White House defense counsel linked to NSA

We can reveal that the White House attorneys working on the current grand jury indictments show an interest in the ongoing revelations over the NSA. [ Ref: 28/28 ]

GCHQ and the NSA have intercepted the communications of counsel. They can confirm that White House counsel and their civilian counterparts are intimately aware of the linkage between the Iraq WMD issues and the technical details involved in illegal NSA domestic surveillance activities.

Tell your friends -- you may be in a position to get a financial reward for providing information about what you know about illegal White House activity and misconduct by SEC-regulated attorneys working on this litigation. [ Alleged insider trading and bounties Click]

The following information may be useful in formulating questions related to Wednesday, 17 May 2006 hearing. Specifically, the following may provide readers with some questions and issues you may wish to raise with those who review the testimony.

It remains to be understood:

Given the President has denied that there was "anything wrong" going on, why are defense counsel linked with the White House checking on the media coverage related to the NSA?

Why would counsel -- in an "unrelated area" of Iraq WMD and espionage -- show an interest in the NSA -- something that the White House would have us believe "isn't a problem" and "not going on"?

What is the actual legal discussion going on between White House private counsel over the legal issues?

* * *

It is time to bring indictments in The Hague against the White House counsel and outside attorneys. They are alleged co-conspirators and therefore alleged war criminal. This is another approach to getting the White House to respond.

Fraud Waste and Abuse

The American public has a right to demand the court review the billable hours by the White House counsel.

If the White House position is true -- that there is no legal issue with the NSA -- what kind of audit needs to be done on the White House counsel's billable hours. Clearly, if they are spending time on a "non legal issue" this is something the public should have some insight: Why is money being spent on something that the President says isn't an issue?

Clearly, this is a matter for the Inspector General to review under Fraud, Waste, and Abuse guidelines. Again, the fact that the Special Counsel has as exhibits news articles proves that investigators will act on information that is considered to be from a reliable source: The open media. [ Ref ]

Remember, there is some information which the White House cannot claim as privileged; rather, there is some information which can be subpoenaed, trumping the claimed Executive Privilege. This is the case law you want to cite to trump the White House claim of privilege when filing a FOIA for the billable hours on outside counsel: [ 418 USC 683 Click ]

Remember, the US Treasury -- through the Secret Service, NSLs, Grand Jury, and Special Counsel -- can ask for detailed records related to the billable hours counsel is submitting to the RNC, White House, and other issues.

Is the White House counsel's work for bonafide things?

What audit rights were granted under the existing attorney-client relationship?

Which paying official issued the funds that were for illegal things?

Why is the White House public statement -- that the NSA issue is not a legal issue -- at odds with Counsel's known concern with the NSA issues?

There can be no claim of privilege when the counsel's public actions are not consistent with what they are getting paid for. Rather, this information is admissible as evidence before The Hague in a War Crimes Trial.

Also, White House counsel and outside counsel can't have it both ways:

A. They can't claim that they have executive privilege, while they are actually outside counsel;

B. They can't claim that the work that they are doing is related to litigation, on a matter the President claims isn't occurring;

C. Counsel can't claim that there is "no issue" with what they are doing; rather, if there was "no issue" there would be no reason for outside counsel to have been hired

D. White House counsel work for the public, and are not protected by the privilege.

The point is that there is a wedge between the White House counsel and the outside counsel. Both are trying to protect the litigation strategy; but they have made public statements, and done public things that can be subsequently used to impeach each of their staffs as witnesses before The Hague. Also, they have already provided to the public copies of the concerns Gonzalez had with there being a war crimes trial, so they cannot retroactively claim that this disclosure is now privileged and secret.

The problem is that the different rules the White House counsel and outside counsel have to work with means that both sets of attorneys can be forced to go against each other. They are not on the same sheet of music; they are subject to different rules; they have different loyalties; their payment streams are from different sources; and their oaths are not the same.

The key is to exploit the differences between the White House counsel and outside counsel. They can be turned on each other; and they are both not consistently communicating. This is the same problem which Rove and Libby had before the Grand Jury.

Remember who you are dealing with: War criminals. Their attorneys are no different: They have freely chosen to side with war criminals, rather than remove themselves -- as they are required under the laws of war, Nuremburg, and the SEC rules 10b-5 -- to distance themselves from a criminal enterprise.

* * *

Keep in mind the big picture: The NSA is illegally using military technology against civilians. This is a war crime.

Rumsfeld has already filed a report. This means that there are two important things:

[1] A statute relates to this report -- covering the accuracy of that filing to Congress; and

[2] His signature, asserting that he is taking responsibility for that report, regardless its accuracy or statutory compliance.

Here is the statute you want to consider when bringing an indictment against Rumsfeld for false claims to Congress related to this report. The CFR you want to reference in your FOIA is this, and put this name on the FOIA/subpoena [ click]

We're dealing with procurement fraud. The technology is not being use for lawful purposes; this was known at the time the technology was created; and it was designed to violate the law and "still work" despite bypassing the FISA court.

Do not let NSA, DoJ, or the White House let you get confused about the "secret technology capabilities." It doesn't matter how they're violating the law -- or what the "super net, classified things" they have. The only thing you need to know is that they are violating the law.

Avoid the trap of them saying, "For us to tell you the truth, you have to agree not to prosecute." There are other ways to prosecute them: Using the Securities Laws, and using bounties to get information from inside the corporations.

Here is a review of the technical non-sense you will be given on the House Judiciary Committee to distract you from the legal issues: Click

* * *

Congress: Cancel All NSA-related Military Promotions, Transfers, Conference, School Assignments, or other Promotion related Training

Until Congress shuts down all the funding for the NSA, they show they're not serious about finding facts. There's an easy way to do this. All NSA promotion-related events [training, conference, travel, school assignments] can be reviewed line by line in something called the Descriptive Summaries.

A. Budget Documents

These are budget documents. They list the contracts, contract numbers, and key personnel on the contracts. These are classified documents which the House and Senate Armed Service Committee staffers know well. These are constructed using NSA inputs from the NSA contract program offices, the contractors, and other sources.

The specific NSA budget analysts that put these documents together can be subpoenaed.

Here is a sample budget document for the NAVY, which NSA also uses, as required under the Congressional rules related to Congressional "oversight": [ Click ]

Here is a selection of NSA budget documents and descriptive summaries: [Click ]

Here is a sample budget transfer between NSA and another branch. [ Click ] Each budget transfer is documented; and there is a subsequent audit done to validate that the process is working as required. Budget transfers like this can be related to NSA black programs that the NSA hopes to hide from Congress. They will put money into other places during Congressional audits, then the money will get taken out. You will see blips in the funding profiles -- money that is not related to the actual program -- that shows up, is higher than what is required, and then the money will suddenly disappear. You want to look for these kinds of blips in the associated services, and find out which of the funds that NSA is moving is related to a bonafide requirement change; or something that they are hoping to hide from Congress.

At the same time, the NSA Contractors have what is called a plant representative. These are onsite DoD monitors who work for the Defense Contract Audit Agency [DCAA; aka Defense Contract Management Command, DCMC]. They will be able to link for you the manpower for each contract; the man months; and also the labor rates. After you add up the total personnel assigned; add the overhead and material; and you will find which programs are being used to hide the money. The Congress should be directing the service-IG's to review these problems, and get a report back from the plant representatives on funding problems and cost overruns.

There is plenty of paperwork on the NSA cost overruns under Hayden. The issue: Congress needs to put together an immediate plan to gather this information; find out which Senate Staffers reviewed the R2; and then come up with a really good story for why we're this far into the process, but the "Senate Judiciary Chairman" doesn't seem all that interested in doing his job: Finding out what is going on; demanding the DCMO provide data; and get some straight answers from the NSA military personnel. Either they are going to cooperate, or they are not. This Congress refuses to compel fact finding.

There are specific RNC staffers on the HASC and SASC which need to explain exactly what they know, who they talk to, and provide this information immediately. If you don't want to cooperate, your computers can be seized.

Wake up: We're talking war crimes, violation of the US Code, and obstruction of justice. Let's see action here. If Americans aren't going to do this voluntarily, we can have The Hauge organize the discovery and make adverse inferences if the evidence has been destroyed.

Here are the questions the HASC and SASC need to ask immediately, in writing, and get a signed letter back from NSA in writing answering:

Which contract number was used to pay the phone companies for providing the data related to the phone lists

Which military procurement officers were involved in the payment of those funds

Which Defense Contract Management Procurement Officer -- a "contracting officer" -- was involved in formulating this contract, and has put their name to the contract?

Which specific people -- by name, e-mail, and job description -- inside Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon were the NSA's contracting liaison?

You then take this list, and you then subpoena these people to find out inter alia

A. Which budget documents did they rely on [By contract number, data, and signing officials]

B. Which program documentation did they rely on [By service, by program element (PE), and by Acquisition Fee Determining Official (FDO) Name, and Program Executive Officer (PEO)]

C. Which policy memos and memoranda did they rely on to transfer funds, discuss the issues, or issue travel vouchers for payment in support of this activity [By date, by subject matter, and by signature on that document]

You then submit that to the DFAS office in Columbus Ohio, to find the specific names of the Contracting Officials who ensured the funds were forwarded; and determine what information they were using to justify the transfer; and who they spoke to inside NSA PEO's office and the contractors office when there were problems related to the timing of payments.

B. Military personnel

NSA also has assigned officers that are not yet Flag Officers. Before they get their star, they have to have that promotion reviewed. Their ranks are either Navy Captain, or Marine/Air Force Colonel. [Here's a sample Ref ]

The issue should be: Which NSA-related promotions has the Congress rubber stamped on; and which specific questions -- related to the "oh, shocked, NSA doing bad things" -- were not getting asked before Congress rubber stamped the promotion.

Bluntly, the DNC minority members on the HASC/SASC can subpoena anyone related to the NSA-related promotion to get information, find out who is involved, and go down the NSA military personnel and civilian rosters:

What's your name

Where do you work

What are your duties in the NSA

Are you aware of any illegal activity

If you find out they're lying, you hit them with a contempt citation.

Bottom line: Congress has the power to haul anyone before the committee to go into this detail, and they're not doing it: Malfeasance and violation of 5 USC 3331.

Also, it's time to quit messing around with Congress. They have two options: They either publicly provide on their website -- signed under penalty of perjury, in the context of 5 USC 3331 -- that they have done the above; or they have not.

Until we see something in writing from the Members of Congress -- which they certify to The Hague and American Public -- We the People -- that they have done the above, the Members of Congress may lawfully be brought to The Hague to answer questions.

Choose. Do you want to do this the easy way and certify in writing what you are willing to stand by; or do you have to be voted out of office, and then taken to The Hague. That is not a question.

Either way, We the People are going to find out.

* * *

Securities Litigation

The goal of this approach -- using the SEC and securities laws -- is to bypass the Senate Judiciary which has required the public, not the government, to prosecute this case. [Specter shifts Congressional oversight burden to those who have been targeted Click then blames the public for "not understanding" Click]

If the public -- as specter says we are -- are responsible for bringing suit, then we may also use "whatever lawful means" we have at our disposal to gather information. This means that We the People may use The Hague as our choice of court; and we may lawfully use similar methods which were used in Yugoslavia to gather evidence, bring indictments, and detain prisoners.

Bluntly, by abrogating the Congressional subpoena power to American civilians, the Senate is in effect saying, "We are not relevant." Fine. Drive the point home, and remind the Senate that if they choose not to assert power, then We the People may lawfully request assistance from The Hague and UN General Assembly to lawfully enter US airspace, land, and detain -- as was done in Yugoslavia -- anyone we need to get evidence from.

This lawful detention may include anyone who is alleged to have violated the laws of war; and any US Attorney, agent, or US citizen who may have information related to the alleged crimes. In other words, because the US has violated the laws of war and illegally rendered people, then the US Citizens may lawfully request The Hague rally a military force to do the same inside the United States.

Further, any Member of Congress or member of the US armed services which interferes in this lawful discovery process can be charged with obstruction of justice; and considered a co-conspirator in the White House war crimes.

Keep in mind the following Senate-related information:

The Nazis at Nuremburg -- like Bush, Specter, and the NSA -- argued that the abuses and illegal actions were necessary to preserve security and order. This was a Nuremberg war crime. [ Click The White House counsels' problem are the well documented Gonzalez opinions stating the US leadership could be held liable for war crimes, and counsel's subsequent refusal to remove themselves from this ongoing criminal activity; the Senate is now complicit in funding those war crimes, and refuses to assert the rule of law Ref]

NYT article by Rich discussion the failure of the Senate to stand up to the White House during the appointment process

A. Copies of this article are publicly available [ Click ];

B. What CIA doesn't want you to know [ Click ]

C. Revealing more of what the NSA doesn't what you to know: [ Click] : Imagining how Gonzalez would read between the lines on the FY06 Intelligence Bill to abuse power ]

We can lawfully transform the Senate into something that does what it is supposed to do -- preserve the Constitution -- and do this outside Article V [ Click ]

The current Senate approach -- of shifting the burden of oversight from Congress to the public -- is what has failed in the Securities-arena [ Specter's conduct amounts to a defacto admission that the US government is useless, and has no legitimacy or force to protect the Constitution CLick ]

Specter knows full well he has options, but refuses to assert them; Specter's conduct shows he's not serious about his 5 USC 3331 oath of office requirements, and the Senate should be treated no differently than the White House: With disdain and a threat to the rule of law [ Click ]

We can force the Senate to face the Constitutional issues: Their oath of office per 5 USC 3331 [Click ]

By refusing to assert 5 USC 3331 authority -- that of asserting one's oath to protect the Constitution -- the Members of Congress which support this bill have violated their oaths. They refuse to protect the Constitution and may -- under the laws of war -- be lawfully subjected to pre-emptive retaliation of a similar nature. [Pre-emptive, lawful movement against Members of Congress.]

Specifically, this means for every duty that they have that they refuse to do, the public may reciprocate by refusing to recognize the power and authority they claim they have that they are not using. At the same time, evidence of this malfeasance needs to be documented, shared with others to put pressure on the Senators. He can no longer be trusted to assert his oath, protect the Constitution, or perform his job. [ Ref ] Bluntly, Specter needs to be lawfully politically-targeted by the full spectrum to be lawfully removed from office for violations of 5 USC 3331.

It is starting to come together: The RNC voters are realizing that the enemy isn't the left or the DNC, but the failed RNC power. It's time to work with the RNC voters in the other states and let them know you're willing to work with them to find new leaders who are serious about the 5 USC 3331 and the Constitution.

This crew has failed and remains a growing threat to our security, safety, and rule of law. They refuse to put their oath before their loyalty to their party.

They are reckless, devoid of any legal foundation, and refuse to do what they have been lawfully elected to do: Protect this Constitution from the domestic threat inside the White House, NSA, and Congress.

* * *

Also, keep in mind this story needs to be reversed, and pointed at the Intel Link system and the information about the 9-11 explosives. This means rather than simply focusing on what the NSA was or wasn't doing in monitoring American civilians, need to also look at the GCHQ intercepts of the US classified systems called Intel Link.

The GCHQ system will be able to tell you which specific personnel inside the NSA and CIA were aware of who places the explosives inside the WTC prior to Sept 2001. Click Click

Don't miss the big picture: You're trying to do two things:

A. Protect the Constitution, and find out details of what the NSA is doing to violate American rights; and

B. Find out details of what was really behind the catalyst -- pre Sept 2001 events -- to get the country to give up rights, violate the Constitution, and convince Congress to remain silent/do nothing about the abuse of power.

The Intel Link information will show you who knew about the cover-up, and what was done to place the explosives inside the towers.

* * *

Again, tell your friends -- you may be in a position to get a financial reward for providing information about what you know. [ Alleged insider trading and bounties Click]

This is the kind of information the SEC and US Attorneys office need to expand their audit:

A. Dates and times of meetings

B. Copies of phone records

C. Meeting minutes

D. Signed policy memos

E. Budget documents: Wire transfers, account numbers, offshore billings

F. Travel records, hotel accommodations, and e-mail accounts used

If you fear your mail is being intercepted, send the information in a sealed envelope without a return address to the Securities and Exchange Commission and US Attorneys office.

To be clear: We make no claim that you will get anything. You are not being promised anything.

Do not do anything that will jeopardize your personal safety.

Review with private counsel 18 USC 1512d

After the case has been litigated against the White House staff and counsel, and you can prove that you were the one that provided the information resulting in the conviction, you may be eligible for a cash award. There is no guarantee. [ Let your friends know: Bounty Program ]

* * *

We make the following judgments:

1. The Iraq WMD issues are directly related to the ongoing broader NSA issue.

2. The NSA domestic spying issues are related to civil litigation in the Iraq WMD area.

3. Defense counsel working for the White House know well the pattern of conduct in the Iraq WMD issues are the same in the NSA issue. The common pattern of conduct is violating the secrecy laws -- engaging in espionage, disclosing sensitive information -- in order to prevent detection of an ongoing criminal enterprise.

4. White House counsel and the NSA IG well know the statutes are at odds with the conduct of personnel inside the Executive Branch.

5. White House counsel and outside attorneys continue to discuss the corporate revelations, and the issues of the optical intercept system.

Discovery and Litigation

6. Defense counsel is working to thwart the application of Supreme Court precedent. They are working on a strategy to prevail over claims that the conduct is a "state secret" can be trumped using case law which the Supreme Court recognizes.

7. Defense counsel is working on a strategy to keep the NSA litigation issues segregated from the Iraq WMD issues.

Remedies

We encourage the blogosphere to continue your assertive attention to the above issues, and remain vigilant in your efforts to assert the rule of law.

A. Members of Congress' Oath of Office

To further complicate the defense strategy, the public needs to understand the 5 USC 3331 requirements of Members of Congress, and put pressure on Members of Congress to assert their oath.

B. Nuremburg is Precedent for identifying Patterns of Abuse

The American citizens should be encourage to take a step back, and see the common pattern of conduct crossing the Downing Street Memo, Iraq WMD, and the NSA activities.

To further complicate the White House's problem, the public needs to be encouraged to see the common pattern of abuses which link Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Iraq WMD, and the NSA: Violations of the law, the threat the RNC poses to American security, and the impeachable offenses by the President, Vice President.

C. Disbarment

Counsel working for the White House must be publicly challenged to choose whether they are going to protect the Constitution, or whether they are going to unlawfully support an illegal destruction of the very document from which they derive their ability to earn income.

The specific counsel working to hide the evidence related to the White House illegal activity should be reported to their respective State Bars for disciplinary action: They appear to be knowingly suppressing information that the public -- the very targets the FBI and White House are litigating against -- needs to defend themselves over whistle blowing issues. This is known as a "Brady Violation" and something that the Prosecutors know violate their ABA standards of conduct. This is illegal.

* * *

Ref: Alma #9

See also:

A. POTUS linked to Obstruction of Justice [ Click ]

B. AG Gonzalez linked to Obstruction of Justice [ Click ]

C. Adverse inferences made when targets of an SEC investigation refuse to provide information. [ Adverse inferences: Case Framework Open Source ]

Securities and Exchange Commission

Attorneys and auditors have a duty for a noisy withdrawal if they are aware of illegal activity or fraud. [1933/4; 10b-5; SEC SarBox]

Ensure private securities litigators -- attorneys working on the private securities class actions against the NYSE-listed firms -- are well aware of [a] the clients which White House counsel also represent; and [b] the information flows that appear to be going back and forth between White House counsel and firm which have financial interests in the NSA-related contracts.

1. Stock holdings: White House counsel may own shares/interests in firms identified in the NSA illegal activities. [ Click ]

2. Check the financial interests which White House staff, civilian counsel, or the "attorney's other clients" may have in the private entities which are not publicly traded. [ Click ]