West Point Silent on Presidential War Crimes
What does the RNC do when it's boss commits war crimes?
It gets the military to punish those who speak the truth.
Allegedly, the USMA Commandant and Superintendent have inter alia :
If USMA wants to file suit, then they and DoD expose themselves to lawful discovery in re the NSA illegal monitoring, and other activity related to the continued harassment of USMA graduates who discuss White House War Crimes. For litigation and discovery purposes, as they related to the NARUS STA 6400 system, here is the IP address for USMA [ Click Spellman Hall and Bld 2101 USMANet]
Look at the lies from the New CIA director in re NSA: [ Click ]
Write a letter of support to this e-mail.
Encourage your new friends to use your frustration with this abuse of power to work with others to issue petitions and proclamations to call on Congress to investigate and impeach the President. Here's how you can join others in your local community and state to trigger Congress to act: [ Click ]
Unless the Superintendent and Commandant immediately resign and distance themselves from this illegal public political action, the public may make adverse inferences that the Superintendent and Commandant have unlawfully violated the UCMJ and their oaths of office, 5 UCMJ 3331. You have until Sunday evening to resign.
After that date and time, your continued association with the White House and USMA will subject you to lawful inquiry per the UCMJ for conduct unbecoming an office [Article 134], violations of DoD directives, and alleged unlawful support of illegal war waged unlawfully by the White House. The DoD Inspector General may have already started an investigation into the alleged illegal violations of DoD directives and UCMJ.
The cadets are watching. The rule of law shall prevail. You have brought discredit upon yourselves, the profession of arms, and the United States Government. Your conduct shows you cannot be trusted to assert your oath and protect the Constitution.
Contact the Defense Department Inspector General: [ Click ] at the hotline [ Click ] 800-424-9098
Let them know about any information you have related to the alleged violations of the UCMJ or any other matter:
West Point Teaches You To Be A Zombie -- West Point: Institution has frivolous claims.
It appears the Service Academies are teaching leaders to make absurd arguments. With a Commander in Chief who's off his rocker, what else would you expect but non-sense from the West Point legal community?
["USMA", United States Military Academy, "West Point", a small town near the Hudson
Based on a plain reading of the Federal Rules of App Procedure [Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(4). ], the West Point "claim" would constitute an extraordinary case Ref, and entitle the civil defendants to damages in a counter suit/cross claim, even if withdrawn by West Point. You'll notice they have not filed a claim because they know once they file it that that motion becomes the basis for an Anti-Slapp counter suit.
West Point Leadership alleged violations of UCMJ
West Point appears to have lied, or made statements -- with the intent that others rely on them -- that are false. Local research clearly indicates West Point is lying about "coordinating" with locals. Nothing is backing up what West Point is saying. So much for integrity from the Superintendent and Commandant of West Point.
Commanders who act in a manner that brings discredit upon the service -- as the current USMA leadership has done with these absurd lies -- is sanctionable. Notice how similar this situation is with the Joint Staff letter issued under the direction of the White House.
West Point's legal "claims" are absurd. Rather, it remains to be seen which rules of professional conduct the "attorney" may have violated. [ Example Disciplinary investigation: Click ]
West Point's original "trademark" claims are reasonably related to memorabilia like sweatshirts and tokens. However, it is beyond the pale for anyone to argue that this 'trademark" applies to non-commercial websites.
Rather, we make the adverse inference that the White House, RNC leadership, and Congressional leadership have unlawfully mandated that the military take a political position on a matter of public interest.
West Point leadership, by supporting illegal action to suppress political speech, has jeopardized the institution's reputation as a center of higher learning. Rather, the issue going forward is how quickly the institution can be stripped of its academic accreditation, denied Federal Funding, and shut down for unlawfully swaying outside its charter into the political nexus.
Things you can do
The USMA legal claims are frivolous. We make the adverse judgment this is merely a ruse to suppress lawful opposition to illegal Presidential war crimes and illegal Department of Defense activity around the globe.
Let us review the absurd “legal arguments” which are merely a ruse to stifle discussion of the Presidents reckless disregard for his legal obligations:
Failure to Show Protection of "Trademark" in 1.6M other situations
West Point is reported to have said that it has a "trademark" on the term "West Pont." However, a simple search of the internet shows there are many other uses of "west point" that are well used.
We see no credible evidence "West point" has effectively "protected" it's "trade name."
Failure to Show Damages
In order to prevail, the moving party has to show actual damages, and that the trade name was confused with something else.
You fail. You provide no evidence of any damages, or confusion. Rather, you show the opposite: That the West Point Institution is self-evidently different than the website that so-states they are graduates.
That is not confusion. That is called clarity.
Free Speech: Communication of Facts -- They are West Point Graduates
Your claims that you "own" a trademark called "West Point" -- even if true -- does not prevent people from stating the truth: That they are Graduates of West Point.
Moreover, it is lawful to make facts and assert the truth: "West Point Grads Against the War" is free speech, protected, and West Point may not "constrain" free speech on the basis of message. Further, given your failure to "go after" the 1.6Milliino other websites -- without any credible showing that you have prevailed in any litigation -- makes your claim not only extraordinary, but subject to a rebuke by the Court of Appeals.
You can't show there is any commercial loss or damages; nor do you have any claim of confusion or public making a commercially "different" decision because of what you are or are not saying on West Point.
Fair Comment: Constitutionally Protected Speech
How do we explain the continued war crimes in Iraq; where is the "big West Point Grad" that is standing up to this? No where.
Apparently West Point is teaching "leaders" not about 5100.77 and the laws of war -- the requirement to only obey lawful orders -- but how to silence those who dare state what is self evidence: Your graduates are committing war crimes.
Under a Lahdham Claim, those who are lawfully using a trade name -- especially for non-commercial purposes -- can recover damages for a frivolous lawsuit.
You may not trademark facts, news, or events.
Based on the above, we can make some adverse inferences about what West Point is doing. Their conduct is not credibly related to any copyright/trademark protection.
Rather, they appear to have a larger objective: Taking action based on political speech. This is not acceptable and wholly inconsistent with their accreditation.
Let's talk big picture. It's a problem when an "academic institution" enters the political nexus, they lose various protections. What's more troubling is that the Flag Officers and West Point Board of Visitors know well the adverse public reaction to various scandals in the military service academies.
Let's cut to the chase: West Point has a problem. By entering the political nexus, it has undermined one of the basis tenets of the institution: Acting adverse to free thinking, open discussion, and academic freedom.
The consequences can range from a simple rebuke, to a loss of accreditation, to a complete shutdown. West Point appears to prefer the more adversarial, confrontation, and legalistic approach -- not unlike the arrogant war criminals in the white House.
We take this under advisement, and propose the World Community adopt a reciprocal policy. Under the laws of war -- which this White House violates -- those so targeted may lawfully reciprocate and violate the same tenets. Where west point violates its principles, so too may the public violate other "promises" and assurances.
Namely, where the public has "promised" to provide support to west Point, that should be revoked, removed, and reversed. Where the public has promised to respect the West Point Graduates, that should be reversed.
Going forward, it should be the national policy of a free people to achieve the following lawful reciprocal objectives in re West Point:
Whether the USMA military insignia is one day treated no better or worse than Nazi memorabilia on EBay is of little concern.
Further, all those who go near the USMA, know that the facility has declared that it actively supports illegal activity, and expects Cadets to remain silent about the continued illegal support of unlawful White House conduct:
West Point staff -- by your conduct, actions, and adverse public statements -- has formally stated that it is in rebellion against the US Constitution, and can no longer guarantee the safety, security, or protection of any law, rule, or anyone associated with that institution.
You have one option: To lawfully remove yourself from any support and association with the war criminals in the White House. Until you formally distance yourself, the world may declare you an unlawful combatant, in violation of the laws of war, and subject to adverse adjudication before the Hague.
Some might argue that you might be entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions. But under the laws of war – which your government has violated – foreign fighters and others may lawfully reciprocate by violating the same laws of war which your President and Secretary of Defense have assented to.
Namely, under the laws of war and principle of reciprocation, anyone -- who enter US airspace, or board any US vessel, or approach and enter any US military installation -- may lawfully reciprocate and take you and any others in a manner the CIA has done in Italy; and treat you and others how prisoners have been treated in Eastern Europe, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan.
If you do not wish to face potential violation of your rights – in lawful reciprocation for what your government continues to do – then you need to distance yourself from the White House and declare yourself no longer in support of the war criminals in the White House and Pentagon.
However, you have – by your statements, conduct, and letters – clearly indicated the opposite:
From this day forth, anyone associated with the USMA may lawfully – under the laws of war – be treated no better that the prisoners were treated at the Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Eastern European Centers. Whether this is televised live, recorded, or rebroadcast on the internet may or may not be something that can be controlled.
Rather, your families may or may not be given notice of your whereabouts; nor may you be given fair warning of your condition or status after you are forcibly removed from USMA and taken to places to be determined.
West Pointers have already decided what they're doing. They have chosen to stick with the Long Gray Line. They choose to take their oath. The problem is that oath has been ignored.
Title 5 USC 3331 mandates you assent to the rule of law and your oath. Your oath is to eh Constitution. You may not take action which destroys that Constitution.
Question Counsel's Legal advice, alleged violations of 11f
Also, all attorneys have an oath to the Constitution. Your claims is frivolous, and a reasonable jury may find that your client and your counsel have violated the Federal Rules of Procedure 11f for filing this frivolous action.
Army attorney Lori Doughty, what are you thinking? Are you a Nazi?
Go ahead and file the claim!
Withdraw your applications; avoid talking to military recruiters
There's no reason anyone should seriously consider going to West Point. Look at what they're doing around the globe: Doing nothing about the abuse of power.
Rather, the graduates are zombies. "Hay, whatever you want Mr. President. Want some more crimes, we'll do that!"
There is no reason anyone should take the bait on West Point. Sure, you get a full scholarship, but do you really want to have a commitment to blindly obey orders? Look at your commanders in the Joint Staff; look at what the retired Generals are saying: This Commander in Chief -- your boss -- is a war criminal.
But what does West Point do? They want to go after the messenger.
West Pointers on the Long Gray line: It's time for you to put your money where you mouth is: Are you really going to protect the Constitution -- and the right of the people to assert their rights -- or are you going to make everyone "be quiet" about the abuse of power, and war crimes you and your fellow graduates are committing?
Your only answer is to go after those who are saying the truth: They are graduates of West Point and they are against the illegal war you and your zombies from West Point are actively supporting.
You are war criminals. You defy your oath.
Your only hope is to silence the world to avoid facing reality.
You are part of the problem.
If you really want to "have a big claim" about trademark, then you need to explain why you have let the rest of the world use "your" mark, but have done nothing.
Your asserted "right to west Point" name does not mean the world has to be silent about facts -- that they are graduates; that they oppose your illegal support of the war crimes in Iraq and around the globe.
Maybe you could spend your time better protecting the Constitution, rather than destroying the very graduates who have instilled the principles you once taught.
Today's West Point is conflicted. The Honor Code is only something that is workable within the narrow walls of the institution; but if you actually apply those principles -- and throw them back at the war criminal/commander in Chief in the White House -- you could be in real trouble.
So let's hear the truth West Point: Are you really for the Constitution -- and people speaking about against illegal activity -- or are you going to actively support illegal combat operations, and silence those who dare say what is a fact: That Some West Point Graduates do not support the war?
West Point: The place to go to learn about things, which if applied will mean you're stupid -- you could get into trouble with the Commander in Chief.
West point needs to train leaders how the real world works: That people lie; they commit fraud; and the officer corps actively supports illegal activity.
Get out of your fishbowl. Your cadets would learn alot more about reality if you quit pretending you're something that you're not.
West Point is a threat to the American Constitution. It trains leaders who remain on active duty, and have refused to remove themselves from this President’s reckless, negligent disregard for the Constitution.
Macarthur, Eisenhower. Patton. Those were people who provided leadership. Today's military generals have rolled over, assented to war crimes, and want the world to believe that things are just fine. Your flag officers at West Point are a disgrace to the profession of arms, have brought great discredit upon themselves, and there is no reason anyone associated with USMA should have confident in their judgment, competence, or leadership.
West Point is a disgrace, should be shut down, and the American Officer Corp treated no better than the German Nazis during WWII.
The entire lot of you remain active, real threats against the Constitution. Where are you when it comes to preserving the Constitution? You are nowhere.
You have failed. Your principles are warped. You are irrelevant. But most of all you actively encourage -- with your absurd public statements -- action which is wholly at odds with good order and discipline, and contrary to our Constitution.
Your claims have no merit and you have no evidence to support any of your assertions. Rather, you rely on the conclusory assertions that others “may have” worked with you; but in no way do you show that merely by someone stating a fact that they become liable to you or are required to contract with you to on the use of a factual comment.
You have no legal authority to mandate that others “contract with you” or “negotiate” with you on expression of free speech. Rather, under 5 USC 3331, you as an attorney have a legal duty to remove yourself from institution that illegally support unlawful war crimes, and use ruses and shams to undermine the Constitution. Nuremburg was clear: Those civilians who decided to provide legal advice and support the illegal war crimes were also subject to lawful penalties at Nuremburg.
Let's go over specifics:
1. You claim that others have "worked with you to get licenses", yet you cite nothing in your claim or letter than says that conduct -- not related to the instant case -- is relevant or precedent.
2. You fail to show that the website that is using "West Point" is doing so in a manner that causes any confusion in the public's mind about what your use is and others use.
3. You fail to show that the use of "west point " in this case -- related to an expression of opinion, fair comment, and Constitutionally protected free speech, to which you swear an oath to uphold [5 USC 3331] – could be confused with "educational facility" that the public might confuse with "West Point" the institution; or any entity that sells T-shirts, memorabilia, or other trinkets commonly sold on E-bay, like Nazi WWII-era memorabilia.
4. Whether you did or did not register the word "west point" is irrelevant. Your narrowly defined "acceptable use" does not cover the actual use of the west Point Grads against the war. Your current mark -- as you have expressed it and articulated it -- fails to show that the actual use of other "west point" is within your very narrow definition and limitation.
5. You fail to show why your "licensing process" is applicable, relevant, or of any concern to those who are expressing an independent view.
6. You provide no evidence that the website is a "commercial" or "competing use of a name" that meets any definition in any case law.
7. You fail to show that you are serious in "protecting" your mark on the other 1.6 Million websites. Rather, your action appears to be isolated to a select few who dare to contradict the war criminals in the White House and Pentagon.
8. You make no claim that your "trademark" is valuable. Rather, this conduct – an attempt to stifle public discussion on maters of criminal -- shows the trademark if less valuable in that you are acting at odds with your stated mission: To train people to think.
9. You provide no evidence that there is any commercial product, gain, or tangible benefit that West Point is otherwise deprived, or would otherwise gain if the public "knew" the "right term."
10. You fail to specify and specific, speculative, or general damages that USMA has, could, might, or foreseeably would suffer because of a public website stating clearly that it objects to illegal use of military power in Iraq.
10. You make no credible case to show how your have negotiated with other entities in a similar situation, or why those negotiations are relevant.
11. If you want to claim the "trademark" is on the "world stage" then you have effectively defeated your President's only defense to a war crimes trial -- he argues the opposite, that the US is only focused on a very narrow action, and "not covered" by the world stage-related treaties. Your argument, if true, is at odds with what the US Attorney General has stated before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
This is a public relations disaster for West Point. But there is nothing legal that West Point can do, other than do what the war criminals in the White House have done: Spew forth gobblygoop over the NSA illegal activity.
If you want to pursue this claim, then have your attorneys fully identify themselves, and be able to defend yourself against an 11f claim for a frivolous lawsuit.
See you in court, assholes. If you want anyone to "immediately" do anything, send a letter to the Commander in Chief -- a war criminal -- and tell him to resign. Maybe we'll think about responding to you.
If he doesn't resign, we have 50 states ready, poised, and actively discussing state proclamations to do what the Congress refuse to do: Exercise some leadership to protect this Constitution.
Your conduct shows you are not credible as an independent attorney that supports the Constitution. Rather, your conduct shows you appear in defiance of your oath, and may have committed violations of 5 USC 3331 in re Attorney Oaths of Office, and that you illegally use frivolous claims to suppress those who well state the recklessness in the White House. It remains to be understood how many days you may practice law before you are disbarred for allegedly unlawfully supporting an illegal rebellion against the rule of law and US Constitution.
Summation
American citizens, keep in mind what is going on in America. The White House is under political siege. It wants to silence public discussion of the Presidential war crimes.
This President -- the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces which violate this Constitution with illegal NSA activity -- is the lawful target of impeachment proceedings.
But he cannot silence American. Around the country citizens are using Jefferson's Manual and House Rule 603 to state impeachment proclamations calling for the House to vote on an impeachment investigation.
There is nothing West Point or this White House can do to suppress the truth: This Commander in Chief is unstable, reckless, negligent, a threat to the Constitution, and a war criminal. He is a liar. He is not to be trusted as your commander.
You have two options, one of them is unlawful:
USMA has made a poor choice, and could be subject to lawful sanctions before the Hague.
Try again.
posted by Constant @ 10:10 PM
<< Home