforced or it is not.

    If the NSA is going to be allowed to violate FISA, then we are not enjoying equal protection. Moreover, if the US Attorneys are not going to investigate, enforce, or prosecute those violations of FISA – for whatever reason – then that FISA statute falls into a category of: “Laws that exist, but are not enforced.”

    Under the prosecutor guidelines [Ex: 42.1 Missouri State Attorney AG], one of the criteria for inaction and deciding not to prosecute a case is that a specific statute has not been enforced. Putting aside my disdain for this approach, let’s focus narrowly on the US Attorney role in this lack of enforcement of FISA.

    If the FISA violations are not going to be investigated; and violations prosecuted, then for all purposes of the 14th Amendment, We the People no longer have a guarantee that the laws will be uniformly applied. If the FISA is not going to be enforced to some in the NSA and Executive Branch, then the US Attorneys cannot enforce it against anyone.

    The point is that the law either is or is not going to be enforced. By their inaction, the US Government has said, “Even though we have a clear FISA, we’re not going to enforce it.” Fine.

    Then under the principle of the 14th Amendment – where laws are uniformly enforced – then that choice not to enforce FISA violations by some means that all violations of FISA will not be prosecuted, investigated, or enforced.

    Bluntly, this means that the US population – We the People – may also ignore the FISA; and that we may individually target using all electronic means all individual Members of Congress, NSA officials, and Executive Department employees.

    Again, to be clear we are not advocating illegal action. We are suggesting that by refusing to enforce the law, that a natural consequence of that under the 14th Amendment is that other violations of that FISA statute cannot be enforced.

    * * *

    One of the arguments for obeying the laws of war is that our troops may be subject to abuse if they are taken prisoner. The same goes for the Members of Congress. If they refuse to ensure that the laws are enforced, then they too may be subject to the same violations.

    Bluntly, if the US Attorneys do not get off their rear end and prosecute these violations of FISA, then We the People have been given a green light to commit the same violations against the Members of Congress, their staffs, and the individual employees inside the NSA, DoD and DoJ.

    If anyone argues that the US Population has to “put up with this” – then under the 14th Amendment all people are going to have to “put up with this”.

    If you do not want to be targeted – under this principle of the 14th Amendment – then you need to enforce the laws, and investigate all violations of the FISA. If you fail to take your oath seriously, and block investigations, then we too may reasonably ignore the FISA and similarly target you in the DoJ Attorney General’s office.

    Take your pick: Are you going to enforce the laws; or are you going to be lawfully targeted with matching violations of the laws you refuse to uniformly enforce, as required under your oath of office to the 14th Amendment.

    * * *

    The point of this discussion is one thing: This government is not going to get away with delays, lack of enforcement, or sweeping things under the table.

    Rather, the greater outrage is that this government delays doing what it should do, and then when the public finally gets around to doing what the US Attorney and Members of Congress should be doing – investigating evidence of crimes – the government’s approach has been to adjust behavior, and essentially fix the situation.

    This is non-sense. We should be able to have confident that when the original abuses occur – whether they be a denial of a right of a speedy trial, or refusal to provide access to counsel, as required – that that initial violation be the subject of final court opinion.

    What is not acceptable is that lengthy delays. Let’s consider a broad, gross generalization of what has happened. Roughly, in the wake of Sept 2001, the US government took five years to get around to reviewing situations; when the case was finally brought to trial, the US government suddenly adjusted its position, and effectively fixed the situation. In general terms, by “resolving the matter”, the claim became moot.

    This is not acceptable. This does nothing to ensure there is a stick to the head of those who abuse power; and this merely state that however long it takes to get to trial, that the public should have to put up with this.

    An alterative approach is to do what is done in the Anti-Slapp regime. Namely, when someone brings a frivolous case against someone because of what they said, under an Anti-Slapp statute, even if the accuser withdraws that claim, the complaint is then subject to sanctions.

    In so many words, a similar type of remedy is needed for the public when it comes to issues of mootness. The US government takes an oath to the US Constitution That is the line it is supposed to protect. The problem we face is that by glacially handling an issue, this government gets to take its sweet time to get to an issue; and then after many years of delays, it can remedy the situation, and the court makes no ruling on that original abuse.

    This needs to end. We the People need to discuss a method like the Anti-Slapp approach; and this will do a number of things:

  • It will remind the government that changes to the prisoner statutes five years later will not make up for the initial constitutional violations;

  • It will mandate that the court make a ruling on the original abuses, however later the government finally gets around to addressing the issue

  • The government will face a meaningful sanction for delays, and failing to respond to an initial violation of the Constitution.

    * * *

    Let’s consider in broad terms what this government is doing with these statements on William Jefferson and the Sealing of documents.

    The FBI agents involved in this have already threatened to resign because Congress and the President are obstructing justice, and interfering with their ability to do their job. They should be supported in their assertion that this conduct by the President and Members of Congress is not acceptable.

    Putting aside the issue of obstruction of Justice and the reasonable FBI outrage at the President and Congressional leadership, the broader issue is what is to be done when the Members of Congress defy their oath.

    5 USC 3331 is the standard for the Members of Congress. Their oath is to this Constitution.

    The issue is that by their choice of inaction, refusal to investigate, and disregard for FISA, this Congress has effectively assented to an illegal set of changes to the Constitution, which are outside this Constitution. This is not lawful.

    The way forward is to broaden the scope of what is actually happening and call this what it is: Members of Congress and the Executive Department have illegally chosen to write and enforce a new Constitution outside what they, as government officials, are required to follow when making changes.

    At the same time, We the People are not constrained by that Article V requirement. That requirement only applies to Government. Moreover, because this Government refuses to enforce the law, and follows a new set of Unconstitutional provisions, we need to reciprocate: They fails to ensure that all laws are uniformly applied; we may lawfully return the favor and create a new system which will make it a felony – thus subjecting them to arrest – for doing exactly what they have done: Failed to assert their 5 USC 3331 obligation to Article IV, and respect all laws of the US.

    * * *

    The issue for the 603 effort is to take on this abuse of power, and get the States to focus on the failure of the Equal protection clause. US Citizens are being denied equal protection of the laws; and all efforts by Members of Congress, the Executive Branch, and US attorneys mean that they have failed to ensure that the laws are followed.

    Article IV Section 2 says that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states. If Members of Congress are going to claim immunity to doing their jobs, then so too may We the People assert that same immunity.

    If Members of Congress are going to claim immunity to being subject to warrants and searches, then We the People may assert that same claim.

    If members of Congress are going to assert they have a right to discuss the terms of providing evidence, complying with the law – for a period of 45 days – then We the People may assert that same privilege.

    Going the other way, if the Courts claim that We the People cannot claim this right, then Members of Congress cannot do the same.

    Also, if there is a rule in the Change that permits this double standard, then We the People may assert that same right and immunity to investigation.

    What is most absurd is that We the People have not been given the power to delay and negotiate terms of these NSA intrusions. We get no fair hearing. We have no right to discuss. Nor do we get to negotiate the terms of the procedures. They were thrust upon us without any debate.

    Thus, the Members of Congress cannot assert that same right; conversely, if they have that right to discuss, then We the People should also have that same right to discuss the terms of the NSA monitoring on our homes.

    Again, the issue is 14th Amendment: Equal protection; and also Article IV Section 2 – we are all entitled to the same privileges and immunities. Some Members of Congress do not have superior rights; nor do they have the right to negotiate whether they will or will not timely assent to the rule of law. We the People have been denied that right; Members of Congress may not assert a right we have been denied.

    * * *

    Some in government have suggested that the President may or may not do something he is required to not do or do on the basis of what was or wasn’t done many years ago.

    Yet, again the issue isn’t what may have happened between 1776 and 2005; the issue is what are these laws and this Constitution in 2006.

    Their oath is to this Constitution and these laws of the land of 2006. they do not take an oath to the Constitution that they like; nor can they agree to ignore those portions they disagree with.

    The idea of an oath is to bind people to act, and strip them of any discretion. The way forward is to gather evidence of their 5 USC 3331 violations and prosecute the individual Members of Congress.

    * * *

    The sealing of this evidence is problematic.

    Why isn’t Congress expelling the member who refuses to do what should be done: Resign, assent to rule of law.

    Congress has the power to expel members. It is in the Constitution. If you do not assert that power, then do not whine when the public makes the adverse inferences as you assert other powers you were not granted: Assenting to Executive exercise of Judicial power in sealing the evidence; or in Executive violations of the laws of the land, as he can be constrained as in 3rd Amendment.

    * * *

    We the People Shall Lawfully Target Members of Congress

    If we’ve been denied the right to a speedy trial, then the Members of Congress need to be denied that right.

    We the People may lawfully conduct a trial outside the court – just as this Congress has done with conducting a trial, and declaring the President innocent of FISA violations.

    Where the 8th Amendment gives citizens a shield, but Members of Congress have done nothing as this President denied that shield, so too may Members of Congress be denied that 8th Amendment shield.

    * * *

    Let’s consider the real changes this Congress has made to the Constitution through inaction, and unlawful assent to the Executive.

    This Congress has:

  • Made changes to whether the laws are followed or enforced;

  • Has two [2] standard on warrants: Some warrants can be secret and cannot be discussed when issued to We the People; other warrants have no power, but can be negotiated over when issued to Members of Congress

  • There are two standards on the Chamber rules: Some powers that are available such as expulsion are not used; but new powers are asserted: The power to continue paying for illegal things.

  • They have illegally created new terms and provision not delegated: Starting illegal war; refusal to act on illegal war; and continuing to appropriate for illegal things outside what it is allowed under Article I Section 9

  • This Congress has assented to glacial trials; and has permitted government abuses to remain in place, and required citizens to individually do what Members of Congress through their oath should have done: Assert the criminal statutes and laws of the land to ensure the other branches of government do what should be done: Timely, public trials

  • Illegally permitted discretion in their oath: They take a 5 USC 3331 oath, but refuse to take action when there are violations.

    Looking broadly at the events prior to 1776, the issue was that people living in North America knew they deserved better. The British Monarchy was at war with the people who lived here.

    Today in 2006 the same situation exists: We have a government that is at odds with the American people: they actively use military force against Americans; they target military power outside the law; and they inject that military into our homes (arguably) in violation of the 3rd Amendment.

    American citizens need to face what we have: A group of people who are at odds with our Constitution, and they are enemies of Our Constitution.

    We need to end the days when the citizenry is not uniformly protected; and the days when Members of Congress grant themselves immunities We the People are denied.

    Members of Congress have an oath to this Constitution. Inaction in a civil case does not ratify criminal conduct; nor does it immunize Members of Congress for failing to assert their oath. What does or doesn’t happen to an unknown victim has no bearing on whether the perpetrator of that crime is or isn’t investigated. To enforce the law, the perpetrators of these FISA violations have to be the focus. It is a canard for Members of Congress to argue that inaction by the unknowing citizen means that the crimes are not to be sanctioned.

    Irrelevant! Again, what does or doesn’t happen to the victim is irrelevant to whether or not the Member of Congress has to step in when the laws are not enforced for all.

    * * *

    It should be the national policy of We the People to individually, lawfully target for investigation and prosecution all Members of Congress for any crime; then present this information to the Citizens of the Various states for their consideration; then encourage the states to issue proclamations calling for individual members of Congress to be investigated, expelled, and tried for these crimes.

    If the US Attorneys, Executive Branch, and Legislature refuse to honor their oath, and obstruct investigations, then We the People may lawfully target for investigation all those who have an oath , but defy their obligation .

    They do not have discretion on this matter. Rather, We the People may decide to prosecute or not prosecute who we desire. Again, the issue is now the problem of Congress and their reckless malfeasance will transfer the solution of this problem from the Federal Government to The States which have been denied their guaranteed right from the United States to have the laws enforced; and retain this Republican form of government In the United States.

    * * *

    Make no mistake. This will take time. But it is time to start: To create a new approach to compel the Federal Government officials to assert their oath, follow the law, and hold the US Attorneys to their oaths of office.

    Congress may not ask for protection on matters which We the People have been denied. Rather, under the 10th Amendment, we may assert all powers to lawfully do what they have asserted they have the privilege to do: Selectively enforce, selectively investigate, and selectively do what should otherwise be done.

    These Members of Congress already have an oath and duty to act. Yet, they have chosen not to enforce the law.

    They have the option to bury an appropriations bill. They could, until the Executive complies with the law and provides information, refuse to recertify the DoJ, NSA, and DoD. Rather, this Congress chooses to “Amend” something that need not be started.

    Why is Specter Amending A bill that Specter could initially bury in Committee. This makes no sense.

    The issue is despite their options, they verbally assert principles, but their actions are at odds with those principles.

    We need to ensure the existing 5 USC 3331 obligations are enforced. When convicted of this felony, these Members of Congress – all of them – need to be subjected to the uncertainty of what may or may not happen: Will they be expelled; will they be found to be in rebellion; will they lose all chance under the 14th Amendment to hold any office.

    The issue before us is to decide what is to be done when the Members of Congress individually refuse to assert their oath, refuse to investigate, and continue appropriating money for things that violate the law. We the People are being denied our 14th Amendment right to equal protection.

    We the People do not have to assent to their violations of their oath; nor is it legal for Members of Congress to assent to violations of the law. Rather, these Members of Congress enjoy relying on on-sense to appropriate funds for illegal things, and matters they refuse to remain fully informed.

    That is reckless disregard for their duties. That alone warrants their lawful targeting for investigation, and indictment.

    * * *

    These abuses have dragged on for years. There needs to be a change. There needs to be a new approach to the US Federal Government. One that will focus on the long-term problem. We need to have timely consequences on government. Something that will make them still face consequences for the original abuse of rights, despite intermediate efforts which only occur after costly litigation.

    We did not delegate them the power to “think about” doing their job; or “possibly get around to doing it after five y ears.” Their oath is a promise to now do their job. They have failed.

    These are clear crimes: Falling to assert oath; violating the Constitution; and assent to unconditional conduct.

    It is our job to gather evidence, to support prosecution, and remove from the Halls of Congress those who refuse to do what should be done. Members of Congress need to be compelled to act, and have removed from their option any discretion to act.

    * * *

    Again, the issue of the sealing of the evidence. This is an unconstitutional assertion of Judicial Power by the Executive.

    Congress has assented to this change in the Constitution which otherwise calls for all judicial power to be outside the Executive branch.

    Again the contrast is noteworthy: This Congress has amended the Constitution, but We the People are forced to put up with violations of our rights. That is outrageous.

    It is absurd that Congress wants time to review the rules and procedures; but we have existing rules which clearly say what is to be done. These are ignored.

    We the People have a right to a speedy trial. This Congress ignores that, and refuses to act when the Executive refuses to take action.

    This Congress has ignored FISA. They make new rules agreeing not to follow or enforce FISA. We should be able to do the same: Similarly ignore FISA.

    This Congress may not amend the Constitution unless they go through the process. We the People may arbitrary change the Constitution outside Article V.

    The job of this Congress is to preserve this Constitution, not one that they may dream of, desire, or wish existed. If they do not want to work with this Constitution, then these Members of Congress – who work for We the People – can either quit, or they can be thrown in jail for being a threat to this Constitution.

    Choose: Give up and quit your public office; force us to put you in jail; or do your job. Those are your only three [3] options.

    You do not have the power to do nothing; nor assent to violations of the oath; nor to work with others who are agreeing to do nothing; nor were you delegated that power to do anything else.

    Three options. That is it.

    * * *

    The House rules do not provide for the President to act as a “super Speaker of the Congress” to intervene and lead the Congress. He has not been given that power.

    Nor does the President have any judicial power to suppress evidence.

    Rather, the only thing that this Congress can do is to expel. Why isn’t that power being used.

    Yet, nothing before us suggests the Executive has been given any statutory authority to provide a 45 day “cooling” off period. This is not labor dispute. This is a judicial matter, and a matter of criminal law.

    * * *

    Congress needs to qui confusing criminal and civil law. There is no requirement that victims do anything. IT is the job of the State to take action, investigate, and resolve the criminal issues.

    The forum for this is the court. Voters, through their inaction, will not change the laws or circumvent the court. It is absurd for any Member of Congress to assert that because the voters have or haven’t done anything that the clear statutes are or are not to be enforced or followed.

    The NSA and DoJ are actively obstructing investigations into these frauds. They have failed to follow procedures. They have refused to include in their reviews the required statutory mechanisms.

  • It is fraud to not work with the agencies, policies, and other branches of government as is required under this system.

  • It violates the statutes to classify information related to criminal conduct

  • This government has actually listened to and recorded domestic calls; -- they are not simply “eliminating from a list of suspects”. Rather, they are using this information, passing in to other parties, and the contents of the phone calls is being transcribed, and sent to other parties.

  • This government is going down a list of people without consulting with the court as is required.

    * * *

    The issue is what is to be done:

  • To convince the individual Members of Congress for their assent to these violations of the law;

  • To mandate protection of the Constitution, when all government officials agree to violate the Constitution;

  • To mandate an investigation of the laws, despite refusals to gather facts;

  • To get the process to work despite the non-sense claims that “standing” is needed

  • To ensure that Members of Congress understand that there is a difference between a crime requiring state action and a civil action where an individual acts. [Again, when we’re talking about FISA violations and felonies, this is a crime. There is no issue of “standing”. The crime is against The United States.]

  • To get the US government from doing unconstitutional things. This government, all three branches, engages in malfeasance, unconstitutional conduct, and actively assents to violations of the law and Constitution. It’s as if the country is floating around, “Gosh, what can we do.”

    * * *

    Again, We the People have the power and right to find a new, improved method to do this. Keep in mind what this government is doing: Now, in mid 2006, they’re using the “right words” when talking out the Constitution and rule of law; yet they assent to illegal conduct; and their actions are wholly at odds with the laws. Their claims of “concerns for the law” are not to be believed. Rather, they refuse to assert the powers they have to solve the problems.

    * * *

    It’s time to lawfully target the US Attorneys. Its time to hold them to account. It’s time to gather evidence of the US Attorney inaction, and refusals to investigate, and failure to ensure the laws are enforced.

    It is time to have civilian review boards for the US Attorneys, who will do what is done with the domestic law enforcement: Oversees, and provide guidance. This current system has failed. We have clear crimes, no action, and the entire system pointing fingers at each other saying, “Gosh, what is to be done.”

    The civilian review boards overseeing the US Attorneys and Members of Congress need to bluntly ask the following questions, and then report back the information:

  • Why are the US Attorneys not brining charges against the individual members of the Senate and House for failing to assert their oath

  • Why is there nothing being done on violation of FISA?

  • Discuss why Americans should be barred from targeting the US Attorneys and Members of Congress – using NSA-like devices – and then providing the results of that review to the public for discussion.

    Again, any claim of “privilege” is absurd. You only have privilege to protect lawful actions; at this point, we have legal activity, but plenty of people asserting that they are to be believed, respected, or given deference.


    Unless We the People hear a very clean story why these FISA rules are or are not being enforced, We the People should not be bound by them, and may lawfully target the US Attorneys and Members of Congress with similar interception technology.

    If you do not wish to be lawfully targeted, then your job is to enforce the law; if you do not wish to enforce the law for some in government, then you cannot enforce the law against We the People. This violates your 14th Amendment obligation to ensure the laws are uniformly enforced, and that all people have equal protection of the laws.

    * * *

    It is time to bring the lawful, full force of We the People against the US Attorneys. The US Attorneys have failed. They are stuck in an either-or trap: Either

  • 1. FISA does not apply and We the People can actively, lawfully target Members of Congress and US Attorneys by engaging in the same conduct as the NSA; OR

  • 2. FISA does apply, and the US Attorneys have failed to bring charges against the NSA, and Members of Congress who are part of the larger pattern of abuses contributing to violations of FISA.

    One or the other. Time for the civilian review boards to get an answer. One or the other.

    Whether the US Attorneys or DoJ OPR are or are not blocked is a separate matter. That will merely be an additional charge to bring in the indictments.

    But what is most outrageous is that We the People have paid the individual Members of Congress and their staffs considerable funds to solve these issues, pay attention, and do what must be done.

    What’s the problem:

  • Do you not take your job seriously;

  • Do you not have enough staff;

  • Do you need assistance

  • Are you incompetent

    At this point we have to make adverse judgments:

  • 1. This Congress is actively in support of illegal changes to the US Constitution;

  • 2. The staffs on the Congressional Committees have no clue how Executive branches work, and do not have sufficient power to compel answers;

  • 3. Members of Congress, despite having doubts about the legality of things, continue to vote for things they know nothing about;

  • 4. Members of Congress do not have sufficient staff, support, and resources to engage in fact finding;

  • 5. The Executive Department refuses to assent to the rule of law

  • 6. Members of Congress know of these violations, but refuse to ensure that the US Attorneys investigate, and prosecute this criminal activity

  • 7. Members of Congress refuse to assert their oath; do not take their oath seriously; they are aware of violations of the law; and they expect We the People to continue to go along with this.

  • 8. Members of Congress are not doing their job, they defy their oath, they are in violation of 5 USC 3331, and should -- all 535 of them – be subject to lawful inquiry to examine the facts and details as to whether they should remain in office, or belong in jail.

    * * *

    Article 1 Section 9 specifically states that money may only be spent on lawful things. Members of Congress have to explain why they are appropriating money for things that are not legal; are not known to them; or they have questions or doubts about.

    Again, if Specter is going to go on the floor of the Senate and say he has reservations and is not happy with the non-answers he’s getting, he can do more than vote a dissenting vote. He can block the DoJ appropriations bill, and refuse to let the DoJ appropriations out of the Committee. So far, he refuses to do that; rather, he entertains the “idea” of an “amendment”. Hay: Why not shut the funding down, rather than subject the otherwise rubberstamped appropriation to a debate on the amendment. At this point, its clear that even if Specter lets the bill out of committee, the full Senate is going to vote the other way, as they did with Hayden. So why let the DoJ Appropriations out of committee; and why not simply let DoJ -- as an institution – die off?

    What’s the sense of having DOJ when the US Attorneys refuse to investigate; and the US government refuses to follow the FISA Court? The US is already locking people up without trial; so who needs trials, investigations? Why not simply lock everyone up?

    If you want to “make the case” that we need a DoJ, then you need to make the case that you’re going to enforce the laws, investigate violations of those laws, and ensure that all laws are enforced and that all people enjoy equal protection of those laws.

    Right now, DoJ claims, “Oh, we have important work t do.” Great: Then start doing it, and ensure that the FISA violations ore investigated; otherwise We the People may or may not lawfully continue targeting the US Attorneys using methods we may or may not disclose.

    * * *

    The entire notion of violating FISA had to start somewhere. Someone had to think of this idea. Hayden has already admitted before the Senate that this was a close group.

    It is a crime to incite others to commit crimes. It is also a crime to refuse to assert ones oath and investigate, and prosecute those who are violating the law.

    Fine. Then let’s get a plan together to find out who this group is; who knew what the FISA was; and why they went to extraordinary lengths to intercept voice domestic-to-domestic communications, record, transcribe, and retransmit this.

    Let’s get a good story why they were going outside the Court.

    Let’s get a clean story as to why Gonzalez was avoiding giving DoJ OPR access.

    Let’s get a really nice, clean story as to who specifically inside NSA knew about this activity, which discussions they had over the FISA, and how this conduct continued despite the legal reviews.

    Let’s find out which DoD JROC planning documents were ignored

    Let’s find out which specific Joint Staff personnel inside DoD worked with DoJ, DoD, the NSA, and the General Counsels in the IG officers to shut down investigations, keep this activity quiet, and circumvent the procedure that require following FISA>

    Let’s get a clean story as to why the specific 3rd Amendment stipulations – that there be laws that apply to troops, the military, and NSA in times of war – were ignored.

    Conversely, if there are no answers to the above, We the People may lawfully proceed with full expectation that the4 FISA not be enforced; and that We the People may reasonably ignore FISA and lawfully target the NSA, DOD, US Attorneys, and individual Members of Congress for your alleged assent to this conspiracy.

    You have an oath. To this constitution. Today in 2006. It is time to decide whether you want to be with the forces that assert the rule of law; or face We the People as we lawfully ignore the laws you refuse to enforce, investigate, or ensure others comply.

    If we don’t get answers, you don’t get money.

    If people give you money, despite no answers, then they are failing to do their jobs.

    * * *

    Where to begin? Let’s consider the RNC phone lists which we have form the 2004 RNC demonstrations.

  • Using NSA-like devices, we can access the phone records of all the RNC personnel. Is this what you want?

  • We can also intercept these communications. Is this what you want?

  • Using FEC data and other information on the internet we may lawfully find out all details about your personal life. Is this what you want?

    * * *

    The way forward is to impose lawful consequences on the US Attorneys for them failing to investigate, enforce the law, and prosecute those who are violating FISA; and those Members of Congress who continue to appropriate funds for illegal things. IT doesn’t matter if they may have been a previous committee chairman; or whether they don’t have time. It’s the job of the Member of Congress to assert their oath, stand up, and solve this problem.

    We the People, are fully prepared to impose that solution lawfully with a New Constitution. One that will strip you of the power you’re not lawfully asserting, and deny you the vote to have any input to your political future.

    Failing to do what should be done is malfeasance. Failing to find out what is going on is recklessness. Assenting to illegal activity -- whether by ignorance, inaction or stupidity – is no defense. You are competent people. Your constituents elected you on the basis of your talent; you proved to them that you were the best.

    Yet, the best Americans can expect are illegal acts, violations of the law, and outrageous malfeasance by individual members of Congress. And you wonder why the Iraqi insurgency is inspired to defeat and kill Americans: Because you are stupid, lazy, and incompetent.

    Here we are in 2006, fully 40 years after Vietnam started, and America is doing the same thing: Being defeated on the battlefield. This is reckless squandering of American resources.

    * * *

    The standards in the Constitution are there as a threshold of minimum behavior. The Constitution should be the starting point as in, “Do not cross this line.”

    This government treats the laws and standards as if they are rubber bands. It is not appropriate to make people wait fiver years while the US government decides what to do. We need speedy trial, not British prison ships of the 1700s which drift aimlessly.

    The way forward is to find a faster way to put the Kybosh on government officials.

    As stated before, this government needs to be compelled to stick with the original facts – and the public should be able to ring a claim based on the original abuses. The fact that the government has changed its position -- after doing nothing, thereby forcing the civilian to act as a government inspector, and investigate crimes – means that the public is forced to put up with a range of abuses, which the government can glacially retreat from if the case comes to court.

    No! The way forward is to draw a line in the sand: Once the government commits abuses, then that original abuse becomes the basis for the complaint. Subsequent changes does not mitigate the initial abuses; rather, the changes in the government position need to be considered in the context of their timing, and the link that the government changes have to outside pressure like a lawsuit to force discovery.

    We the People did not give the government the power to suppress information about crimes; nor the power to violate the Constitution “unless you got caught.” No!

    The constitution is there as a standard that you are to follow, even when we are not looking. If we have to monitor every one of you, then you are not needed. Rather, we need people who do their job; and when we show up with random audits, you are to do your job.

    When the government refuses to provide a timely trial – but then aggress to a trial after five years of haggling – the problem the public has is that the court has no claim to adjudicate. This is an error. The court should be directed to adjudicate on the original abuses; and the fact that the issue may have expired on the basis of mootness does nothing to ensure the government is clearly told what they are required to do.

    The current system – which permits the government to take its time, and possibly respond – does nothing to ensure speedy trials. Rather, it is encouraging the government to hide information, delay providing evidence, and go about its merry way – more malfeasance, recklessness, and negligence – when we need the opposite.

    Government cannot be given a free pass to engage in abuse, then “possibly” if someone gets around to bringing civil complaint, going about fixing the situation. The standard of conduct is the law. The fact that there are criminal statutes appears to be meaningless to this government. Even when faced with a real prospect of losing qualified immunity – because the conduct violated clearly established rights/constitution/public law – this government still goes about its merry way.

    Let’s consider some specific examples. All people are afforded the right to a speedy trial. Padilla and others have been locked away. After many years of no legal representation, the government then finally assented to the trial. What did the Supreme court do? It threw the issue out as Moot in that the Government had done the very thing it could do. This is outrageous. What should have happened was that the original claim – whatever it was – should have been bolstered by the subsequent government abuses; and the secondary State claims brought against the individual officers should have been linked to criminal conduct: Delays, denial to attorney, and no speedy trial.

    Second example: National Security Letters. These thins violate the law. A library worker in Windsor Connecticut wanted to discuss the NSL. The Government said no. The court found NSLS unconstitutional. Then by removing the gag order, the government effectively said, “She has no case.” What a load of non-sense. What should have happened was that the original unconstitutional conduct -- that of depriving the worker of a 1st Amendment right – should have been bolstered, and the government then take on a second criminal case for constitutional violations of the 4th Amendment so as to get the court to rule on all the claims related to the warrants, 1st and 4th Amendment. The problem is that by waiting this many years – but then changing their position – the government has effectively been rewarded for committing the initial violations, and facing no consequences. What’s needed are some consequences on the full claims of the original abuses; and an affirmation that even if the government changes position, withdraws, or moves to suppress a charge, that the subsequent criminal case against that government official will be amplified.

    Third example: FISA and Congress. For years supposedly they were briefed on what was going on with FISA, NSA, and the illegal domestic phone tapping and monitoring. Members of Congress chose to do nothing. NO action has been taken. Members of Congress have claimed that because the public/victim hasn’t done anything, then Members of Congress shouldn’t be worried. In the meantime, Members of Congress re voting to appropriate more money for these illegal programs. This is absurd. What is needed is a way to link the original abuses of the NSA with the subsequent Member of Congress assent to that violation to broaden the discovery, and link Members of Congress with the NSA abuses. The error of the current environment is to permit the gradual disclosure of facts create a moving position which the court cannot adjudicate. It is time to fix the criminal indictments -- which Members of Congress are personally liable for – with the original position, not the position the government glacially gets to after many changes, and belated disclosures. The key is to facilitate timely resolve of these issues; and ensure conduct complies with the law, not uses the law as a rubber band to justify more illegal behavior.

    Fourth example is the Assertion of State privilege over illegal kidnapping or rendition. Same type of problem: Abuses occur; then after discovery, the government claims that the conduct was a state secret. Yet at the same time public officials are openly commenting on that Rendition. Yet, what is to be done? The courts are seemly “without anything to do”. The way forward is to fix the initial conduct – as a crime – against those who knew, or should have known. Namely, in the case of Rendition and illegal NSA activity, the President under Title 50 has an obligation to inform Congress of that illegal activity. The way forward is what is to be done when the Members of Congress refuse to assert their power, and mandate that there be an investigation of Title 50. Again, this Congress launches the responsibility on the individual plaintiff to bring to court; only to have the court – after the government changes its position – left with nothing but mootness. No! We need to send a clear message to Congress: Your job is to find out; if you fail to find out, but you continue to appropriate funds, then you are part of the problem, especially when it is well known that the conduct violates the law. Again, if it is “OK” to do what is going on – Rendition, FISA violations – then We the People may lawfully reciprocate: Render the individual Members of Congress and NSA to The Hague; and lawfully intercept all communications in a like manner that the NSA is doing. The key is to make this full spectrum of options something the court well knows is possible unless the original abuses are discussed in the opinion, and not ejected on the basis of the government making “promises” about “not doing something” that they know full well they are doing: Engaging in illegal kidnapping, doing this without court review, and then pretending that it is OK. It is not. It’s a violation of the treaties.

    Fifth example is the Patriot Act and the subsequent changes. The courts have rules with respect to the National Security Letters [NSLs] that they are unconstitutional. This was known at the time they were created as they violated the 4th Amendment. Congress shall no do this. But what does the court do? Rather than look at the individual conduct of the original violation – approving a non-constitutional warrant process that amounted to a change to the Constitution – the court says, “Well, now that Congress has changed the law, we really can’t do anything.” Again, the issue is that the original abuses – that of assenting to an illegal procedure – drag on, and those who support that illegal activity face no consequences. The final judicial opinion needs to discuss the original abuse of power, and do something that will firmly attach liability to the original abuse, and like the Anti-Slapp statue not permit the government to “possibly” get around to doing something after detection. Rather, the goal should be to ensure the existing standards are enforced; and that the government has an interest to timely comply at the outset, regardless whether the conduct is or is not known to the court and wider public.

    * * *

    Some have wondered what is to be done: What do we do when Congress assented to violations of the law; and refuses to impeach.

    At this point, the problem with the American political and legal landscape is that illegal Presidential conduct – as we have before us – has no credible catalyst for action. In theory, the House will review. In practice, the political loyalties are greater than the oath.

    In short, what is to be done to lawfully remove the President when the Congress chooses to asset to an illegally violation of the Constitution?

    The way forward is to change the problem. We do not have a Presidential problem. We have a law enforcement problem. The intermediate step is to broaden the fact finding from what the President did or didn’t know; and specifically, lawfully target for fact finding those Members of Congress who defy their 5 USC 3331 obligations; and gather evidence to have the members of Congress indicted, then removed. This is the first step toward removing the President.

    In other words, impeachment is not the only way to impose consequences on a President. A present may also lose support – either through loss of votes – or through action by We the People to lawfully target, investigate, and bring evidence against his political allies in Congress – so that over time, the political support gives way to deference to the law.

    We the People do not have to wait for the ballot box. We can lawfully assert powers which include doing exactly what Hayden and Gonzalez have said is lawful: Using NSA-like assets to directly target Members of Congress, and bring this evidence.

    Yet, just as Congress refuses to follow the laws of procedure when it comes to warrants, We the People may conduct a public trial outside the court, and smear the Members of Congress using this newly acquired information.

    In so many words, if Members of Congress say that it is “OK” for the NSA to target Americans – and the US Attorneys refuse to investigate -- then We the People may lawfully reciprocate, gather evidence, and politically destroy Members of Congress on the basis of factual information.

    To remedy this problem, Members of Congress will have to ensure the laws are enforced; and that the NSA violations are investigated. Again, if the Members of Congress refuse to assert the rule of law or ensure that the FISA violations are investigated, they have no basis to assert a superior right under the 14th Amendment to otherwise have We the People investigated for things that the Congress refuses to investigate when ii comes to the NSA violations.

    * * *

    If Members of Congress choose to go along with crimes, appropriate money for illegal things, or obstruct justice: We the People may gather than evidence, and may lawfully use that information to justify more conduct on a scale which this Congress assents to: Additional things which they say that it is “OK” for the President to do, even though he has no been given that power to do that.

    We outnumber them. They are finite. We are larger. We can more quickly use open information, and find out what is going on. We can make adverse inferences. WE have five months before the election. We can do this. The question is, despite Congress knowing this is possible, they refuse to assert their oaths.

    Fine. Quit wasting time trying to get information from them. Start putting together indictments related to 5 USC 3331, and let’s lawfully impose on them the full suite of Patriot Act-like conduct which they have said “IS OK” for the We the People to endure.

    * * *

    These members of Congress know full well that the NSA JROC process found the conduct and proposed options illegal. They know full well what an urgent message is from the DoD/NSA/CIA/DoJ Inspector Generals.

    Despite having no information, they have assented to unlawful conduct.

    There are required reviews and checks in the FISA process. This Congress knows full well that there are reporting requirements related to Title 50 when the President is aware of illegal conduct.

    This Congress knows that there are procedures, steps, reviews, agency coordination that occurred. The issue is: Despite all that happened, this Congress refuses to take action.

    Congress is the branch of government with the power to make rules. Yet, this Congress does nothing when those rules are ignored. It absurdly believes it is someone else’s job.

    No, it is your job: When others are not doing what they should do, then it is time to speak up. This Congress is silent.

    It’s time to stop playing with Congress. Its time to hold them and their staff criminally liable for fraud: They know that there are procedures that are being missed; and they know that these procedures are required; yet they continue to appropriate money for illegal things.

    * * *

    Here’s the general issue with Congress: The pattern of abuse is malfeasance, failure to assert their oath, and fraud. They know there are procedures that are not being followed; and they are continuing to appropriate funds for things that are not legal.

    IT is time to put the full, lawful weight of the American republic, We the People, and The States against the individual Members of Congress, and lawfully engage in broad, full, unrestricted, and wide discovery into any and all aspects of their alleged violations of the law and failure to assert their 5 USC 3331 obligations.

    Bluntly, this is a citizen-led effort to lawfully purge the Member of Congress, gather evidence of their crimes, and then flood the information into the FBI, SEC, US Attorney, and then public discuss any and all possible allegations of criminal activity.

    The underlying objective of this should be to lawfully target all members of Congress, their individual staff members and US Attorneys using the US Code.

    Anything a staff member, Member of Congress, or US Attorney does should be documented, and closely compared to the US Code. Recall what Attorney General Ashcroft said after Sept 2001 – if someone so much as spits, they’re going to get attention. The same standard should apply in 2006 to Members of Congress, The staff embers, and the US Attorneys: But we’ll be reasonable about this – we’re focusing on felonies, and any evidence of a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

    Any excuse any member of Congress, their staff, or US Attorney ahs given to assent to these violations of the law, abuses by the President, or any other illegal conduct should lawfully be reciprocated and used as the full catalyst to refocus the efforts and lawful pressure on the individual members of Congress, their staffs, and US Attorneys to either choose to assert their oath, or exhaust under the lawful threat of indictment for assenting to violation of the law.

    It should be a national policy of We the People to reciprocate; and engage in massive NSA-like mentoring of the Members of Congress, their staffs, and the US Attorneys. Any lawful tactics that the Paparazzi use against celebrities should be considered as fair game; at no time should anyone engage in any illegal activity, nor does this encourage stalking. Rather, We the People can collective as a single entity report every bit of information about their comings and goings, and effectively put together an NSA-like matrix of all their associates, then broaden the circle of attention, focus, and lawful pressure on NSA contractors, the families, and those who are also involve din these illegal renditions, intrusions, and unconstitutional conduct. The goal here is simple: To gather any and all evidence related to:

  • Names

  • Who knew what

  • What conferences they have attended

  • Which budget documents they reviewed

  • Which conduct they refused to investigate

  • Which crimes they knew about, but refuse to shut down funding for

  • Who they speak to

  • Who is involved in the subsequent cover up

  • Who well knows of the legal advice from the US Attorneys, White House, and DoJ in re illegal activity

  • Who, despite a 5 USC 3331 oath to the US Constitution has refused to assert that oath, and how can we prove that they have violated their oath.

    The goal here is to learn all the lessons from post Sept 2001, and lawfully turn these back onto he government for all the abuse we have endured; and forced to assent to.

    We may include creative methods to monitor which ISPs they are using; which IPs they are cloaking; and which websites they are visiting. This information may or may not e shared or discussed.

    We the People should find methods – which these US Attorneys and Members of Congress reuse to investigate – that result in capturing alive all Mebm3ers of Congress, their Staffs, and US Attorneys for lawful rendition to The Hague, complete with a full set of indictments, and evidence.

    If the Members f Congress and US Attorneys and their staffs do not with to face these lawful, equal, and balanced applications of the 14th Amendment, then they may choose to asset their oath; and lawfully put their energy into asserting their 5 USC 3331 obligations.

    We may or may not have methods which include using NSA-like devices which the NSA cannot intercept; we may use methods, like the NSA, which intercepts the optical systems; and we may have the ability to intercept these secure lines using methods the NSA and others in the US government do not have the ability to detect.

    We may lawfully monitor all personnel entering any US facility worldwide to lawfully identify those who may be unlawfully supporting this illegal activity; and develop a system of data classification, indexing, and other system which may quickly permit easy and fast access to data using methods which the NSA cannot intercept, detect, comprehend.

    We the People may lawfully intrude in the private lives of Members of Congress, their Staffs, and the US Attorneys and any other government agent in a like manner that Wet the People have been intruded upon, but have not been enforced as is required under the 14th Amendment. Again, if the US Attorneys, Members of Congress, and Professional Staffs in the Congress and Executive branch do not wish to have this targeting, then they need to assert their oath and do what must be done to protect this constitution.

    Until the US Attorneys, Members of Congress, and their Staffs assert eh rule of law, We the People shall continue gathering evidence of their alleged conspiracy; and We the People shall have the full right to publicly disclose the content, allegations, and any other information related to these investigations in a manner that may or may not be consistent with the DOJ internal procedures. Once it is shown that the information we openly discussed is factual, no Members of Congress has any standing to bring any suit or other cause of action related to alleged defamation, libel or slander when We the People openly discuss factual information, allegations or investigations.

    Rather, from this date forth We the People have made it known to the world that We have put all 535 members of Congress under investigation; and that these investigations are ongoing, related to real evidence, and could include lawful indictments shortly. Any members of the Congressional staff that asserts otherwise is lying; and any private counsel letter that mandates we be silent related to the alleged criminal conspiracy by all 535 members of Congress is illegally exercising prior restraint.

    If the Members of Congress, US Attorney, and Congressional staffers do not wish to be part of this lawful investigation by We the People, then your job is to provide al information you have to prove your innocence; otherwise, until you prove that you are not worthy of attention, then We the People may reciprocate – as has the NSA done – and lawfully presume that you are guilty, worthy of increased attention, and that we may lawfully expand, deepen, and enlarge the scope of this investigation to include anyone you associate with in your private life, private contractors, and anyone y0u may have associated with at any time in your life. In short, because We the People have had our private lives gone though, the Members of Congress, US Attorneys, and Professional Staffs in the Congress -=- along with all personnel in the Exeucive4 branch – may now lawfully be targeted for similar, open discussion of this data mining effort.

    We may public discuss any information we find; we may share information openly; and we may make adverse inferences. If the Members of Congress, Staffs, and US Attorney do not wish to participate, then your job is to prove that you are innocent of any violations of your oath. If you do not wish to prove that you are innocent, then We the People shall no longer be required to do the same; and you may not impose that “guilty until proven inno3enct”-standadr on We the People.

    Time for you to choose: Whether you are going to demand the Constitution – as you have destroyed it – be applied to you; or whether you are going to embrace the Constitution as it is written, and enforce the laws against All people uniformly, whether those criminals are in your chamber, the Oval Office, DoJ, DoD, or the NSA>

    You cannot expect We the People to assent to this barbaric destruction of this Constitution; all the while you assert a superior right to have those protections. You are either going to enforce the Constitution as it is written; or you shall lawfully have that Constitution – as you have absurdly ignored it, as it is crudely redrafted – lawfully imposed on you. If it is not good enough for you, then start asserting your oaths, and assert the laws as they exist, not as you wish.

    * * *

    Again, to repeat: All 535 members of Congress are now under investigation by We the People. Congressman Hastert, you remain under ongoing investigation by We the People. Any assertion otherwise by your counsel is a comment that is false, untrue, and may subject your counsel to disbarment for communicating something that they know, or should know, is false and a reckless disregard for the truth.

    It is now the national policy of We the People that we shall lawfully organize to grind congress down as they have ground down the We the People. If you wish to have your privileges respected, then you are to respect the same privileges of We the People. If you do not wish to cooperate and assert your 5 USC 3331 obligations, then you could be indicted for a felony, subjecting you to lawful arrest and rendering to The Hague.

    It is the national policy of We the People that we may work with anyone worldwide to gather information related to any allegation of criminal conduct by any member of Congress and that We the People may openly discuss this information, and are not bound by any Executive order mandating silence on matters related to issue of public concern in the NSA, or other alleged criminal activity by the President, Vice President, Executive Staff, Executive Branch, Members of Congress, Congressional Staff, or US Attorneys.

    At any time We the People may use any method of communication which the NSA may or may not be able to intercept. We may or may not support your illegal activities. We may or may not have personnel already placed inside your offices and staffs. We may or may not have personnel inside the contracting offices waiting to deliver evidence for lawful indictment supporting your rendition to The Hague.

    We may or may not have informants inside the DoJ, NSA, DoD and Executive Branch offices; we may or may not have methods to intercept your web surfing habits; we may or may not have a method to confirm which specific private lobbyists members of the DOJ, NSA, and DoD are discussing websites with; and we may or may not have a method to pinpoint the exact time that personnel have discussed specific information with their private counsel.

    * * *

    We the People may use any lesson of history, and glean the lessons of the abuse this government has imposed on any other nation – such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Iran – and lawfully apply those methods to lawfully retaliate against Members of Congress for their alleged abuses which the US Attorneys and FBI refuse to investigate.

    This Congress remains under investigation by We the People. You shall be treated no better or worse than any other enemy of the US Constitution. Anything that this Congress has said is “OK” to have imposed on any AMe4ircan or other prisoner worldwide could lawfully be imposed on any Member of congress, their Staff, or the US Attorneys.

    If there are exceptions to the warrants, then those exceptions shall apply to all. If Members of Congress are going to discuss terms of waivers to the laws, then those same privileges shall be afforded to all people; if the Members of Congress are demanding that they be afforded an ability to negotiate on a manner, then We the People shall be afforded that same privilege. If We the People are not granted that privilege, then that privilege shall not be given to any Member of Congress; and shall not be recognized as being equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

    * * *

    This lawful targeting of any and all Members of Congress shall follow the following priorities:

  • 1. Senate Judiciary Members of Congress

  • 2. Senate Intelligence Members of Congress

  • 3. Senate Judiciary Staff Members

  • 4. US Attorneys

  • 5. Senate Intelligence Staff Members

  • 5. House Intelligence Committee

  • 6. House Intelligence Committee Staff

  • 7. House Judiciary Committee

  • 8. House Judiciary Committee Staff
  • 9. Senate Armed Service Committee Members of Congress

  • 10. Senate Armed Services Committee Staff Members

  • 11. House Armed Services Committee Members of Congress

  • 12. House Armed Services Committee Staff Members.

    At any time We the People shall use any lawful method to acquire, access, disseminate, and other wise expose any conduct which could possibly be related to any link with potential future criminal conduct.

    We the People shall conduct ongoing, daily discussions on the events, information, and other evidence. Members of Congress are not invited, you shall not be include, and you have no vote on whether We the People expand, descope, or otherwise broaden our inquiry into your personal associations related to private contractors or any other entity.

    Members of Congress shall at no time be given any special treatment, immunity, or presumption of innocence. Rather, at all times you shall be referre4d to by your current position: Alleged war criminal; alleged co-conspirator; alleged violator of your oath; potential imminent detainee; potential indicted war criminal; potential passenger on a rendition flight to the Hague.

    * * *

    All Members of Congress are now under lawful investigation and could be indicted at any time. We the people shall conduct extensive background checks into any information related to anything.

    We shall do a public profile on all things about any Member of Congress, their Staff, or the US Attorneys.

    We the People may lawfully deprive any Member of Congress, their staff, and US Attorneys of any presumption of innocence.

    We the People may lawfully communicate any truthful matter related to any alleged conspiracy to anyone

    We the People may lawfully discuss in public the ongoing, active, expanding, and widening investigations by We the People into all 535 Members of Congress

    We the People may discuss lawful alternatives to the current form of government;

    We the People may deprive any Member of Congress their authority to claim a superior right, privilege, or status not minimally required, or not already provided to any other prisoner, detainee, or other person currently being held in unknown locations.

    We the People may include in the investigation any person whom the Member of Congress associates with, and any person who associates with a Member of Congress may consider yourself a target of this investigation. Any assertion to the contrary is false, reckless, and at odds with reality; and made with full knowledge is made without any relationship to reality.

    Included in the targeting list shall include the following information:

  • work location

  • Work associates

  • Private businesses

  • Personal contacts

  • Home address

  • Travel routes to work

  • Potential illegal activity they may be involved in the future

  • Discussion on their travel plans, where they spend their time

  • Observations on their use of time

  • Discussion on their work habits, competence, and ability to pay bills

  • Frequency of visits to the mailbox, shopping, travel plans, or travel routes

  • Holiday locations, conversations with hotel employees, any comment out of their mouth

  • Pictures, details about personal items of memorabilia, items they have on their desk, the type of pencils and pens they use; whether they are right or le4ft handed; the type of deodorant they use; where they wash their clothes; the type of laundry soap they use; the color of their teeth under various colors of light; copies of their dental records; pictures of their hair; copies of handwritten notes; analysis of their handwriting; comparison and open discussion of their handwriting, compared over time; assessments by independent observers; professional opinions by people who hold degrees in medicine, psychiatry, law, auditing, or any other industry that may be able to provide assessments as to their competenence, fitness for government, or mental abilities.

    * * *

    Here are samples of how these reports can be complied, the info0ramtion, and what can be gleaned:

  • CIA

  • Alleged war criminal

  • DoJ Staff Attorney

  • JTTF

  • Alleged illegal user of computer resources

    * * *

    Under the principle of reciprocity, We the People have the right to expect that the laws shall be uniformly applied, and enforced. 14th Amendment clearly states what is or is not acceptable.

    Given the Members of Congress, their staffs, and US Attorneys have assented to the current state of affairs, then they may lawfully be subjected to the same levels of intrusions, abuses, and other conduct that is not enforced, and that all Americans are subjected to – contrary to this Constitution.

    If you desire to have your rights respected, then you need to enforce the FISA statues; if you refuse to enforce the law for some, then you may not enforce the law against others. We the People have the power and right to lawfully impose on the Members of Congress, Their Staffs, and US Attorneys similar conditions which we the People have been unlawful forced to assent without our permission, assent, or otherwise approval.

    You do not have any right to appeal. You may not dispute these findings. You do not have the power to utter any words of defiance. There is nothing you can do to stop this.

    Except one thing: Assert your oath, protect this Constitution, and do what must be done to ensure that all FISA violations are investigated. Until then, you may be lawfully targeted for reciprocate treatment, and lawful rendering to The Hague.

    We the People do not have the obligation to do your jobs. We are not required to prove that you are or are meeting your obligations; we may make adverse judgments and inferences without evidence. Rather, we may make adverse inferences that given your failure to assert your oath, and by your permitting these conditions to exist and flourish, we may lawfully assume that you have no intention of enforcing any statute unless you are personally, lawfully at risk of having your similar rights ignored or violated.

    It is outrageous that this nation has descended to these levels.

    However, there are over 300 million people, and 6.5 billion in the world. You are absurdly mistaken if you believe that you can continue your work. We the People may at any time freely discuss with any person anywhere in the world about the ongoing investigation into all 535 Members of Congress, their Staffs, and the US Attorneys.

    It is the job of the Members of Congress to prove damages. You have no right to debate this issue.

    * * *

    We the People have the 10th Amendment power and right to assert principle of reciprocity.

    We the People may lawfully target any person in the Congress, DoD, NSA, or DoJ.

    14th Amendment means that anyone that has a duty to enforce the law, but refuses to do so, may lawfully communicate to anyone methods to expose your malfeasance, refusal to do what should be done, or worthless promises to review matters that have no intention to actually review.

    If you want We the People to respect the laws, then you need to enforce them. If you refuse to enforce the laws for some, then we are being denied the right of Equal p protection, and this is not a republic. Rather, The States are in a position to bring a claim that the States are being denied the guarantee of a Republican form of government in the United States. That is a violation of your oath. This is well understood. This is clear. This is well promulgated. This is a statute. It is your promise. It is 5 USC 3331, and it is in the Constitution that you took an oath to, and promised to be bound by.

    For guidance on the declination procedures. And the rules that prosecutors use to “not enforce” the state laws, you may choose to review 42.1.

    If the laws are not going to be enforced, then we shall not respect your power to selectively enforce these laws on others. Rather, under the 14th Amendment, we may find that you have failed to ensure that the laws are being uniformly enforced for all. That is a violation of your oath of office.

    If you want the attention to end, then you need to do your job, and stop giving We the People the unwarranted, illegal attention.

    If you want We the People to conduct these investigations within the laws, then you shall first conduct investigations within the laws.

    If you want We the People to be silent about the alleged criminal conduct, you shall fail.

    We have your cell phone numbers. We may or may not share with you what information we have about your personal records, phone calls, or transcripts we may have reviewed. We may or may not use methods which you are familiar, able to comprehend, or have been briefed on.

    If you desire to put yourself above the law, then you may be indicted.

    If you desire to have this investigation end, then you need to prove your innocence.

    If you desire to have the tranquility, then you are to enforce those conditions which ensure tranquility for all.

    If you desire to have respect, then you are to take action, assert your oath, and ensure that violations of the law are investigated.

    If you are going to ignore and not enforce FISA, then we may or may not respect your right to be left alone. Rather, you are public figures and cannot expect any reasonable right of absolute privacy. Rather, because you fail to ensure that FISA violations are investigated, we may or many not share with you the results of our ongoing, active, widening investigation into all 535 Members of Congress.

    Whether we use an NSA-like system or something crude like an optical-laser interception using an STA or other switching interception is something you may or may not be aware. We may or may not use any IEEE standard to create any technology to acquire any information.

    We have the right to continue to expand our investigation, and assert our 10 Amendment rights and powers. If you desire to have this end, then you shall immediately assert that the laws shall be uniformity applied and enforced as you have already promised; until then, we may or may not take your claim of “concern” with the Constitution seriously. Rather, we may make adverse judgments and We the People may continue to expand our investigation into anything remotely related to a potential future risk that you might do something that could possibly violate the law.

    We may or may not include with you the indexing of the specific web pages hat we know the DOJ has visited at the time that DoJ said they were “too busy” and “understaffed” to review the FISA warrants. We may or may not share with you evidence related to the information showing the Attorney General has lied about being short of personnel; we may or may not share with you the IP data showing that any DoJ claims that they “didn’t have enough manpower” are absurd; and that a more reasonable conclusion is despite the FISA requirement, the DoJ personnel would rather surf the internet looking at websites that have nothing to do with DoJ or any government interest.

    We the People may or may not provide you with periodic updates;

    We the People may or may not discuss with you the results of our ongoing, active investigations into the Congressman Hastert;

    We the People may or may not show you that DoJ is lying, and that the proposed Specter-Feinstein bill is not supported by actual manpower usage and requirements within DoJ;

    We the People may or may not timely provide you with evidence that could be useful in your defense;

    We the People may or may not assent to any audit of what we are doing;

    We the People may or may not agree to any future changes you selectively enforce on some, but not others;

    We the People may or may not discuss with you the progress of ongoing investigations, and which specific staff members have chosen to put their oath before their loyalty to you;

    We the People may or may not end this investigation;

    We the People may or may not expand this ongoing investigation into Congressman Hastert to include anyone else we choose, including private counsel, and other lines of evidence and investigative leads related to any information which may or may not be truthful;

    We the People may or may not respect any privilege you claim that you do not respect in others;

    We the People may or may not violate any rule which you have violated;

    We the People may use any standard of evidence to justify any action we deem appropriate, lawful, and consistent with protecting this Constitution; and

    We the People may or may not continue to deprive any and all Members of Congress and their Staff from having any input, vote, or contribution to this ongoing process to protect This Constitution and develop a New Constitution.

    Read more . . .